/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080619.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, June 19, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 121
Headlines
ABBOTT: Recalls "Calcilo XD" Infant Formula with Iron Powder
ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Still Faces Wash. Consumer Fraud Suits
ALABAMA: Civil Charges Filed Over Soaring Sewer Rates
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Directors Sued for Rejecting InBev's Buy Offer
APPLIED SIGNAL: 9th Circuit Revives Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
ATLAS COLD: CDN$40MM Settlement Proposed in Stock Fraud Lawsuit
CEDAR CREST: Water Ice Recalled from Three Midwestern States
CEDAR MORTGAGE: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
CHICAGO: Cellphone Ban for Motorists Is Vague, Lawsuit Says
DJO OPCO: Calif. Court Considers Approving Stockholder Suit Deal
GLOBALSTAR INC: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
GLOBALSTAR INC: Discovery Complete in Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit
GLOBALSTAR INC: New Rep Named in Canadian Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
HARMAN INT'L: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in D.C.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: D.C. Court Consolidates ERISA Lawsuit
HCA INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Kans. Understaffing Suit
HUNTSMAN CORP: Enters into MOU to Settle Suits Over $10BB Buyout
HUNTSMAN INT'L: Still Faces Urethane Antitrust Suits in Canada
HUNTSMAN INT'L: Class Certification Briefing Ongoing in MDL-1616
HUNTSMAN INT'L: California Antitrust Lawsuit Remains Stayed
KRAFT FOODS: Recalls Mixed Berry Cereal on Undeclared Tree Nuts
LENDINGTREE LLC: Faces California Suit Over Personal Data Breach
LOOKSMART LTD: Ark. Court Approves $2.54MM Click Fraud Suit Deal
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Settles Calif. Derivative Lawsuits for $16MM
MARVELL TECH: No Ruling Yet on Securities Suit Dismissal Bid
MEDSTAFF INC: Still Faces Overtime Wage Lawsuit in Calif. Court
MUELLER WATER: Seeks Dismissal of "Foundry Sand" Disposal Suit
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Judge Dismisses Mo. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
RURAL CELLULAR: Minn. Court Approves Settlement in "Teitelbaum"
STANDARD PACIFIC: Calif. Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Dismissal of Hurricane Katrina Suit Appealed
TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Multiple Texas Securities Fraud Suits
TIPU'S TIGER: Recalls Chai Concentrate for Possible Health Risk
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Faces Consolidated "Hot Fuel" Lawsuit
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Faces FATA Lawsuit in Indiana
WACHOVIA: Keller Rohrback Files ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y.
* Italian Class Action Law to Take Effect on January 1, 2009
New Securities Fraud Cases
UNIVERSAL FOOD: Touhy Buehler Files Securities Suit in Illinois
*********
ABBOTT: Recalls "Calcilo XD" Infant Formula with Iron Powder
------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott is voluntarily recalling two lots of Calcilo XD Low-
Calcium/Vitamin D-Free Infant Formula with Iron powder in 14.1-
ounce cans (400g). Only 14.1-ounce (400g) cans are involved in
this action. Calcilo XD is a low-calcium and vitamin D-free
infant formula that is specifically designed for the nutrition
support of infants and children with hypercalcemia (high calcium
in blood). It is only available by special order.
Abbott is voluntarily recalling two lots of product because
small amounts of air may have entered the can, resulting in
product oxidation. A common sign of oxidation is an off aroma.
The problem is isolated to these two lots of Calcilo XD Powder
in 14.1-ounce (400g) cans.
Consumption of highly oxidized foods can cause gastrointestinal
symptoms such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. If parents have
questions or concerns they should contact a health care
professional.
The recall is limited to Calcilo XD in 14.1-ounce (400g) cans,
with stock code number 00378 and with lot numbers 39973RB or
47239RB6 printed on the bottom of the cans. No other Calcilo XD
powdered infant formulas are affected.
The two lots were distributed in the United States, Canada,
Malaysia, Korea and Bahrain, between 06/06/06 and 04/17/08.
Consumers who purchased Calcilo XD Low-Calcium/Vitamin D-Free
Infant Formula with Iron powder from either of the two lots
mentioned above should contact Abbott Nutrition at 1-800-638-
6493.
Abbott is working with its distribution partners and the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration to execute this recall.
ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Still Faces Wash. Consumer Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc., continues
to face two purported consumer fraud class action lawsuits over
ChoiceDek composite decking, which are both pending with the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Pelletz Litigation
On Feb. 26, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit seeking to recover on behalf of the purchasers of
ChoiceDek composite decking for damages allegedly caused by mold
and mildew.
The suit is captioned, "Pelletz v. Weyerhaeuser Company,
Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc. and Lowe's
Companies, Inc.," which was filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington.
The plaintiffs, who filed suit on behalf of the purported class,
named as defendants AERT, Weyerhaeuser Co., and Lowe's Cos.,
Inc., asserting causes of action for violation of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act, unfair competition or unfair and
deceptive trade practices in various states, breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty, and
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
By agreement, the deadline for AERT to answer or otherwise
respond to the plaintiffs' complaint is April 18, 2008.
Jamruk Litigation
On March 10, 2008, more plaintiffs filed another purported class
action lawsuit seeking to recover on behalf of the purchasers of
ChoiceDek composite decking for damages allegedly caused by mold
and mildew.
The suit is captioned, "Joseph Jamruk et al vs. Advanced
Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc. and Weyerhaeuser
Company," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.
The plaintiffs named as defendants AERT and Weyerhaeuser
Company, asserting causes of action for misrepresentation,
violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, unjust
enrichment, and breach of express warranty.
By agreement, the deadline for AERT to answer or otherwise
respond to the plaintiffs' complaint is May 18, 2008, according
to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.
Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc. (AERT) --
http://www.aertinc.com/-- develops, manufactures and markets
composite building materials that are used in place of
traditional wood or plastic products for exterior applications
in building and remodeling homes and for certain other
industrial or commercial building purposes. The Company's
products are sold by national companies, such as the
Weyerhaeuser Co., Lowe's Cos., Inc., and Therma-Tru Corp. Its
composite building materials are marketed as a substitute for
wood and plastic filler materials for standard door components,
windowsills, brick mould, fascia board, decking and heavy
industrial flooring under the trade names LifeCycle,
MoistureShield, MoistureShield CornerLoc, Weyerhaeuser ChoiceDek
Premium, ChoiceDek Premium Colors, MoistureShield outdoor
decking and Basics outdoor decking. AERT has manufacturing
facilities in Springdale, Lowell, and Tontitown, Arkansas;
Junction, Texas and Alexandria, Louisiana.
ALABAMA: Civil Charges Filed Over Soaring Sewer Rates
-----------------------------------------------------
Katheryn Harrington, Esq., on behalf of Charles E. Wilson, filed
a class-action suit in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Alabama, alleging negligence, conspiracy and fraud, Phillip
Ohnemus of CBS 42 News reports. The suit names specifically
current Commissioners Bettye Fine Collins, Shelia Smoot, and
former Commissioners Larry Langford, Gary White, Jeff Germany,
and Mary Buckalew, including some of the largest banks in the
world.
Ms. Harrington says this filing is to bring accountability to
the people responsible for soaring sewer rates.
The report relates that the genesis of this civil action can be
traced to the series of events over the last 11-15 years where
the Jefferson County Commissioners, various investment banks,
insurers and advisors have continuously failed to act in the
best interests of the citizens of Jefferson County.
CBS 42 notes that through a long series of ill-conceived
financial transactions, the sewer ratepayers of Jefferson County
have been saddled with a debt of roughly $11,491 per residential
sewer customer, which is the highest in the nation.
Also, the sewer ratepayers have seen exponential growth, an
increase of 329%, in their sewer rates in the last eleven years.
Mr. Wilson brings this suit on behalf of all persons and
entities who paid for sewer services within Jefferson County,
Alabama at any time, from Jan. 1, 1993, until present, and all
other citizens and residents of Jefferson County, who are
damaged as a result of the conduct alleged.
Ms. Harrington says that lenders are just as responsible which
is why they are included in the suit. She says they have
repeatedly refused to accept responsibility and are placing the
burden of digging out of this 3-billion dollar hole on the rate
payer.
"What was unique about our county that we got the privilege of
being charged six times what the prevailing rate is for services
other similar counties would receive at a substantially lower
fee," Ms. Harrington says.
The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:
(a) whether the defendants engaged in a combination and
conspiracy among themselves to fix, maintain or
stabilize prices, and rig bids and allocate customers
and markets of Municipal derivatives;
(b) whether the defendants failed to properly capitalize
their portfolio of investments to ensure that the
product and service that was the plaintiffs could be
delivered to ensure the protection offered to Jefferson
County for the benefit of for unforeseen events that
was the intended benefit of the offered product and
service;
(c) whether the defendants failed to properly disclose the
inherent risks of moving from fixed rate to floating
and adjustable rate securities whether set by agreement
or by auction;
(d) whether the defendants exceeded their power, authority
and scope of their elective office in saddling the
plaintiffs with a debt load of $11,491 per residential
customer and increasing their sewer rates by 329% and
depriving the taxpaying citizens of Jefferson County,
Alabama of funds which should have been dedicated to
building and repairing the new sewer system in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the
settlement of the lawsuit brought by taxpayers of
Jefferson County and the Environmental Protection
Agency in 1996;
(e) whether the rate increase of 7.7% in January 2008 and
other prior rate increases that have led to a 329%
increase in sewer rates and the insufficient funds
to adequately replace and repair the sewer system due
to the debt load can be attributed to the actions of
all the defendants, jointly and severally, in causing
harm to the plaintiffs; and
(f) The appropriate class-wide measure of damages.
The plaintiff asks the court to:
-- determine that this action may be maintained as a class
action under Rule 23 of the Alabama Rules of Civil
Procedure;
-- enter judgment for the plaintiffs and members of
the class against the defendants for monetary damages
sustained by Plaintiffs as a result of the herein
described wrongful conduct and actions between 1993 and
2008;
-- enter judgment for the plaintiffs and members of
the class against the defendants for the disgorgement of
fees, kickbacks and premiums received by Defendants as a
result of the herein described wrongful conduct and
actions between 1993 and 2008;
-- award injunctive relief against the defendants and
prevent future excessive fees from being paid and that
this Court set-aside the transactions that are made the
basis of this case as all were entered into in
contravention of Alabama law;
-- award injunctive relief in the form of the disgorgement
of fees, kickbacks and premiums received by the
defendants as a result of the wrongful conduct and
actions between 1993 and 2008;
-- award interest at the highest legal rate available under
law related to excessive fees and kickbacks; and
-- award attorney's fees.
The suit is "Charles E. Wilson, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
et al.,” filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Alabama.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Kathryn S. Harrington, Esq.
Hollis, Wright & Harrington, PC
1500 Financial Center
505 North 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: 205-324-3600
205-324-3636
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Directors Sued for Rejecting InBev's Buy Offer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.'s board of directors is facing a
shareholder class and derivative action alleging breach of
fiduciary duties arising out of InBev, S.A.'s proposed
acquisition of Anheuser-Busch for $65 per share in cash in a
multi-billion dollar going private transaction.
According to the lawsuit, filed by the New Jersey Carpenters
Annuity and Pension Funds before the U.S. Circuit Court for the
City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, states that the director-
defendants have breached their fiduciary duties in seeking to
maintain their lucrative positions on the company's Board at all
costs -- even to the detriment of shareholder value, and their
failure to properly consider the buyout from InBev, which is at
a considerable premium and would benefit the company's
shareholders and maximize shareholder value.
The complaint relates that from the time period when the market
capitalization of InBev surpassed that of Anheuser-Busch, arounf
January 2007, rumors circulated that InBev was interested in a
merger or other business combination with Anheuser-Busch.
Despite the fact that the company's stock price has been
stagnant over the last several years, and the fact that a
takeover bid from InBev would offer a considerable premium to
Anheuser-Busch shareholders, the Busch family, who effectively
control the company, have refused to meet with InBev to discuss
a possible business tie-up without any valid justification and
have discouraged any public bid for Anheuser-Busch by warning
that no outside company will acquire Anheuser-Busch while they
remain on the company's Board.
The complaint further notes that InBev's proposed $65 per share
offer -- aggregating to $46.35 billion -- which was formally
announced on June 11, 2008, represents a 35% premium compared to
the price at which Anheuser-Busch's stock traded at near the end
of April 2008, as the stock price was driven up by rumors of
InBev's renewed interest in the company. According to the court
filing, analysts noted that a combination of the two companies
would create the world's largest brewer with net sales of about
$36 billion annually.
Prior to the time that the InBev offer was publicly discussed --
on or about May 23, 2008 -- the shares of Anheuser-Busch were
trading at approximately $47 on April 28, the filing says.
The lawsuit further notes that the members of the Anheuser-Busch
Board are generously rewarded for their positions, but that the
company's poor stock performance has not been commensurate with
this overly generous compensation.
The plaintiffs bring the suit on their own behalf and as a class
action pursuant to Rule 52.08 of the Missouri Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all holders of Anheuser-Busch stock who
are being and will be harmed by the defendants' actions in
connection with the InBev proposal. The plaintiffs also bring
the suit derivatively in the right and for the behalf of
Anheuser-Busch to redress damages caused to the company as a
direct result of the breaches of fiduciary duty by the
defenants.
The suit seeks to direct the defendants to refrain from
advancing their own interests at the expense of the company or
its shareholders and exercise their fiduciary duties to act
reasonably and respond in good faith to offers which are in the
best interest of the company and its shareholders.
The company, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, is primarily
a maker of beer and liquor.
The plaintiffs are represented by:
Judy L. Cates, Esq. (jcates@cateslaw.com)
The Cates Law Firm, L.L.C.
216 West Pointe Drive, Suite A
Swansea, IL 62226
Phone: 618-277-3644
Fax: 618-277-7882
- and -
Mark C. Goldenberg, Esq. (mark@ghalaw.com)
Goldenberg Heller Antognoli Rowland Short & Gori, P.C.
2227 South State Route 157
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Phone: 618-650-7102
Fax: 618-656-6230
APPLIED SIGNAL: 9th Circuit Revives Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed a decision by a district judge to toss a
consolidated securities class action suit against Applied Signal
Technology, Inc., Christine Caulfield of the Securities Law 360
reports.
On March 11 and July 19, 2005, purported securities class
action complaints were filed against the company. Later, these
suits were consolidated as, "In re Applied Signal Technology
Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 4:05-cv-1027 (SBA)."
The amended consolidated complaint is brought on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased the company's securities
from Aug. 24, 2004, to Feb. 22, 2005. The shareholders sued
Applied Signal in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, claiming the company's work reports were
deceptive.
The complaints name the company, its chief executive officer,
and its chief financial officer as defendants, and allege that
false and misleading statements regarding the company were
issued during the class period.
On Feb. 8, 2006, the court dismissed the case with prejudice and
entered judgment in defendants' favor.
The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal on March 23, 2006,
and the appeal was heard on Dec. 6, 2007 (Class Action Reporter,
Jan. 24, 2008).
In a recent opinion, Judge Kozinski said four former Applied
Signal employees were willing to testify in support of the
plaintiffs' claims, and disputes about the veracity of some
evidence were a matter for discovery.
In its defense, Applied Signal said the plaintiffs had not
sufficiently established that the company had even received
three of the four stopwork orders or that these orders put a
stop to work accounted for in the backlog.
However, the appeals court rejected the argument, noting that
the suit identified four employee witnesses who would testify to
the existence of the disputed stopwork orders.
"Defendants quibble that these witnesses weren't in a position
to see the stopwork orders firsthand because they were
'engineers or technical editors' rather than managers. But any
number of company employees would be in a position to infer the
issuance of stopwork orders, which would have had the very
obvious effect of putting numerous employees out of work," the
appeals court said. "It's entirely plausible that 'engineers or
technical editors' would know or could reasonably deduce that
the company had suffered setbacks," it added.
The court also ruled that the shareholders had claimed with the
proper particularity that these stopwork orders were counted as
backlog, and that the company's insistence that work may have
resumed before the announcement of the backlog was a matter for
a jury. So, too, was the company's argument that reasonable
investors could well understand that stopped work was included
in the backlog.
The plaintiffs had also sufficiently alleged an economic loss
resulting from the company's misleading statements, Judge
Kozinski said.
The suit is "In Re: Applied Signal Technology, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-01027," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California under Judge
Saundra Brown Armstrong.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Robert S. Green, Esq. (rsg@classcounsel.com)
Green Welling, LLP
595 Market Street, Suite 2750
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-477-6700
Fax: 415-477-6710
Representing the defendants is:
David A. Priebe, Esq. (david.priebe@dlapiper.com)
DLA Piper US, LLP
2000 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2248
Phone: 650-833-2000
Fax: 650-833-2001
ATLAS COLD: CDN$40MM Settlement Proposed in Stock Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A CDN$40-million settlement in the Atlas Cold Storage Income
Trust class action was proposed.
The class action, which commenced in 2004, alleges that the
financial statements of Atlas Cold Storage Income Trust were
misrepresented; causing damages to the Class Members.
The action was commenced on behalf of all persons who purchased
or acquired trust units of Atlas Cold Storage Income Trust
between March 1, 2002, and August 29, 2003, and held some or all
of them at the close of trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange on
August 29, 2003.
The suit seeks damages from the company -- the operating arm of
Atlas Cold Storage Income Trust -- several of its senior
directors and officers, and the trustees of the Trust (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 25, 2004).
The action claims losses to investors allegedly caused by the
recent restatements to the 2001 and 2002 financial statements of
Atlas Cold Storage Income Trust. Ernst & Young LLP, the
auditors of those financial statements, and BMO Nesbitt Burns,
the lead underwriter for Atlas Cold Storage Income Trust, have
also been named as defendants.
Subject to court approval, the parties in the class action have
reached a settlement whereby the defendants will pay
CDN$40 million to the class members in exchange for releases and
a dismissal of the class action. The defendants do not admit
any wrongdoing or liability on their part.
"We are very pleased to reach this tentative agreement," said
Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C. of Sutts, Strosberg LLP. "We believe
that this settlement is fair, reasonable and in the best
interests of the class members."
Atlas Cold Storage is Canada's largest and North America's
second largest integrated temperature-controlled distribution
network. Its trust units and convertible debentures are listed
on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
CEDAR CREST: Water Ice Recalled from Three Midwestern States
------------------------------------------------------------
Cedar Crest Specialties, Inc., recalled one lot code of Lezza
Blue Raspberry Water Ice in round plastic pint containers with a
lot code of 2116 because it may contain undeclared milk protein.
The product was distributed to retail outlets in Illinois,
Wisconsin, and Minnesota during 2006 and 2007.
The product is being recalled because it may contain milk
allergen protein that is not listed in the product's ingredient
statement. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
milk may experience a potentially serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume this product.
There is no health risk for consumers who are not allergic to
milk.
No other Lezza water ice products are included in this recall.
There is one reported allergic reaction attributed to this
product.
Concerned consumers are encouraged to return any affected
product to the place of purchase to receive a full refund.
Consumers with questions or concerns may contact Cedar Crest
Specialties, Inc. at 1-866-233-2788.
CEDAR MORTGAGE: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Cedar Funding Mortgage Fund is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the Superior Court of California, County of
Monterey alleging it defrauded investors of $500,000 in a
mortgage-based Ponzi scheme, CourtHouse News Service reports.
According to the plaintiffs, the scheme was run by Monterey-
based real estate broker David Nilsen, who owns Cedar Funding.
The plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all investors who
invested in the "Robinson loan" with the defendants, such loan
to be secured by the said real property, and such other
investors have suffered losses as a result of the same acts of
the defendants.
As a result, the defendants are guilty of the following:
(a) breach of contract;
(b) breach of fiduciary duty in failing to advise of the
$5,100,00 first mortgage secured by a deed of trust
with higher priority than Cedar Funding's dead of
trust, i.e. failing to advise plaintiff and co-
investors were investing in a second mortgage; failing
to secure plaintiff's and other co-investors' interests
by failing to record deeds of trust, or assignments of
the existing deed of trust, in the names of said
investors and keeping the loan recorded instead in the
name of Cedar Funding, Inc. and failing to advise
plaintiff of the status of the loan when payments from
the borrower stopped and foreclosure proceedings began;
(c) breach of fiduciary duty to plaintiff, and to other co-
investors, by operating an unlawful Ponzi-like pyramid
scheme under which payments to plaintiffs and her co-
investors were derived from sources other than payments
by Robinson-loan borrowers, resulting in plaintiff and
fellow investors having no recorded interest in the
real property; and
(d) fraud, in having failed to advise at the outset of the
$5,100,000 first mortgage, and later, in failing to
advise that payments were not being made on the loan
and in falsely advising plaintiff and his fellow
investors that payments were current, up until
defendants stopped making payments an virtually
admitted to the nature of their Ponzi-like pyramid
scheme.
The plaintiffs ask the court:
-- for imposition of a constructive trust under which
defendants are deemed constructive trustees for
plaintiff, and plaintiff's co-investors if this matter
is certified as a class action, or, in the alternative,
an equitable lien, as to the real property, in the sum
of $500,000 on behalf of plaintiff, and in the event
this matter is certified for a class action, in the sum
of $15,290,888.74 on behalf of the said class; that
thereafter, the property be ordered sold, and the
proceeds divided according to plaintiff's proportionate
share, or, in the event this matter is certified as a
class action, that the proceeds be distributed to all
class members in proportion to their respective
interests;
-- for damages according to proof;
-- for exemplary and punitive damages;
-- for reasonable attorney's fees, if certified as a class
action, under CCP Section 1021.5 or under the common-
benefit or private-attorney-general doctrines such funds
to be obtained from a sale of the said property;
-- for costs of suit; and
-- for such other and further relief as the court may deem
proper.
The suit is "Paul Oman, et al. v. Cedar Funding, Inc., et al.,
Case No. M91100," filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of Monterey.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Allen C. Kaplan, Esq.
David W. Brown, Esq.
Lawyers on Duty
40 Bonifacio Plaza
Monterey, CA 93940
Phone: 831-375-5100
Fax: 831-649-2376
CHICAGO: Cellphone Ban for Motorists Is Vague, Lawsuit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Three years ago, Chicago became the largest city in the United
States to prohibit motorists from using cellular phones without
a hands-free device, the Chicago Sun-Times recounts.
Last week, Sun-Times' Fran Spielman writes, a federal lawsuit
that seeks to overturn that ordinance was amended to include a
claim that "hands-free" is a mis-nomer, and therefore the law is
"unconstitutionally vague."
"If you use bluetooth technology or a speaker phone, you have to
put your cell phone in your hand and dial a number. If you
receive a call, you have to put your cell phone in your hand and
press a button to receive it. Cell phones are also used for
looking at the time and listening to music," Blake Horwitz,
Esq., told Sun-Times. "It's very, very hard to be hands-free.
We have a client who was merely holding the cell phone in his
hand without even speaking on the phone and he was ticketed," he
added.
According to the report, the class-action lawsuit was filed in
December 2007 and demands that more than 25,000 ticketed
motorists have their $50-to-$200 fines refunded because of the
city's failure to post signs alerting drivers of the ban who may
be coming from out of the city or state.
Mr. Horwitz also added a sign-related argument. He said that
signs urging motorists to dial *999 to report emergencies appear
to condone cell phone use in vehicles.
"It should say, 'Use your cell phone only in case of emergency.'
It shouldn't say, 'Hey cell phone users. Dial *999.' That's
vague for individuals who don't know about the ban. You could
look at that sign and think it's OK to use your cell phone," he
said.
However, Sun-Times relates, no matter how many legal arguments
are added to the lawsuit, Chicago Mayor Daley knows only one
thing: driving and talking on the phone don't mix.
"Two hands should be on the wheel. People can't be holding one
arm and driving down the expressways or [down] city street. . .
. We don't want people to get seriously injured or killed or
seriously injure somebody else or kill somebody else," Mayor
Daley said. "Can't you be off the cell phone for 10 minutes
[while] driving? . . . Maybe you can [wait until you] get home
and make a call. Is it an emergency? Are you calling 911?
Now, that's different. But, the safety of people in other cars
and the safety of passengers and the safety of pedestrians
should come really come first."
DJO OPCO: Calif. Court Considers Approving Stockholder Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court, in the County of San Diego has
yet to grant final approval to DJO Opco Holdings, Inc.'s
proposed settlement in a consolidated stockholder lawsuit
against it.
On Aug. 31, 2007, and Sept. 6, 2007, two purported shareholder
class-action lawsuits were filed on behalf of DJO Opco's public
stockholders, challenging DJO Opco's proposed merger with ReAble
Therapeutics, Inc. The two original complaints named DJO Opco,
ReAble and the current members of DJO Opco's board of directors
as defendants. One of the complaints also named Blackstone
Capital Partners V L.P. as a defendant.
The complaints alleged, among other things, that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties of care, good faith
and loyalty by approving the proposed merger with an allegedly
inadequate price, without adequately informing themselves of DJO
Opco's highest transactional value, and without adequately
marketing DJO Opco to other potential buyers.
They also alleged that the individual defendants and DJO Opco
failed to make full and adequate disclosures in the preliminary
proxy statement regarding the proposed merger.
The complaints pray for, among other things, class
certification, declaratory relief, an injunction of the proposed
merger or a rescission order, corrective disclosures to the
proxy statement, damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees
and other costs; and such other relief as the court may find
just and proper.
The court consolidated the two lawsuits for all purposes on
Sept. 21, 2007.
On Nov. 5, 2007, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding, pursuant to which the parties agreed to settle
the consolidated action subject to court approval.
The MOU provides for dismissal of the consolidated action with
prejudice upon approval of a stipulation by the court.
Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the defendants acknowledged
that the consolidated action resulted in a decision to provide
additional information to DJO Opco's shareholders in the
definitive proxy statement concerning the proposed merger and to
modify certain terms in the merger agreement and to pay certain
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred by the plaintiffs.
The parties have signed a settlement agreement containing these
terms and have requested court approval.
On April 8, 2008, the court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduled a hearing
for June 13, 2008, for final approval after providing notice and
opportunity to be heard to the members of the class, according
to DJO Finance LLC's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 29, 2008.
GLOBALSTAR INC: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Globalstar, Inc., is asking the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York to dismiss a consolidated
securities fraud class action lawsuit filed against the company,
according to its May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.
In February 2007, Ladmen Partners, Israel Bollag and Margueritte
Sherrard, filed three separate purported class action complaints
against the company, its chief executive officer and its chief
financial officer (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 21, 2007).
The suits allege that the company's registration statement
related to its initial public offering in November 2006
contained material misstatements and omissions.
The actions cited a drop in the trading price of the company's
common stock that followed its filing, on Feb. 5, 2007, of a
current report on Form 8-K relating in part to changes in the
condition of the company's satellite constellation.
The Court consolidated the three cases as, "Ladmen Partners,
Inc. v. Globalstar, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-CV-0976 (LAP),"
and appointed Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff.
On Aug. 15, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a securities class
action consolidated amended complaint reasserting claims against
the company and the company's CEO and CFO, and adding as
defendants the three co-lead underwriters of the IPO -- Wachovia
Capital Markets, LLC; JPMorgan Securities, Inc.; and Jefferies &
Company, Inc.
On Nov. 15, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. The amended complaint seeks, on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the company's common stock who purchased shares in
the IPO, recovery of damages under Sections 11 and 15 of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933, and rescission under Section
12(a)(2) of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933.
On Feb. 15, 2008, all of the defendants filed motions to dismiss
the second amended complaint.
The company reported no further development in the matter in its
regulatory filing.
The suit is "Ladmen Partners, Inc., et al. v. Globalstar, Inc.,
et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky
One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910
New York, NY 10119
Phone: 212-279-5050
Fax: 212-279-3655
e-mail: JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP,
10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: 800-217-1522
e-mail: info@bernlieb.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
- and -
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Phone: 925-945-0200
Fax: 925-945-8792
e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com
GLOBALSTAR INC: Discovery Complete in Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has been completed in the purported class action
lawsuit filed against Globalstar, Inc., which alleges violations
of the California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 and
California Civil Code section 1750, et seq., the Consumers'
Legal Remedies Act.
The suit was filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on April 7, 2007, by Kenneth
Stickrath and Sharan Stickrath, under Case No. 07-CV-01941 THE.
The plaintiffs allege that members of the proposed class
suffered damages from March 2003 to the present because
Globalstar did not perform according to its representations with
respect to coverage and reliability. They claim that the amount
in controversy exceeds $5.0 million but do not allege any
particular actual damages incurred.
The plaintiffs amended their complaint on June 29, 2007, and the
company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in July 2007.
On Sept. 25, 2007, the court issued an order granting in part
and denying in part the company's dismissal motion.
Subsequently, on Oct. 17, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their
second amended complaint, and Globalstar filed a second
dismissal motion. Again, the court granted Globalstar's motion
in part and denied it in part, thereby narrowing the scope of
the case.
A mandatory mediation session was held on March 10, 2008, and
discovery related solely to the issue of certification of the
class was completed in April 2008, according to the company's
May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.
The suit is "Stickrath, et al. v. Globalstar, Inc., Case No.
3:07-cv-01941-TEH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Thelton E. Henderson,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Michael Andrew McShane, Esq. (mmcshane@audetlaw.com)
Audet & Partners LLP
221 Main Street, Suite 1460
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-568-2555
Fax: 415-568-2556
Representing the defendant is:
Elizabeth I. Rogers, Esq.
(elizabeth.rogers@wilmerhale.com)
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP
1117 California Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Phone: 650-858-6000
Fax: 650-858-6100
GLOBALSTAR INC: New Rep Named in Canadian Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A new class representative has been designated in a purported
consumer fraud class action lawsuit filed against a unit of
Globalstar, Inc., in the Superior Court in Quebec, Canada.
On April 24, 2007, Jean-Pierre Barrette filed a motion for
authorization to institute a class action in Quebec, Canada,
Superior Court against Globalstar Canada. Mr. Barrette asserts
claims based on Quebec law related to his alleged problems with
Globalstar Canada's service.
The company moved to disqualify Mr. Barrette because of his
association with the law firm representing the plaintiffs and to
transfer the case to the district of Montreal.
The court recently granted the company's motion for a change of
venue, and the plaintiff's counsel substituted a new designated
representative for the purported class.
The company reported no development in the matter in its May
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.
Globalstar, Inc. -- http://www.globalstar.com/-- is a provider
of mobile voice and data communication services via satellite.
Using in-orbit satellites and ground stations, which it refers
to as gateways, the company offers voice and data communications
services to government agencies, businesses and other customers
in over 120 countries.
HARMAN INT'L: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Inc., is facing a consolidated
securities fraud class action lawsuit before the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia, according to the company's
May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.
Kim Litigation
On Oct. 1, 2007, a purported class action suit was filed by
Cheolan Kim against the company and certain of its officers,
seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons
who purchased the company's common stock between April 26, 2007,
and Sept. 24, 2007.
The original complaint purported to allege claims for violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose
material adverse facts about the company's financial condition
and business prospects. It also contended that had these facts
not been concealed at the time the company's merger agreement
with Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., and Goldman, Sachs &
Co. was entered, there would not have been a merger deal, or it
would have been at a much lower price, and the price of the
company's common stock therefore would not have been
artificially inflated during the class period.
The plaintiffs alleged that, following the reports that the
proposed merger was not going to be completed, the price of the
company's common stock declined causing the plaintiff class
significant losses.
On Jan. 16, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which extends the class period through Jan. 11, 2008. It
contends that, in addition to the violations alleged in the
original complaint, the company also violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 by purportedly knowingly failing to
disclose "significant problems" relating to its personal
navigation device "sales forecasts, production, pricing, and
inventory" prior to Jan. 14, 2008.
The amended complaint claims that when "Defendants revealed for
the first time on Jan. 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would
adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share
in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in the Company's
share value and additional losses to the plaintiff class.
Boca Raton Litigation
On Nov. 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension Plan
filed a purported class action suit against the company and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, seeking compensatory damages and costs on
behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock
between April 26, 2007, and Sept. 24, 2007.
The allegations in the Boca Raton complaint are essentially
identical to the allegations in the original Kim complaint, and
like the original Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint
alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
Consolidation
On Feb. 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the Kim
action with the matter, "Boca Raton General Employees' Pension
Plan v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al.,"
and designated the short caption of the consolidated action as
"In re Harman International Industries Inc. Securities
Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR)." That same
day, the Court ordered the administrative closing of Boca Raton
Litigation.
Also on that same day, the Court appointed Arkansas Public
Retirement System as lead plaintiff and approved the law firm
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C., to serve as Lead
Counsel.
On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of "Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al." with "In re
Harman International Industries Inc. Securities Litigation."
On May 2, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class
action complaint. The consolidated complaint, which extends the
class period through Feb. 5, 2008, contends that the company and
certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 by issuing false and misleading
disclosures regarding the company's financial condition in
fiscal 2007 and fiscal 2008.
In particular, the consolidated complaint alleges that the
defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to disclosure material
adverse facts about MyGIG radios, PNDs and the company's capital
expenditures.
The consolidated complaint also alleges that when the company's
true financial condition became known to the market, the price
of the company's stock declined significantly, causing losses to
the plaintiff class.
The suit is "In re Harman International Industries Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-01757-RWR," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Richard
W. Roberts, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. (dsommers@cmht.com)
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, NW
West Tower, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202-408-4600
Fax: 202-408-4699
Representing the defendants is:
Thomas F. Cullen, Esq. (tfcullen@jonesday.com)
Jones Day
51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2105
Phone: 202-879-3939
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: D.C. Court Consolidates ERISA Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the
consolidation -- for pretrial management purposes only -- of the
matter, "Russell v. Harman International Industries,
Incorporated et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-02212-RWR," which is
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act with "In re Harman International Industries Inc. Securities
Litigation."
On Dec. 7, 2007, Patrick Russell filed a purported class action
lawsuit alleging violations of ERISA. The plaintiff is seeking,
on behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of the Harman
International Industries Inc. Retirement Savings Plan,
compensatory damages for losses to the Plan as well as
injunctive relief, constructive trust, restitution, and other
monetary relief.
The complaint alleges that from April 26, 2007, to the present,
the defendants failed to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's
assets, thereby breaching their fiduciary duties in violation of
ERISA, by causing the Plan to invest in company stock
notwithstanding that the stock allegedly was "no longer a
prudent investment for the Participants' retirement savings."
The suit further claims that, during the Class Period, the
defendants failed to monitor the Plan fiduciaries, and failed to
provide the Plan fiduciaries with, and to disclose to Plan
participants, adverse facts regarding the company and its
businesses and prospects.
The plaintiff also contends that the defendants breached their
duties to avoid conflicts of interest and to serve the interests
of participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan with undivided
loyalty.
As a result of these alleged fiduciary breaches, the complaint
asserts that the Plan has "suffered substantial losses,
resulting in the depletion of millions of dollars of the
retirement savings and anticipated retirement income of the
Plan's Participants."
On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of the case with "In re Harman
International Industries Inc. Securities Litigation," according
to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.
The suit is "Russell v. Harman International Industries,
Incorporated et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-02212-RWR," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Richard
W. Roberts presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
John Bucher Isbister, Esq. (jisbister@tydingslaw.com)
Tydings & Rosenberg, LLP
100 East Pratt Street
Baltimore, MD 21202-1062
Phone: 410-752-9714
Fax: 410-727-5460
Representing the defendants are:
Thomas F. Cullen, Esq. (tfcullen@jonesday.com)
Jones Day
51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2105
Phone: 202-879-3939
HCA INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Kans. Understaffing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs are appealing a dismissal of a case against HCA,
Inc., which alleges that, to maximize profits, the company
compromises patient care by deliberately understaffing
registered nurses at its hospitals.
On April 10, 2006, a class-action complaint was filed against
the company in the U.S. District Court for District of Kansas
alleging, among other matters, nurse understaffing at all of the
company's hospitals, certain consumer protection act violations,
negligence and unjust enrichment.
Mildred Spires, a widow who claims that her husband died on
April 22, 2004, at the company's Wesley Medical Center in
Wichita, filed the suit. She claims that her husband died
because the hospital did not have enough nurses working to care
for him when he was hospitalized in 2004 (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 11, 2007).
Lawrence Williamson, Esq., Mrs. Spires' attorney, said that the
company set out in about 1996 to become a $50-billion company
and has tried to reach that goal by reducing costs, primarily by
cutting staff. The company reported revenues of $24.5 billion
in 2005.
According to the lawsuit, "The defendant's reduction of staffing
of registered nurses is the evil and the fuel that led to the
revenues that has allowed the defendant to expand into all its
markets."
Mr. Williamson seeks to include in the suit millions of patients
at the company's other hospitals since 1996.
The complaint is seeking, among other relief, declaratory relief
and monetary damages, including disgorgement of profits of
$12.250 billion.
A motion to dismiss the case was granted on July 27, 2006, but
the plaintiffs have appealed this dismissal.
The company reported no development in the matter in its May
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.
The suit is "Spires v. Hospital Corp. of America, Case No. 2:06-
cv-02137-JWL-JPO," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas, Judge John W. Lungstrum, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr., Esq.
(l.williamson@swolawfirm.com)
Uzo L. Ohaebosim, Esq. (u.ohaebosim@swolawfirm.com)
Shores, Williamson & Ohaebosim, LLC
301 N. Main, 1400 Epic Center
Wichita, KS 67202
Phone: 316-261-5400
Fax: 316-261-5404
HUNTSMAN CORP: Enters into MOU to Settle Suits Over $10BB Buyout
----------------------------------------------------------------
A memorandum of understanding to settle lawsuits against
Huntsman Corp. that seek to stop the pending $10.6-billion
acquisition of the company by Apollo Management LP has yet to
receive approval from the courts.
On July 12, 2007, Hunstman agreed to be acquired by private-
equity firm Apollo Management for $28 a share, or $10.6 billion
in aggregate, including debt. Huntsman will be combined with
Apollo's Hexion Specialty Chemicals Inc. (Class Action Reporter,
March 3, 2008).
In July 2007, four shareholder class-action complaints were
filed against the company and its directors alleging breaches of
fiduciary duty over the deal.
Three actions were filed with the Court of Chancery for the
State of Delaware:
-- "Cohen v. Archibald, et al., No. 3070," (filed July 5,
2007);
-- "Augenstein v. Archibald, et al., No. 3076," (filed
July 9, 2007);" and
-- "Murphy v. Huntsman, et al., No. 3094," (filed
July 13, 2007).
The fourth action, entitled, "Schwoegler v. Huntsman Corp., et
al., Cause No. 07-07-06993-CV," was filed before the 9th
Judicial District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, on July 6,
2007.
As subsequently amended, these lawsuits together allege that the
company and its directors breached fiduciary duties to the
stockholders by, among other things, engaging in an unfair sales
process, approving an unfair price per share for the merger with
Hexion, and making inadequate disclosures to stockholders, and
that Basell, Hexion, and MatlinPatterson entities aided and
abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuits sought
to enjoin the stockholder vote on the merger.
On Sept. 20, 2007, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiffs' counsel in the Delaware and
Texas actions to settle the four lawsuits.
As part of the proposed settlement, the defendants deny all
allegations of wrongdoing, but the company agreed to make
certain additional disclosures in the final proxy statement that
was mailed to the company's stockholders on or about Sept. 14,
2007.
In connection with the settlement, the parties also reached an
agreement with respect to any application that the plaintiffs'
counsel will make for an award of customary attorneys' fees and
expenses to be paid following the completion of the merger.
The settlement is subject to customary conditions, including
court approval of the terms of the settlement following notice
to members of the proposed settlement class.
If finally approved by the court, the settlement will resolve
all claims that were brought on behalf of the proposed
settlement class in connection with the merger, the merger
agreement, the adequacy of the merger consideration, the
negotiations preceding the merger agreement, the adequacy and
completeness of the disclosures made in connection with the
merger, and any actions of the individual defendants in the
events listed above, including any alleged breach of fiduciary
duties by any of the defendants, or the aiding and abetting
thereof.
The settlement will not affect stockholders' appraisal rights,
if available, pursuant to Section 262 of the General Corporation
Law of the State of Delaware.
The MoU will be null and void and of no force and effect if the
merger is not consummated, the Delaware actions are not
dismissed or the Texas court does not give final approval of the
settlement and dismiss the Texas action with prejudice for any
reason.
The settlement will not affect the timing of the merger or the
amount of the merger consideration to be paid.
Under the terms of the MoU, the terms of the proposed settlement
will not be presented to the court for approval until the merger
is consummated, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fuarter ended March 31, 2008.
Huntsman Corp. -- http://www.huntsman.com/-- manufactures
chemical products and formulations that are marketed in more
than 100 countries to a group of consumer and industrial
customers.
HUNTSMAN INT'L: Still Faces Urethane Antitrust Suits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman International, LLC, and certain other firms continue to
face putative antitrust class action lawsuits in Canada,
alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the methylene diphenyl
diisocyanate, oluene di-isocyanate, and polyether polyols
industries.
The suits were filed in the Superior Court of Justice in
Ontario, Canada, on May 5, 2006, and with the Superior Court in
Quebec, Canada, on May 17, 2006.
The company reported no development in the case in its May 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.
Huntsman International, LLC -- http://www.huntsman.com/-- is
engaged in the manufacture and sale of chemical products. The
company manufactures these products at facilities located in
North America, Europe, Asia and Africa, and these products are
sold throughout the world. The company's products are divided
into two categories differentiated and commodity chemicals. The
company has four segments: Polyurethanes, Performance Products,
Pigments and Base Chemicals. Its Polyurethanes and Performance
products businesses mainly produce differentiated products, and
its Pigments and Base Chemicals businesses mainly produce
commodity chemicals.
HUNTSMAN INT'L: Class Certification Briefing Ongoing in MDL-1616
----------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification briefing is underway in a consolidated
antitrust class action lawsuit filed against Huntsman
International, LLC, and several other defendants for an alleged
conspiracy to fix prices in the methylene diphenyl diisocyanate,
oluene di-isocyanate, and polyether polyols industries.
The suits are now consolidated as the "Polyether Polyols Cases"
in multi-district litigation known as "In re Urethane Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1616, Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," by
virtue of an initial order transferring and consolidating cases
filed Aug. 23, 2004. The case is currently pending with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.
Other defendants named in the "Polyether Polyols Cases" are
Bayer, BASF, Dow, and Lyondell.
These cases purport to be brought on behalf of a nationwide
class of purchasers of MDI, TDI and polyether polyols.
Bayer entered into a class-wide settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs that was approved by the court.
Class certification briefing is underway in these consolidated
cases, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.
The suit is "In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1616,
Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas, Judge John W. Lungstrum,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Esq. (malioto@tatp.com)
Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP
2280 Union Street
San Francisco, CA 94123
Phone: 415-563-7200
Fax: 415-346-0679
- and -
Arthur N. Bailey, Esq. (artlaw@alltel.net)
Arthur N. Bailey & Associates
111 West Second Street, Suite 4500
Jamestown, NY 14701
Phone: 716-664-2967
Fax: 716-664-2983
Representing the defendants are:
Floyd R. Finch, Jr., Esq. (ffinch@blackwellsanders.com)
Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin, LLP
4801 Main Street, Ste. 1000, P.O. Box 219777
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: 816-983-8128
Fax: 816-983-8080
- and -
James S. Jardine, Esq. (jjardine@rqn.com)
Ray, Quinney & Nebeker
36 South State Street, Suite 1400
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Phone: 801-323-3337
Fax: 801-532-7543
HUNTSMAN INT'L: California Antitrust Lawsuit Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit pending in a California state
court against Huntsman International, LLC, and several other
defendants over an alleged conspiracy to fix prices of certain
rubber and urethane products remains stayed.
The other defendants named in the "Polyether Polyols Cases,"
also known as "In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
1616, Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," are also defendants in
this case.
The California action has been stayed pending disposition of the
"Polyether Polyols Cases," according to the company's May 12,
2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.
Huntsman International, LLC -- http://www.huntsman.com/-- is
engaged in the manufacture and sale of chemical products. The
company manufactures these products at facilities located in
North America, Europe, Asia and Africa, and these products are
sold throughout the world. The company's products are divided
into two categories differentiated and commodity chemicals. The
company has four segments: Polyurethanes, Performance Products,
Pigments and Base Chemicals. Its Polyurethanes and Performance
products businesses mainly produce differentiated products, and
its Pigments and Base Chemicals businesses mainly produce
commodity chemicals.
KRAFT FOODS: Recalls Mixed Berry Cereal on Undeclared Tree Nuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kraft Foods is recalling 12,553 cases of Post LiveActive Mixed
Berry Crunch Cereal with the "Best When Used By" date of 17DEC08
because a small number of boxes may contain tree nuts (almonds,
pecans and walnuts), and no nut ingredients are declared on the
label.
The Post LiveActive Mixed Berry Crunch Cereal has a UPC code of
00430000238900 and comes in a 13-oz retail carton. People who
have an allergy or severe sensitivity to tree nuts run the risk
of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.
The company has voluntarily issued a nationwide recall to alert
any tree nut-allergic consumers who may have the product at
home. The Mixed Berry Crunch Cereals were sold in stores
nationwide.
The company's review confirmed the presence of nuts in samples
sent for testing after it received one consumer report of an
allergic reaction. The company is aggressively investigating
the situation, and currently believes it received from the
supplier a single tote of granola clusters for the Mixed Berry
product with a small amount of nut-containing granola clusters
inadvertently added.
The company has consulted with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, and the agency is aware of the company's
actions.
Tree nut allergic consumers are advised not to consume the
product and are asked to call 1-866-771-1511 for a full refund.
LENDINGTREE LLC: Faces California Suit Over Personal Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
LendingTree LLC is facing a class-action complaint before the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
accusing it of illegally selling or distributing consumers'
confidential financial information to five mortgage lenders,
CourtHouse News Service reports.
The plaintiffs say LendingTree sold or gave their private
information to co-defendants Newport Lending Corp., Sage Credit
Co., Home Loan Consultants, Chapman Capital, and Southern
California Marketing Corp.
This is a consumer class action brought on behalf of all other
persons whose consumer reports, personal information, and
financial information were intentionally and illegally
distributed and sold by employees, representatives or agents of
defendant, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 USC
Section 1681 et seq., during the period beginning October 2006
to the present.
The complaint states that LendingTree deliberately, recklessly
and negligently failed to maintain reasonable procedures
designed to limit the furnishing of the consumer information to
the permissible purposes outlined under FCRA. As a result, its
representatives and agents obtained plaintiffs' and class
members' consumer information and sold it to mortgage lenders
without the consent of plaintiffs and class members.
LendingTree's actions constitute violations of FCRA, as well as
common law negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of
privacy, misappropriation of confidential information in
violation of Cal. Civ. Code Section 17980.80, et seq., and
violations of Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.
The suit is "Amy Bercaw, et al. v. LendingTree LLC, et al., Case
No.SACV08-660," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
Finkelstein Thompson LLP
100 Bush Street, Suite 1450
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415-398-8700
Fax: 415-398-8704
LOOKSMART LTD: Ark. Court Approves $2.54MM Click Fraud Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas, gave final
approval to the $2.54-million settlement reached by LookSmart,
Ltd., and the plaintiffs in the matter, "Lane's Gifts and
Collectibles, L.L.C., v. Yahoo! Inc." The suit relates to
contracts the company allegedly entered into with the plaintiffs
for Internet pay-per-click advertising or "Click Fraud."
On March 14, 2005, the company was served with a second amended
complaint in the class action lawsuit. The complaint names
eleven search engines and web publishers as defendants,
including the company, and alleges breach of contract,
restitution/unjust enrichment/money had and received, and civil
conspiracy claims in connection with contracts allegedly entered
into with plaintiffs for Internet pay-per-click advertising.
The named plaintiffs on the second amended complaint are:
* Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, L.L.C.,
* U.S. Citizens for Fair Credit Card Terms, Inc.,
* Savings 4 Merchants, Inc., and
* Max Caulfield, d/b/a Caulfield Investigations
On March 30, 2005, the case was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas. In April 2005,
plaintiffs U.S. Citizens for Fair Credit Card Terms, Inc., and
Savings 4 Merchants, Inc., were voluntarily dismissed from the
suit without prejudice.
Plaintiffs Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, L.L.C., and Max
Caulfield -- d/b/a Caulfield Investigations -- filed a motion to
remand the case to state court on April 13, 2005. This motion
was granted in June 2005.
In July 2005, the defendants, including the company, petitioned
the U.S. Court of Appeals for Eighth Circuit for an appeal of
the remand order, and moved to stay the proceedings while the
appeal is pending. This petition was denied in September 2005,
and the case was remanded to the Circuit Court of Miller County,
Arkansas.
The company was served with discovery requests on Oct. 7, 2005.
It has also filed and joined motions to dismiss on the basis of
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, lack
of personal jurisdiction, and improper venue.
The court, however, entered an order staying all proceedings for
a period of 60 days on Jan. 9, 2006. The Court extended the
stay until April 20, 2006, the date it preliminarily approved a
class settlement among the plaintiffs, defendant Google, Inc.,
and certain other defendants who display Google advertisements
on their networks.
Google Settlement
The Google Settlement purports to release Google of all claims
and also purports to release certain defendants, including the
company, for any claims associated with the display of Google
advertisements on their networks. The Court approved the deal
on a final basis in July 2006.
Mediation & Settlement
On April 21, 2006, the Court ordered the remaining defendants,
including the company, to mediation and further stayed the
proceedings to June 21, 2006.
The Court further extended the stay as to LookSmart until
August 16, 2006. The parties thereafter stipulated that the
stay would remain in effect while the parties continue to comply
with the Court's order regarding mediation.
On Jan. 10, 2007, the Court further extended the stay until
May 1, 2007. In November 2007, the plaintiffs and the company
entered into a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement to settle
the matter in its entirety.
The Court approved the Settlement Agreement on a final basis on
Feb. 29, 2008.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the company has agreed to
establish a Settlement Fund in the amount of up to
$2.54 million, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.
LookSmart, Ltd. -- http://www.looksmart.com/-- is an online
advertising and technology company that provides relevant
solutions for advertisers, publishers and consumers. LookSmart
offers advertisers targeted, pay-per-click (PPC) search,
contextual search, and display advertising via a monitored ad
distribution network, and offers publishers a customizable set
of private-label open advertiser network solutions. The
Company's application programming interface (API) allows search
advertisers and their advertising agencies to connect any type
of marketing or reporting software. LookSmart's revenue sources
are divided into three categories: Advertiser Networks,
Publisher Solutions and Consumer Sites.
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Settles Calif. Derivative Lawsuits for $16MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marvell Technology Group has reached a tentative deal to settle
a derivative litigation over alleged backdating, Zusha Elinson
of Law.com reports.
Between June 22, 2006, and August 2, 2006, three purported
shareholder derivative action suits were filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against the company. Each of these lawsuits names the company
as a nominal defendant and a number of the company's current and
former directors and officers as defendants.
Each lawsuit seeks to recover damages purportedly sustained by
the company in connection with its option granting processes,
and seeks certain corporate governance and internal control
changes.
Pursuant to orders of the court dated August 17 and October 17,
2006, the three actions were consolidated as a single action,
entitled "In re Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. Derivative
Litigation."
The plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated complaint on
November 1, 2006. On January 16, 2007, the company filed
a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint for lack of
standing or, in the alternative, stay proceedings.
On February 12, 2007, a new purported derivative action was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. As in "In re Marvell Technology Group,
Ltd. Derivative Litigation," this lawsuit names the company as a
nominal defendant and a number of the company's current and
former directors and officers as defendants.
It seeks to recover damages purportedly sustained by the company
in connection with its option granting processes, and seeks
certain corporate governance and internal control changes.
On May 1, 2007, the court entered an order consolidating this
lawsuit with "In re Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. Derivative
Litigation."
On May 29, 2007, the Court entered an order staying discovery in
this matter pending resolution of the company's motion to
dismiss.
On January 25, 2008, the Court entered a stipulated order
staying proceedings so that the parties could finalize a
settlement that would resolve the actions. On or about March 5,
2008, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding
that tentatively settles and resolves the actions.
The terms of the memorandum of understanding include certain
corporate governance enhancements and an agreement by the
company to pay up to $16 million in plaintiffs' attorneys' fees,
an amount less than the $24.5 million that the company received
from a recent settlement with its directors' and officers'
liability insurers.
This tentative settlement of the consolidated derivative actions
requires court approval before it becomes final.
The company anticipates that the parties will finalize and
submit formal settlement documentation to the court in the next
few months for both preliminary and final approval.
Marvell Technology Group Ltd. provides semiconductors of analog,
mixed-signal, digital signal processing, and embedded
microprocessor integrated circuits worldwide. The company is
headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda.
MARVELL TECH: No Ruling Yet on Securities Suit Dismissal Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
Marvell Technology Group Ltd. awaits the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California's order on a motion to
dismiss a consolidated class action complaint filed against the
company, the Company's 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission dated June 6, 2008, said.
Between October 5 and November 13, 2006, four putative class
action suits were filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors.
The complaints allege that the Company and certain of its
officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by
making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to
the grants of stock options.
The complaints seek, on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's common shares during the period from October 3, 2001
to October 3, 2006, unspecified damages, interest, and costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees and disbursements.
Pursuant to an order of the court dated February 2, 2007, these
four putative class actions were consolidated as a single action
entitled "In re Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. Securities
Litigation."
On August 16, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint. On October 18, 2007, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint. The
motion is fully briefed and was argued on February 15, 2008.
The Company awaits the court's order on this motion.
Marvell Technology Group Ltd. provides semiconductors of analog,
mixed-signal, digital signal processing, and embedded
microprocessor integrated circuits worldwide. The Company is
headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda.
MEDSTAFF INC: Still Faces Overtime Wage Lawsuit in Calif. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medstaff, Inc., a subsidiary of Cross Country Healthcare, Inc.,
continues to face a certified class action lawsuit filed before
the Superior Court of California in Riverside County.
The suit, entitled, "Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda v.
MedStaff, Inc.," was filed on Feb. 18, 2005, and relates to
MedStaff corporate employees. It alleges violations of certain
sections of the California Labor Code, the California Business
and Professions Code, and seeks recovery of unpaid wages and
penalties.
The plaintiffs, Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda, purport to
sue on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.
They specifically allege that MedStaff:
-- failed, under California law, to provide meal period
and rest breaks and pay for those missed meal periods
and rest breaks;
-- failed to compensate the employees for all hours
worked;
-- failed to compensate the employees for working
overtime; and
-- failed to keep appropriate records to keep track of
time worked
The plaintiffs ask the Court for:
-- an order enjoining MedStaff from engaging in the
practices challenged in the complaint;
-- an order for full restitution of all monies
MedStaff allegedly failed to pay plaintiffs and their
purported class;
-- payment of interest;
-- certain penalties provided for by the California
Labor Code; and
-- an award of attorneys' fees and costs.
The Court ordered the plaintiffs to file a motion for class
certification by Sept. 5, 2006. On July 21, 2006, the company
filed a motion seeking a stay of all proceedings until the
conditionally certified collective action in "Henry v. MedStaff,
Inc., et al.," has been either decertified or granted final
certification.
On Aug. 25, 2006, the court granted in part the company's motion
and prohibited the plaintiffs from filing a motion for class
certification prior to Oct. 16, 2006.
A joint stipulation was subsequently filed prohibiting the
plaintiffs' from moving for class certification prior to
Oct. 25, 2006, in order to allow for the completion of pre-
certification discovery and to allow for the completion of the
opt-in period in "Henry v. MedStaff, Inc., et al."
On Oct. 27, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. This request was granted by the court.
The company reported no development in the matter in its May
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.
Boca Raton, Florida-based Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. --
http://www.crosscountry.com/ccinc/-- is a provider of
healthcare staffing services in the U.S. Its healthcare
staffing business segment is comprised of travel and per diem
nurse staffing, allied health staffing, as well as clinical
research trials staffing. Cross Country's brands include Cross
Country TravCorps and MedStaff.
MUELLER WATER: Seeks Dismissal of "Foundry Sand" Disposal Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Water Products, Inc.'s U.S. Pipe subsidiary is seeking
the dismissal of a purported civil class action lawsuit in
relation to its disposal of toxic "foundry sand."
The suit was originally filed on April 8, 2005, in the Circuit
Court of Calhoun County, Alabama, and removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under the
Class Action Fairness Act.
The putative plaintiffs in the case filed an amended complaint
with the U.S. District Court on Dec. 15, 2006.
The case was filed against U.S. Pipe and other foundries in the
Anniston, Alabama area alleging state law tort claims
(negligence, failure to warn, wantonness, nuisance, trespass and
outrage) arising from creation and disposal of "foundry sand"
alleged to contain harmful levels of polychlorinated biphenyls
and other toxins, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead and
zinc.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages for real and personal
property damage and for other unspecified personal injury.
On June 4, 2007, a motion to dismiss the case was granted to
U.S. Pipe and certain co-defendants as to the claims for
negligence, failure to warn, nuisance, trespass and outrage.
The remainder of the complaint was dismissed with leave to file
an amended complaint.
On July 6, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, which dismissed prior claims relating to U.S. Pipe's
former 10th Street facility and no longer alleges personal
injury claims.
The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on July 27, 2007.
U.S. Pipe and the other defendants have again moved to dismiss
the third amended complaint.
The company reported no further development in the matter in its
May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.
Atlanta, Georgia-based Mueller Water Products, Inc. --
http://www.muellerwaterproducts.com/-- is a manufacturer of a
range of water infrastructure and flow control products for use
in water distribution networks and treatment facilities. It
acts as a distributor, especially in Canada, for products that
are manufactured by other companies. Its product portfolio
includes engineered valves, hydrants, pipe fittings and ductile
iron pipe, which are used by municipalities, as well as the
commercial and residential construction, oil and gas, heating,
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and fire protection
industries. It manages its business Mueller Water operates
through three business segments: Mueller Co, U.S. Pipe and
Anvil. Through Mueller Co., it sells its hydrants and valves
and other water and wastewater infrastructure and gas
distribution products. Through U.S. Pipe, it sells ductile iron
pipe and related products. Through Anvil, it sells its pipe
fittings and couplings, pipe hangers, pipe nipples and related
products.
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Judge Dismisses Mo. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ortrie D. Smith of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri dismissed the securities class action
lawsuit against NovaStar Financial, Inc., entitled, "In Re:
Novastar Financial Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:04-cv-
00330-ODS," the Business Journal (Kansas City) reports.
Since April 2004, a number of substantially similar securities
class action complaints were filed against the company and three
of its executive officers.
On Aug. 23, 2004, Judge Smith issued an order consolidating all
related cases into one class action as, "In re
NovaStar Financial Securities Litigation," and appointed lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. The lead plaintiffs filed their
consolidated class action complaint on Nov. 12, 2004.
The consolidated complaint generally alleged that the defendants
made public statements that were misleading or failed to
disclose certain regulatory and licensing matters.
The complaint names as defendants:
-- the company;
-- Lance W. Anderson, president, and chief operating
officer;
-- Michael L. Bamburg, senior vice president and chief
investment officer;
-- Scott Hartman, chairman of the board and chief executive
officer; and
-- Rodney E. Schwatken, vice president, secretary,
treasurer, and controller.
The plaintiffs purported to bring the consolidated action on
behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock
and sellers of put options on the company's common stock during
the period Oct. 29, 2003, through April 8, 2004.
According to the complaint, NovaStar fostered an aggressive-
growth culture throughout the class period. NovaStar touted its
rapid growth in earnings, production, and its securities
portfolio and highlighted the increasing number of NovaStar-
affiliated branch offices.
The suit notes that in 2003, the company had reported that it
had doubled the number of branch offices in operation and that
its earnings had more than doubled in 2003 to $112 million.
On Jan. 14, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
suit, which request was later denied by the court.
On Feb. 8, 2007, the court certified the case as a class action
(Class Action Reporter, June 16, 2008).
In a June 4, 2008 opinion, Judge Ortrie Smith found that the
amended complaint against the Kansas City-based subprime lender
missed several procedural filing requirements.
Judge Smith found that despite its length, the filing did not
include enough specifics and rather painted a broad picture of
the overall health of the company, which legally is not enough
to bring a complaint.
"Plaintiff discusses his claims in generalities -- precisely
what the (Private Securities Litigation Reform Act) counsels
against," Judge Smith's opinion stated. "This has allowed
plaintiff to pick isolated threads and snippets from the
complaint to create an illusion of detail and insinuate the
existence of fraud, which in turn has made it exceedingly
difficult for the court to conduct the analysis required by
fraud."
The judge's opinion didn't leave the door open for an amended
complaint, saying "such an effort would be futile" because the
lawsuit either couldn't do a better job of framing the complaint
or didn't think Smith would figure that the complaint was
inadequate.
The suit is "In Re: Novastar Financial Securities Litigation,
Case No. 4:04-cv-00330-ODS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri, Judge Ortrie D. Smith,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Bruce D. Bernstein, Esq.
Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq.
Milberg, Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
New York, NY 10119
Phone: 212-594-5300
James M. Evangelista, Esq.
(jevangelista@chitwoodlaw.com)
Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP
1230 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 2300
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: 404-607-6871
Fax: 404-876-4476
-- and --
William W. Wickersham, Esq.
Entwitle & Cappucci, LLP
299 Park Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10171
Phone: 212-894-7200
Representing the defendants are:
Erin Bansal, Esq. (ebansal@orrick.com)
William F. Alderman, Esq. (walderman@orrick.com)
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-773-5700
Fax: 415-773-5759
RURAL CELLULAR: Minn. Court Approves Settlement in "Teitelbaum"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Douglas County, State of Minnesota, gave
final approval to a settlement in the matter, "Joshua Teitelbaum
v. Rural Cellular Corporation, et al."
The purported shareholder class-action complaint was filed by a
shareholder of RCC on Aug. 3, 2007, against the company and its
directors challenging the company's proposed merger with Verizon
Wireless.
The complaint alleges causes of action for violation of
fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, candor, good faith and
independence owed to the public shareholders of RCC by the
members of the company's board of directors and acting to put
their personal interests ahead of the interests of RCC's
shareholders.
The complaint seeks, among other things, to declare and decree
that the merger agreement was entered into in breach of the
fiduciary duties of the defendants and is therefore unlawful and
unenforceable, to enjoin the consummation of the merger and to
direct the defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to
obtain a transaction that is in the best interests of RCC's
shareholders and to refrain from entering into any transaction
until the process for the sale or auction of RCC is completed
and the highest possible price is obtained.
The parties have negotiated an agreement to resolve the action,
subject to certain conditions.
On Jan. 25, 2008, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed
settlement. On May 1, 2008, the Court approved the class-action
settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice, according to
the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.
Rural Cellular Corp. -- http://www.unicel.com/-- is a wireless
communications service provider focusing primarily on rural
markets in the U.S. The Company's operating territories include
portions of five states in the Northeast, three states in the
Northwest, four states in the Midwest, two states in the South
and the western half of Kansas (Central Territory). RCC's
marketed networks covered a total population of approximately
7.2 million points of presence and served approximately 791,000
voice customers as of Dec. 31, 2007. It has national roaming
agreements in its markets with AT&T and Verizon Wireless. RCC
also has various agreements with T-Mobile. On April 3, 2007,
the Company completed the purchase of southern Minnesota
wireless markets. These markets include 28 counties in southern
Minnesota and, as of April 3, 2007, supported a postpaid
customer base of approximately 32,000 and a wholesale customer
base of approximately 16,000.
STANDARD PACIFIC: Calif. Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Margaret M. Morrow of the United States District Court for
the Central District of California granted Standard Pacific
Corp.'s motion to dismiss the purported securities fraud class
action lawsuit filed against the company, Kevin LaCroix of The
D&O Diary reports.
On Aug. 16, 2007, a securities class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against Andrew H. Parnes, the company's Executive Vice
President-Finance and Chief Financial Officer, by putative
plaintiff Vinod Patel. The company was not named in the
complaint.
The complaint alleges a breach of fiduciary duties to the
company's stockholders, as well as violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, during the
period between Oct. 27, 2005 and Aug. 2, 2007.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company:
-- issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding our finances, business and prospects;
-- lacked requisite internal controls over lending
practices; and
-- misrepresented the extent of risk in the company's
loans.
The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages (including
interest), reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, as well as
equitable, injunctive or other relief that the court may deem
just and proper. The complaint has not been served.
On Dec. 3, 2007, the Court appointed Pinellas Park Retirement
System, Plumbers Local No. 98 Defined Benefit Pension Fund, and
the City of Pontiac General Employees Retirement System as lead
plaintiffs.
On or about Jan. 23, 2008, the lead plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal
Securities Laws (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 29, 2008).
The Consolidated Complaint names Andrew Parnes and Stephen
Scarborough, Standard Pacifics Chief Executive Officer,
President and Chairman of the Board, as defendants. It does not
name the Company as a defendant.
In the Consolidated Complaint, the plaintiffs seek to certify a
class of all persons who purchased the publicly traded
securities of Standard Pacific between Oct. 27, 2005, and
Aug. 2, 2007.
The plaintiffs allege that the price of Standard Pacifics common
stock was artificially inflated during this period because
Mr. Parnes and Mr. Scarborough provided false and misleading
earnings and sales guidance to the public that lacked a
reasonable basis due to the adverse impact of rising interest
rates, slowing housing markets and other macro-economic factors
affecting Standard Pacific.
The plaintiffs assert claims against Mr. Parnes and
Mr. Scarborough for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and against Mr. Parnes for
violation of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
In a May 19, 2008 opinion, Judge Morrow granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss, but allowed the plaintiffs' 45 days' leave to
amend.
According to Mr. LaCroix, the dismissal, even though it is
without prejudice, is still significant:
-- First, the opinion is very detailed and thorough, which
could carry some weight in other subprime securities
cases, particularly the numerous other cases pending in
the Central District of California.
-- Second, many of the other subprime complaints arguable
share the "puzzle pleading" defect of the complaint in
this case -- all too often, the complaints in these
subprime cases consist of block quotations from the
defendants company's disclosure documents, without
direct connections specifying what about the disclosure
the plaintiffs allege is false and misleading, and in
what way the statements are false and misleading.
-- Third, many of the companies named in subprime
securities lawsuits, like Standard Pacific, are accused
not of failing to acknowledge problems but of failing to
recognize the problems enough.
To the extent other courts view these pleadings with the same
level of skepticism as Judge Morrow, the complaints could face
some formidable challenges at the motion to dismiss stage, Mr.
LaCroix says.
The suit is "Vinod Patel v. Andrew H. Parnes., Case No. 2:07-cv-
05364-MMM-SH," filed om the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge Margaret M. Morrow
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (darrenr@csgrr.com)
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-231-1058
- and -
Joon M. Khang, Esq. (jkhang@lhlaw.com)
Lee Hong Degerman Kang & Schmadeka
660 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: 213-623-2221
Fax: 213-623-2211
Representing the defendants are:
Kristopher Price Diulio, Esq. (kdiulio@gibsondunn.com)
Matthew E. Lilly, Esq. (mlilly@gibsondunn.com)
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
3161 Michelson Dr.
Irvine, CA 92612-4412
Phone: 949-451-3907
949-451-3800
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Dismissal of Hurricane Katrina Suit Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter, "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide
Mutual Insurance Co., Case No. Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW,"
which names Tennessee Valley Authority, as a defendant, are
appealing the dismissal of the case.
The suit generally accuses the TVA and several oil companies of
helping increase Hurricane Katrina's destructive force.
In April 2006, 14 residents of Mississippi allegedly injured by
Hurricane Katrina added TVA as a defendant to a purported class
action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi.
In general, the plaintiffs sued seven large oil companies and an
oil company trade association, three large chemical companies
and a chemical trade association, and 31 large companies
involved in the mining and burning of coal, including TVA and
other utilities.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants' greenhouse gas
emissions contributed to global warming and were a proximate and
direct cause of Hurricane Katrina's increased destructive force.
They are seeking monetary damages among other relief.
TVA has moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds that TVA's
operation of its coal-fired plants is not subject to tort
liability due to the discretionary function doctrine.
On Aug. 30, 2007, the district court heard oral arguments on
whether the issue of greenhouse gas emissions is a political
matter which should not be decided by the court.
The district court then dismissed the case on the grounds that
the plaintiffs lacked standing. The dismissal has been appealed
by the plaintiffs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.
The company reported no development in the matter in its May
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.
The suit is "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
Case No. Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Judge
L. T. Senter, Jr., presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
F. Gerald Maples, Esq. (federal@geraldmaples.com)
Meredith A. Mayberry, Esq. (mmayberry@geraldmaples.com)
F. Gerald Maples, PA
902 Julia Street
New Orleans, LA 70113
Phone: 504-569-8732
Randall Allan Smith, Esq. (rasmith3@bellsouth.net)
Stephen M. Wiles, Esq. (smwiles@smithfawer.com)
Smith & Fawer
201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702
New Orleans, LA 70170
Phone: 504-525-2200
Fax: 504-525-2205
- and –
Carlos A. Zelaya, Esq.
Maples & Kirwan, LLC
902 Julia Street
New Orleans, LA 70113
Phone: 504-569-8732
Fax: 504-525-6932
TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Multiple Texas Securities Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
TETRA Technologies, Inc., is facing several purported class
action lawsuits before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.
Between March 27, 2008, and April 30, 2008, two putative class-
action complaints were filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas against the company and certain
of its officers by certain stockholders on behalf of themselves
and other stockholders who purchased Tetra's common stock
between Jan. 3, 2007, and Oct. 16, 2007.
The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
They allege that the defendants violated the federal securities
laws during the period by, among other things, disseminating
false and misleading statements and concealing material facts
concerning the company's current and prospective business and
financial results.
The complaints also allege that as a result of these actions the
company's stock price was artificially inflated during the class
period, which enabled the company's insiders to sell their
personally-held shares for a substantial gain. They seek
unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and expenses.
TETRA Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.tetratec.com/-- is an
oil and gas services company with an integrated calcium chloride
and brominated products manufacturing operation that supplies
feedstocks to energy markets, as well as other markets. The
Company has three divisions: Fluids, Well Abandonment and
Decommissioning (WA&D), and Production Enhancement. Its Fluids
Division manufactures and markets brine fluids, additives, and
other associated products and services to the oil and gas
industry for use in well drilling, completion, and workover
operations both domestically and in certain regions of Europe,
Asia, Latin America and Africa. The WA&D Division consists of
two operating segments: WA&D Services and Maritech. The
Production Enhancement Division provides production testing
services to the Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana, offshore Gulf of
Mexico, and certain international markets.
TIPU'S TIGER: Recalls Chai Concentrate for Possible Health Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tipu's Tiger Chai Inc, of Missoula, Montana is voluntarily
recalling its Tipu's Tiger Chai Concentrate because it has the
potential to be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a
bacterium which can cause life-threatening illness or death.
Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not
look or smell spoiled.
Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-
vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in
breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and
constipation may also be common symptoms. People experiencing
these problems after consuming this product should seek
immediate medical attention.
Tipu's Tiger Chai Concentrate was distributed, primarily to
stores and coffee kiosks in western Montana and one café in
Prescott, Arizona using the concentrate for mixed beverages sold
on-site. Limited distribution of the bottled product was made
directly to consumers in Western Montana.
The product is distributed in plastic half gallon (1.89L) units
labeled as "Tipu's Tiger Chai, Chai Concentrate". The lid or
neck of bottle states "refrigerate after opening" followed by
dates of 09/23/09 through and including 05/22/10.
No illnesses have been reported to date.
Through a records audit, the pH level of the product
manufactured during this period were found to be higher than
required by FDA standards.
Any consumer who may have purchased this product are urged to
return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers
with questions may contact the company at 1-888-506-2424.
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Faces Consolidated "Hot Fuel" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Travelcenters of America, LLC, is facing a consolidated class
action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas filed by retail purchasers who purchased motor fuel
that was greater than 60 degrees Fahrenheit at the time of sale.
Beginning in mid December 2006, and continuing to the present, a
series of class action complaints have been filed against
numerous companies in the petroleum industry, including
TravelCenters of America, Inc., or its subsidiaries, in U.S.
District Courts in at least 23 states.
Major petroleum companies and significant retailers in the
industry have been named as defendants in one or more of these
lawsuits.
The company has been named in at least seven cases to date,
including cases in California, Alabama, New Mexico, Nevada and
Missouri.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that they are
retail purchasers who purchased motor fuel that was greater than
60 degrees Fahrenheit at the time of sale.
There are two primary theories upon which the plaintiffs seek
recovery in these cases. The first theory alleges that the
plaintiffs purchased smaller quantities of motor fuel than the
amount for which defendants charged them because the defendants
measured the amount of motor fuel they delivered in non-standard
gallons, which, at higher temperatures, contain less energy.
The "temperature" cases seek, among other relief, an order
requiring the defendants to install temperature-correcting
equipment on their retail motor fuel dispensing devices,
damages, and attorneys' fees.
The second theory alleges that fuel taxes are calculated in
temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons and are collected by the
government from suppliers and wholesalers, who are reimbursed in
the amount of the tax by the defendant retailers before the fuel
is sold to consumers.
The "tax" cases allege that when the fuel is subsequently sold
to consumers at temperatures above 60 degrees, the retailers
sell a greater volume of fuel than the amount on which they paid
tax, and therefore reap a windfall because the customers pay
more tax than the retailer paid.
The plaintiffs in theses cases seek, among other relief,
recovery of excess taxes paid and punitive damages.
These cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes with
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas pursuant to
multidistrict litigation procedures, according to the company's
May 2008 Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.
TravelCenters of America, LLC -- http://www.tatravelcenters.com
-- operates and franchises travel centers primarily along the
U.S. interstate highway system. The Company was formed as a
wholly owned subsidiary of Hospitality Properties Trust. Its
customers include long haul trucking fleets and their drivers,
independent truck drivers and motorists. As of Dec. 31, 2007,
TravelCenters of America's business included 236 travel centers
located in 41 states in the United States and the province of
Ontario, Canada. Its travel centers include 167 that are
operated under the TravelCenters of America (TA) brand names,
including 144 that it operates and 23 that franchisees operate.
Sixty-nine are operated under the Petro brand name, 45 of which
are operated by the Company and 24 by the franchisees. On Jan.
31, 2007, the Company added one TA franchised location.
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Faces FATA Lawsuit in Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------
Travelcenters of America, LLC, is facing a purported class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, alleging violations of Fair and Accurate
Transactions Act.
The suit, "Bonner v. Travelcenters of America LLC et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00142-AS-PRC," was filed on May 2, 2007.
FATA limits certain credit and debit card information that may
appear on electronically printed receipts provided to the
cardholder.
The plaintiff purports to represent a class of all persons
provided with electronically printed receipts for transactions
occurring at our travel centers in Indiana after Dec. 4, 2006,
which receipts allegedly violate FATA.
The complaint seeks damages of $100 to $1,000 per violation,
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs.
The company reported no development in the matter in its May
2008 Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.
The suit is "Bonner v. Travelcenters of America LLC et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00142-AS-PRC," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Indiana, Judge Allen Sharp, presiding.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC
120 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1800,
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 312-739-4200
Fax: 312-419-0379
e-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
Representing the defendant is:
Bruce de'Medici, Esq. (Bdemedici@mandellmenkes.com)
Mandell Menkes LLC
333 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 300,
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312-251-1000
Fax: 312-251-1010
WACHOVIA: Keller Rohrback Files ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. commenced a class action suit against
Wachovia Corp. for violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended.
The Complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class of all
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
Wachovia Savings Plan between January 23, 2007, and the present
and whose accounts included investments in Wachovia common
stock.
The Complaint alleges that Wachovia and the various defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to Plan participants and
beneficiaries by:
(1) failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's
investment in Wachovia stock;
(2) failing to properly monitor the performance of their
fiduciary appointees and remove and replace those whose
performance was inadequate;
(3) failing to disclose necessary information to co-
fiduciaries;
(4) failing to provide complete and accurate information to
the Class regarding the soundness of Wachovia stock and
the prudence of investing and holding retirement
contributions in Wachovia equity;
(5) failing to prevent breaches by other fiduciaries of
their duties of prudent and loyal management, complete
and accurate communications, and adequate monitoring;
and
(6) knowingly participating in breaches.
For more information, contact:
Jennifer Tuato'o
Paralegal
Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
Phone: 800-776-6044
e-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com
* Italian Class Action Law to Take Effect on January 1, 2009
------------------------------------------------------------
The law governing class actions in Italy will take force
starting January 1, 2009, Agenzia Giornalistica Italia reports.
AGI says that the announcement, coming from Economic Development
Minister Scajola, "poured oil on the stormy waters" agitated by
consumer groups, who were up in arms over the notion that the
measure would be modified on the repeated urging of industry
federation Confindustria.
Citizens' rights associations went on the warpath following a
statement by the Minister defining the law on class actions
"impracticable" in its present form, the report recounts.
Explanations were made on Tuesday as Minister Scajola said
"some people took the postponement of the enactment of Class
action law as a disregarding of the worth of this measure. This
is not the case. Indeed, I hold it an important instrument".
The delay, according to the Minister's explanations, is due to
the fact that "as it is it would end up in a series of appeals
which would not meet consumers' demands."
It is then, only a matter of the time needed to add "some last
minute touches and changes" to the law to make it work in a
satisfactory manner, AGI further notes.
New Securities Fraud Cases
UNIVERSAL FOOD: Touhy Buehler Files Securities Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Touhy, Touhy, Buehler & Williams
filed a class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a class
of persons who purchased convertible preferred stock issued by
Universal Food & Beverage Company, Inc., designated as Series A
Convertible Preferred Stock on February 16, 2006, and who were
damaged as a result thereof.
The Complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and 20 of the Securities &
Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading
statements and by omitting to disclose facts required to be
disclosed, in order to make the statements, made in connection
with the offering not misleading.
The Plaintiff Class is represented by the law firm of Touhy,
Touhy, Buehler & Williams which maintains offices in Chicago,
Illinois, is active in major lawsuits pending in federal and
state courts throughout the United States, has been appointed to
leading roles in numerous important actions on behalf of
defrauded investors, and is responsible for a number of
outstanding recoveries in this area. The reputation and
expertise of the firm in shareholder and other class action
litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which
have appointed the firm to major positions in complex multi-
district and consolidated litigations.
Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
June 5, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Robert E. Williams, Esq. (rwilliams@touhylaw.com)
Terrence Buehler, Esq. (tbuehler@touhylaw.com)
Touhy, Touhy, Buehler & Williams
55 W. Wacker Drive, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: 312-372-2209
Fax: 312-456-3838
*********
A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA. Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Janice M. Mendoza, Freya Natasha F.
Dy, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.
* * * End of Transmission * * *