/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080730.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, July 30, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 150
Headlines
ALCOA INC: Sept. 17 Trial Scheduled for Tennessee ERISA Lawsuit
BELL MOBILITY: Sued Over Move to Impose New Texting Fees
BOEING CO: Parties File Summary Judgment Motions in ERISA Suit
BOEING CO: Court Allows Filing of Amended Complaint in "Spano"
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Lacks Accommodations for Disabled, Suit Says
EBAY INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Tie-In Claims in PayPal Suit
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Sued Over Conspiracy to Fix Insurance Prices
FORMAN AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Nevada Suit Over Hidden "Smog Fees"
HELP AT HOME: Home Care Agency Ignores Wage Law, Suit Alleges
JANUS CAPITAL: Still Faces Consolidated Lawsuit in Maryland
JP MORGAN: Oct. 30 Hearing is Set for Ill. Securities Suit Deal
NVE CORP: Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Minnesota Lawsuit
OMNICOM GROUP: Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal of N.Y. Lawsuit
PAGE MILL: Dodges Rent Control Ordinance, Lawsuit Claims
PETROLEUM WHOLESALE: Sued in Texas Over Gas Pump Cheating
PIXELPLUS CO: Lead Underwriters Object to N.Y. Suit Settlement
QUAKER FABRIC: Settlement Notices Sent in WARN Violations Suit
R&G FINANCIAL: Sept. 16 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal
SECURITY CAPITAL: Bernstein Liebhard to Lead NY Securities Suit
SEMGROUP ENERGY: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in N.Y. & Oklahoma
SHERWIN WILLIAMS: Continues to Face Lead-Based Paint Lawsuit
SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Court Fives Final Okay to Arkansas Suit Deal
TELUS MOBILITY: Sued for Charging Incoming Text Message Fees
U.S. FDA: Agrees to Settle Tomatoes' Salmonella Suit for $12MM
UAL CORP: California Court Yet to Approve Antitrust Suit Deal
UNION PACIFIC: Faces MDL in D.C. Over Rail Fuel Surcharges
VOYAGER LEARNING: Reaches Settlement in Michigan Securities Suit
* Attorney Brian Christensen Joins Bryan Cave LLP
* UPSG Puts Acquisition of US Target On-Hold Due to Class Suits
New Securities Fraud Cases
CIT GROUP: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in New York
COMPUCREDIT CORP: Brodsky & Smith Files Georgia Securities Suit
FIFTH THIRD: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio
FIMALAC SA: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
MFS INVESTMENT: Barrack Rodos Files Pennsylvanie Securities Suit
SEMGROUP ENERGY: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
*********
ALCOA INC: Sept. 17 Trial Scheduled for Tennessee ERISA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 17, 2008 trial is scheduled for the class action,
"Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No. 3:06cv448," which was
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee.
The suit was filed on Nov. 17, 2006, by plaintiffs representing
approximately 13,000 retired former employees of Alcoa or
Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependents of such
retirees. The suit alleges that the company violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Labor-Management
Relations Act by requiring the plaintiffs, beginning Jan. 1,
2007, to pay health insurance premiums and increased co-payments
and co- insurance for certain medical procedures and
prescription drugs.
The plaintiffs allege these changes to their retiree health care
plans violate their rights to vested health care benefits. They
additionally allege that Alcoa has breached its fiduciary duty
to plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their
health benefits would never change.
The plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, back
payment of benefits and attorneys fees.
Alcoa has consented to treatment of plaintiffs claims as a class
action.
During the fourth quarter, following briefing and argument, the
court ordered consolidation of the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction with trial, certified a plaintiff class,
bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty
claims, struck the plaintiffs jury demand, but indicated it
would use an advisory jury, and set a trial date of Sept. 17,
2008.
The company reported no development in the matter in its Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "Curtis v. Alcoa Inc. et al., Case No. 3:2006-cv-
00448," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, Judge Thomas W. Phillips, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Robert S. Catapano-Friedman, Esq. (katapano@gmail.com)
744 Broadway
Albany, NY 12207
Phone: 518-463-7501
Fax: 518-463-7502
Representing the defendant is:
John W. Woods, Jr., Esq. (jwoods@hunton.com)
Hunton & Williams
951 East Byrd Street
Riverfront Plaza East Tower
Richmond, VA 23219-4074
Phone: 804-788-8629
Fax: 804-343-4794
BELL MOBILITY: Sued Over Move to Impose New Texting Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
A Quebec man has launched a class action lawsuit against Bell
Mobility following a move by the cellphone provider to charge
customers for incoming text messages, CBC News reports.
According to CBC News, Eric Cormier, who has subscribed to Bell
Mobility for the past decade, says that by introducing the new
fees, the companies have changed the terms of their cellular
contracts.
"This was something that was free up until then and the problem
for the consumers is that they cannot re-negotiate the
contract," lawyer Noel Saint-Pierre told CBC News. "What we're
trying to get the court to say is that for the duration of a
contract . . . the telephone company should not be able to
unilaterally modify the conditions of the contract."
The report explains that under the new plan, customers will be
charged 15 cents to receive incoming text messages, including
uninvited spam messages. Previously, customers without text
plans were charged only for outgoing messages. Customers with a
text messaging rate plan or bundle will not be affected by the
new charges. Bell's new pricing plan takes effect on Aug. 8.
CBC News notes that Industry Minister Jim Prentice has called on
the chief executive officers of Bell and Telus to meet with him,
calling the introduction of the new fees a "poorly thought out
decision."
Last week, the report recounts, a U.S. District Court in Seattle
rejected a motion by T-Mobile to dismiss a case over text
messaging charges. Consumer Marco Zaldivar filed the suit,
complaining he was being charged an additional $20 to $30 per
month for unwanted text messages.
BOEING CO: Parties File Summary Judgment Motions in ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a consolidated class action lawsuit against The
Boeing Co. have filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the
case, which alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.
On Sept. 13, 2006, two UAW (United Auto Workers) Local 1069
retirees filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee alleging that recently
announced changes to medical plans for retirees of UAW Local
1069 constituted a breach of collective bargaining agreements
under Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act and
Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA.
On Sept. 15, 2006, the company filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the
International UAW and two retiree medical plan participants
seeking a declaratory judgment confirming that the company has
the legal right to make changes to these medical benefits.
On June 4, 2007, the Middle District of Tennessee ordered that
the company's case be transferred to the Northern District of
Illinois. The two cases were consolidated on Sept. 24, 2007.
The UAW, Oct. 26, 2007, filed a motion to file a second amended
complaint in which it sought to drop the retirees' claim for
vested lifetime benefits based on successive collective
bargaining agreements and instead allege that the current
collective bargaining agreement is the sole alleged source of
rights to retiree medical benefits. The company opposed the
motion.
On Jan. 17, 2008, the court granted the motion to amend the
complaint on the condition that the lifetime retiree benefits
claims are to be dismissed with prejudice.
In addition, both parties filed motions for class certification
on Nov. 16, 2007, and filed briefs on class certification on
Feb. 28, 2008.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on May 27,
2008, according to the company's July 23, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.
The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is involved in the
design, development, manufacture, sale and support of commercial
jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human
space flight, and launch systems and services. The Company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes,
Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, Network and Space
Systems, Support Systems and Boeing Capital Corporation. PE&MS,
N&SS and Support Systems comprise the Company's Integrated
Defense Systems business. The Other segment classification
principally includes the activities of Engineering, Operations
and Technology, an advanced research and development
organization focused on technologies, processes and the creation
of new products.
BOEING CO: Court Allows Filing of Amended Complaint in "Spano"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
has yet to rule on a motion by the plaintiffs that sought
permission to file a second amended complaint in the matter,
"Spano et al. v. The Boeing Company, et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-
00743-DRH-DGW," which alleges violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.
On Oct. 13, 2006, Boeing was named as a defendant in the
lawsuit. The plaintiffs, seeking to represent a class of
similarly situated participants and beneficiaries in the Boeing
Company Voluntary Investment Plan, alleged that fees and
expenses incurred by the Plan were and are unreasonable and
excessive, not incurred solely for the benefit of the Plan and
its participants, and were undisclosed to participants.
The plaintiffs further alleged that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA, and
sought injunctive, and equitable relief pursuant to Section
502(a)(3) of ERISA.
The plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify the class, which
Boeing has opposed.
On Sept. 10, 2007, the court issued an order staying class
certification motion pending resolution by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit of a related case, "Lively v.
Dynegy, Inc."
On Dec. 14, 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to file
an amended complaint, which added the company's Employee
Benefits Investment Committee as a defendant, and included new
allegations regarding alleged breach of fiduciary duty.
The stay of proceedings entered by the court on Sept. 10, 2007,
pending resolution by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit of "Lively v. Dynegy, Inc.," was lifted on April 3,
2008, after notification that the Lively case had been settled.
On April 16, 2008, the plaintiffs sought leave to file a second
amended complaint that would add investment performance
allegations. That motion is pending, according to the company's
July 23, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "Spano et al. v. Boeing Company, The et al., Case
No. 3:06-cv-00743-DRH-DGW," filed in the U. S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois, Judge David R. Herndon
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Daniel V. Conlisk, Esq. (DConlisk@uselaws.com)
Schlichter, Bogard et al.
Generally Admitted
100 South Fourth Street, Suite 900
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: 314-621-6115
Representing the defendants are:
Lars C. Golumbic, Esq. (lgolumbic@groom.com)
Groom Law Group, Chartered
1701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202-861-6615
Fax: 202-659-4503
- and -
Lisa Demet Martin, Esq. (lmartin@bryancave.com)
Bryan Cave
211 North Broadway
One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: 314-259-2000
Fax: 314-259-2020
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Lacks Accommodations for Disabled, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, owner of the Chuck E. Cheese franchise, is
facing a class-action complaint before the Los Angeles Superior
Court, CourtHouse News Service reports.
The complaint alleges that it lacks proper accommodations for
disabled customers.
CEC Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.chuckecheese.com/-- is
engaged in the family restaurant/entertainment center business.
The Company operated, as of Dec. 31, 2006, 484 Chuck E. Cheese's
restaurants. In addition, as of Dec. 31, 2006, franchisees of
the Company operated 45 Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants. Chuck E.
Cheese's restaurants offer a variety of pizzas, a salad bar,
sandwiches, appetizers and desserts, and feature musical and
comic entertainment by robotic and animated characters, family
oriented games, rides and arcade-style activities. The Company
and its franchisees operate in a total of 48 states and five
foreign countries/territories.
EBAY INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Tie-In Claims in PayPal Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed certain claims in a purported class action lawsuit
against eBay, Inc.
The class action suit alleges that eBay, through its wholly
owned subsidiary PayPal, used illegal tie-in and steering
practices to improperly "monopolize" the forms of payment that
sellers can use on eBay.
Initially, the lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas in March 2007. In it, the
plaintiff alleges claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman
Act, as well as related state law claims. That suit sought
treble damages and an injunction.
In April 2007, the plaintiff re-filed the complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (No. 07-
CV-01882-RS), and dismissed the Texas action. In May 2007, the
case was consolidated with other similar lawsuits (No. 07-CV-
01882JF).
In June 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the class
action complaint.
In March 2008, the court granted the dismissal motion with
regard the tie-in claims, with leave to amend, but denied the
motion with respect to the monopolization claims. The
plaintiffs subsequently decided not to refile the tie-in claims,
according to the company's July 24, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "In Re eBay Seller Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
5:07-cv-01882-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Jeremy Fogel, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
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
Christine Pedigo Bartholomew, Esq.
(cbartholomew@finkelsteinthompson.com)
Finkelstein Thompson LLP
100 Bush Street, Suite 1450
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415-398-8700
Fax: 415-398-8704
- and -
Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. (jefff@hbsslaw.com)
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: 510-725-3000
Fax: 510-725-3001
Representing the defendants is:
Thomas Patrick Brown, Esq. (tbrown@omm.com)
O'Melveny & Myers LLP
Embarcadero Center West, 275 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-3305
Phone: 415-984-8947
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Sued Over Conspiracy to Fix Insurance Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial and several others are facing an
antitrust class-action complaint filed on July 14, 2008, before
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
CourtHouse News Service reports.
The named defendants in the complaint are:
-- Fidelity National Financial Inc.,
-- Fidelity National Title Insurance Company,
-- Ticor Title Insurance Company,
-- Ticor Title Insurance Company of Florida,
-- Chicago Title Insurance Company,
-- National Title Insurance Company of New York Inc,
-- Security Union Title Insurance Company,
-- The First American Corporation,
-- First American Title Insurance Company,
-- United General Title Insurance Company,
-- LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc,
-- Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company,
-- Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation,
-- Transnation Title Insurance Company,
-- Stewart Title Guaranty Company,
-- Stewart Title Insurance Company,
-- Old Republic National Title Insurance Company and
-- Old Republic International Corporation.
The suit alleges that these companies conspired to fix prices
for title insurance in California.
The suit is "Romero, et al. v. Fidelity National Financial Inc.,
et al., Case Number: 3:2008cv03391," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, Magistrate Judge
Edward M. Chen, presiding.
FORMAN AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Nevada Suit Over Hidden "Smog Fees"
------------------------------------------------------------
Forman Automotive and United Nissan are facing a class-action
complaint before the Clark County Court in Nevada, CourtHouse
News Service reports.
The suit accuses the dealership of tacking on hidden "smog fees"
and a "desert protection package" that allegedly protects cars
from losing their new-car luster.
HELP AT HOME: Home Care Agency Ignores Wage Law, Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Help at Home, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint in
Chicago over allegations that it has failed to pay employees the
new minimum wage which came into effect on July 1, 2008, the
McClatchy-Tribune Information Services reports.
The plaintiffs, made up of a group of home care assistants in
Chicago, filed the suit on behalf of all persons employed by the
company as home care assistant and who performed work for the
company on and after July 1, 2008, who did not receive at least
$7.75 for each hour worked and for which they were entitled to
be paid at least $7.75 per hour.
According to the lawsuit, the persons who were not paid minimum
wage provided services such as routine cleaning and
housekeeping, preparing meals and non-medical personal care such
as shaving, teeth cleaning and dressing of clients, and
accompanying clients to medical appointments, on errands and
shopping trips.
The lawsuit asks the court:
-- to order Help at Home to pay all members of the class
action lawsuit unpaid wages including the difference
between what they were paid and the $7.75 per hour in
which they were entitled after July 1;
-- that Help at Home be ordered to pay all parties of the
lawsuit liquidated damage on compensation owed;
-- order the business to pay all payroll taxes required by
law;
-- order the company to pay the costs of bringing the
lawsuit including attorney's fees; and
-- order the company to comply with the Illinois minimum
wage law.
Help At Home, Inc. -- http://www.helpathome.com/-- is a home
care agency committed to enhancing the quality of life for its
clients and providing a viable alternative to living in a
nursing home or long-term care facility.
JANUS CAPITAL: Still Faces Consolidated Lawsuit in Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------
Janus Capital Group, Inc., and Janus Capital Management, LLC,
continue to face a consolidated lawsuit entitled, "In re: Alger,
Columbia, Janus, MFS, One Group, Putnam, Allianz Dresdner, Case
No. 1:04-md-15863-JFM," according to the company's July 24, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
Following the market timing investigations by the New York
Attorney General and the SEC in 2003, Janus and certain
affiliates were named as defendants in a consolidated lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court in Baltimore, Maryland (Case No. MDL No.
1586, 04-MD-15863).
Five amended complaints were filed in these coordinated
proceedings:
1. claims by a putative class of Janus fund investors
asserting claims on behalf of the investor class
(Marini, et al. v. Janus Investment Fund, et al., U.S.
District Court, District of Maryland, Case No. 04-
CV-00497);
2. derivative claims by investors in the Janus funds
ostensibly on behalf of the Janus funds (Steinberg et
al. v. Janus Capital Management, LLC et al., U.S.
District Court, District of Maryland, Case No. 04-
CV-00518);
3. claims on behalf of participants in the Janus 401(k)
plan (Wangberger v. Janus Capital Group Inc., 401(k)
Advisory Committee, et al., U.S. District Court,
District of Maryland, Case No. JFM-05-2711);
4. claims brought on behalf of shareholders of Janus on a
derivative basis against Janus’ Board of Directors
(Chasen v. Whiston, et al., U.S. District Court,
District of Maryland, Case No. 04-MD-00855); and
5. claims by a putative class of Janus shareholders
asserting claims on behalf of the shareholders
(Wiggins, et al. v. Janus Capital Group Inc., et al.,
U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, Case No.
04-CV-00818).
In August 2005, the U.S. District Court entered orders
dismissing most of the claims asserted against the company and
its affiliates by fund investors in the Marini and Steinberg
cases, except certain claims under Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and under Section 36(b) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940.
Janus' Motion for Summary Judgment requesting dismissal of the
remaining claims is currently pending.
The U.S. District Court also entered an order dismissing all
claims in the Wiggins lawsuit. The plaintiffs have appealed
that dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit. That appeal is currently pending.
In August 2006, the U.S. District Court in the Wangberger 401(k)
plan class action dismissed the action with prejudice, and the
plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit.
In June 2008, the Fourth Circuit reversed the U.S. District
Court's order of dismissal and remanded the Wangberger case for
further proceedings.
Finally, the U.S. District Court also dismissed the Chasen
lawsuit against Janus' Board of Directors without leave to
amend, ruling that the plaintiff had failed to make a pre-suit
demand on the Board of Directors as required by applicable state
law. The time to appeal this dismissal has expired.
As a result of these events, the company and Janus Capital
Management, LLC, are the remaining defendants, in some capacity,
in one or more of the remaining actions.
The consolidated suit is "In re: Alger, Columbia, Janus, MFS,
One Group, Putnam, Allianz Dresdner, Case No. 1:04-md-15863-
JFM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland, Judge J. Frederick Motz, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Christopher S. Hinton, Esq.
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP
270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016
Phone: 1-212-545-4663
Fax: 1-212-545-4653
Representing the company is:
Andrew Santo Tulumello, Esq.
(atulumello@gibsondunn.com)
Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP
1050 Connecticut Ave NW Ste 300
Washington, DC 20036-5306
Phone: 1-202-955-8657
Fax: 1-202-467-0539
JP MORGAN: Oct. 30 Hearing is Set for Ill. Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 30, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., to
consider final approval of the proposed settlement in the
matter, "In re JP Morgan Chase & Co. Securities Litigation,
Master Docket No. 06 C 4674 (N.D. Ill.)."
The hearing will be held before Judge David H. Coar.
Any objections to the settlement must be made on or before
Oct. 1, 2008.
According to a July 15, 2008 report by the Class Action
Reporter, the named defendants in the suit are:
-- J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPMC),
-- J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.,
-- James L. Dimon,
-- William B. Harrison, Jr.,
-- Hans W. Becherer,
-- Riley P. Bechtel,
-- Frank A. Bennack, Jr.,
-- John H. Biggs,
-- Lawrence A. Bossidy,
-- M. Anthony Burns,
-- Ellen V. Futter,
-- William H. Gray, III,
-- Helene Kaplan,
-- Lee R. Raymond, and
-- John R. Stafford.
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act for the defendants' negligent
failure to disclose material facts in the proxy statement
soliciting votes for the merger.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants
negligently failed to disclose that, during the merger
negotiations, William B. Harrison, the then-CEO of JPMC,
rejected an offer from Mr. Dimon, the then-CEO of Bank One, to
merge the companies for no premium if Mr. Dimon could become the
CEO of the combined company immediately upon completion of the
merger.
The consolidated complaint in "Hyland v. Harrison" and "Hyland
v. J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc." also asserts similar claims
under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and
state law.
The defendants deny the allegation that Mr. Dimon made any such
offer and maintain that all material facts regarding the merger
were disclosed in the proxy statement.
The settlement contemplates that JPMC's corporate governance
principles will provide that the:
(1) CEO of JPMC will inform the presiding director of
discussions involving a clear expression of interest in
a proposed corporate transaction requiring shareholder
approval under applicable law and listing standards,
(2) the presiding director and the CEO will review with
JPMC's Board of Directors the process for the CEO to
communicate with the Board about such discussions, and
(3) JPMC's Board of Directors will review the "background of
the merger" section of any proxy statement issued in
connection therewith.
The measures that will be adopted are intended to provide early
and meaningful oversight by the Board of Directors.
The settlement provides that the corporate governance measures
will be kept in place for four years, subject to certain
exceptions. It does not include payments to members of the
settlement class.
The settlement class consists of all holders of JPMC stock at
the close of business on April 2, 2004, the record date for
voting on the merger of JPMC and Bank One Corp., which was
consummated on July 1, 2004.
The suit is "In re JP Morgan Chase & Co. Securities Litigation,
Master Docket No. 06 C 4674," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Illinois, Judge David H. Coar, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Jeffrey G. Smith, Esq. (Smith@whafh.com)
Demet Basar, Esq. (Basar@whafh.com)
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Phone: 212-545-4600
- and -
Joseph Gielata, Esq. (joe@gielatalaw.com)
Attorney at Law
501 Silverside Road, No. 90
Wilmington, Delaware 19809
Phone: 302-798-1096
Fax: 302-397-0730
Web site: http://gielata.com/default.aspx
NVE CORP: Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Minnesota Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of the purported class action lawsuit, "In re: NVE
Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 0:06-cv-00574-MJD-JJG,"
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.
The consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit was against
NVE Corp. and certain of the company's current and former
executive officers and directors.
On Feb. 10, 2006, a lawsuit was filed against the company and
certain of its current and former executive officers and
directors by an individual shareholder seeking to represent a
class of purchasers of the company's common stock between
May 22, 2003, and Feb. 11, 2005.
On March 6-7, 2006, two additional lawsuits were filed in the
same court by two additional NVE shareholders, with the same
proposed class period, purporting to represent the same class.
The lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into a single case
and a consolidated complaint was filed. The consolidated
complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing material
misrepresentations concerning NVE's projected revenues and
product technology, which artificially inflated the market price
of the company's common stock.
On July 3, 2007, the U.S. District Court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated case, with prejudice. The
plaintiffs filed an appeal of this order.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the
U.S. District Court's dismissal of the consolidated lawsuits,
according to the company's July 23, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "In re: NVE Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
0:06-cv-00574-MJD-JJG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, Judge Michael J. Davis, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Gregg M. Corwin, Esq. (gcorwin@gcorwin.com)
Gregg M. Corwin & Associates Law Office, PC
1660 S Hwy 100, Ste. 508
St. Louis Park, MN 55416-1534
Phone: 952-544-7774
Fax: 952-544-7151
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq. (wfederman@aol.com)
Federman & Sherwood
10205 N., Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Phone: 405-235-1560
Fax: 405-239-2112
Representing the defendants is:
Peter W. Carter, Esq. (carter.peter@dorsey.com)
Dorsey & Whitney, LLP
50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
Phone: 612-340-2600
Fax: 612-340-2868
OMNICOM GROUP: Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal of N.Y. Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class action
lawsuit filed against Omnicom Group, Inc., and certain of its
senior executives are planning to appeal the dismissal of their
case by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
Beginning on June 13, 2002, several putative class action
complaints were filed. The actions have been consolidated under
the caption, "In re Omnicom Group Inc. Securities Litigation,
No. 02-CV-4483 (RCC)," on behalf of a proposed class of
purchasers of the company's common stock between Feb. 20, 2001,
and June 11, 2002.
The consolidated complaint alleged, among other things, that the
company's public filings and other public statements during that
period contained false and misleading statements or omitted to
state material information relating to:
-- the company's calculation of the organic growth
component of period-to-period revenue growth;
-- the company's valuation of and accounting for certain
Internet investments made by its Communicade Group,
which it contributed to Seneca Investments LLC in 2001;
and
-- the existence and amount of certain contingent future
obligations in respect of acquisitions.
The complaint sought an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages plus costs and attorneys fees. The defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint and, on March 28, 2005, the court
dismissed certain portions of the complaint.
The court's decision denying the defendants' motion to dismiss
the remainder of the complaint did not address the ultimate
merits of the case, but only the sufficiency of the pleading.
Discovery was then concluded in the second quarter of 2007. On
April 30, 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' request for
class certification.
In the third quarter of 2007, the defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining claim.
Subsequently, on Jan. 28, 2008, the court granted the
defendants' motion in its entirety, dismissing all claims and
closing the case.
On Feb. 4, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to
appeal the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The company reported no development in the matter in its
July 24, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "In Re: Omnicom Group, Inc. Securities Litigation,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, Judge John Keenan presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Max W. Berger, Esq. (mwb@blbglaw.com)
Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, L.L.P.
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-554-1403
Fax: 212-554-1444
- and -
David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. (drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com)
Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. (srudman@lerachlaw.com)
Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: 631-367-7100
631-367-1173
Representing the defendants are:
David Harold Braff, Esq. (braffd@sullcrom.com)
Stacey Rubin Friedman, Esq. (friedmans@sullcrom.com)
Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10007
Phone: 212-558-4705
212-558-4000
Fax: 212-558-3333
212-558-3588
PAGE MILL: Dodges Rent Control Ordinance, Lawsuit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Page Mill Properties is facing a legal action that challenges
the company on two fronts, from the city of East Palo Alto and a
group of tenants, Banks Albach writes for the Palo Alto Daily
News.
According to the report, Palo Alto residents Eric Oberle, Shery
Scott, Matthew Fremont and Nathan Ben Yonatan all received rent
increases of between 14% and 38% from Page Mill and have filed a
class action suit against the landlord, alleging that Page
Mill's rent hikes are illegal, meant to cause harm and an unfair
business practice.
The complaint, filed on July 15, 2008, also alleges that Page
Mill is using a "sham" ownership scheme to subvert East Palo
Alto's rent control law, which exempts buildings with four or
less units. Page Mill has transferred all such units into 17
limited liability companies in order to dodge the ordinance, the
complaint alleges.
Daily News says that the firm of Heller Ehrman LLP has taken on
the case pro bono and is seeking punitive and actual damages.
Mr. Oberle told Daily News that the suit could represent up to
200 people.
In addition, the report notes, Interim City Attorney Valerie
Armento is planning to file an injunction on Page Mill's most
recent round of rent increases this week in order to freeze and
challenge them in court. The new rents will take effect on
Friday.
Daily News points out that the legal action coincides with the
first inklings of an organized grassroots opposition to the rent
hikes. With the help of the Stanford Law Clinic, a group of
tenants ran a petition drive last week to protest the rent
increases, which have affected about 1,300 of Page Mill's
roughly 1,650 units. Mr. Oberle, who helped organize the drive,
said about 100 tenants signed on.
The group will hold a second drive on August 2 at 1974 Euclid
Ave.
Jessica Steinberg, Esq., an attorney from the clinic, said she
plans to present the petitions to the East Palo Alto Rent
Stabilization Board as soon as possible and call for a hearing
with an outside examiner. A favorable decision could help the
tenants and the city later in court, she said.
A Page Mill Properties spokesman declined to comment on the
lawsuit.
Page Mill, the report says, owns about 1,650 units in East Palo
Alto and has passed two rounds of rent hikes since late last
year. The private investment firm and the city have been
battling ever since over whether the increases are legal under
East Palo Alto's Rent Stabilization Program.
Daily News says that Page Mill used the maximum rents from city
calculated rent certificates for each unit, which were much
higher than the actual rents being paid, probably due to a sag
in the rental market a few years ago. The city, on the other
hand, claims the landlord should have based the increase on the
actual rent being paid and limited it to a consumer pricing
index, which is usually about 3.2%. Both sides have found
supporting language for their cases in the city's ordinance.
PETROLEUM WHOLESALE: Sued in Texas Over Gas Pump Cheating
---------------------------------------------------------
Two Texas City residents filed a lawsuit against Petroleum
Wholesale, which is the parent company of a La Marque gas
station accused last week by the state of cheating consumers at
the pump, Laura Elder writes for Galveston Daily News.
According to the report, John Marroney and Adrian Oatis filed
the class-action lawsuit in County Court No. 1 in Galveston
against The Woodlands-based Petroleum Wholesale on behalf of
people who purchased gasoline from the company.
"This is a case where people kill you with a thousand barbs,"
the plaintiffs' attorney, Tony Buzbee, Esq., told Daily News.
"They're small cheats that add up to a big number."
According to the lawsuit, on July 11, 2008, Mr. Marroney
purchased fuel at the Sunmart station, 1000 FM 1764. Oatis
bought gas at least two times a week for more than a year at the
store, the suit says.
Daily News relates that earlier last week, the Texas Department
of Agriculture alleged the pumps at the La Marque Sunmart, which
contracts with Mobil to provide gas, were among hundreds across
Texas rigged to rip off consumers. Mobil is not accused of
wrongdoing.
The store was among 47 Sunmart stations where regulators closed
the pumps because more than half were delivering less gas than
their meters stated, officials allege. Most pumps were
operating at the La Marque station. State officials said they
would not allow those pumps to return to service without a state
inspection.
Petroleum Wholesale owns 86 Sunmart convenience stores in Texas,
the report points out. Altogether, it owns 350 locations across
10 states and 1,704 pumps. The company also operates at least
nine other stores in Galveston County, but those stations were
not included in the state's investigation, dubbed "Operation
Spotlight."
Of Sunmart's 1,704 fuel pumps, 990, or 58%, cheated customers,
state officials said. Investigators, however, could not say how
many dollars consumers may have been cheated out of.
Petroleum Wholesale faces more than $100,000 in fines and
possibly criminal charges after the investigation, the report
says.
The report explains that when the state tests fuel pumps for
accuracy, it allows a variance of about six tablespoons in five
gallons of gas. But if 60% of a stations' pumps are tilted in
the company's favor by any volume, then the stingy pumps are
shut down until they're recalibrated.
While individuals might not be out a lot, Texan consumers could
be out thousands of dollars because of inaccurate pumps, Mr.
Buzbee said. "Individually, these cases would not be worth the
time, money or effort, but collectively, it makes sense because
there’s no other remedy for these people to get their money
back," he added.
Stuart Lapp, Esq., general counsel for Petroleum Wholesale, did
not return phone calls by Daily News.
PIXELPLUS CO: Lead Underwriters Object to N.Y. Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lead underwriters in Pixelplus Co., Ltd.'s Initial Public
Offering filed an objection to the settlement reached in a
consolidated class action lawsuit against the company, according
to the Picelplus Co.'s July 24, 2008 Form 20-F/A/ filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Dec. 31, 2007.
On or about April 17, 2006, the company's chief executive
officer, Seo Kyu Lee; its former chief financial officer, Moon
Sung Kim; and its chief technology officer, Sang Soo Lee, were
named as defendants in a purported shareholder class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The suit is styled "Michael Y. Kim v. Seo
Kyu Lee, et al., Case No. 06-CV-2951."
The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Act and the
Exchange Act during the period from Dec. 21, 2005, through
April 11, 2006.
The plaintiff's allegations concern the company's correction of
revenue numbers for the fourth quarter of 2005 and fiscal year
2005 and the decision to consolidate the financial results of
PTI.
The plaintiff alleges that the company made false and misleading
statements about these issues in its IPO documents and in other
public statements and seeks unspecified damages.
Four similar purported shareholder class action lawsuits were
subsequently filed:
1. On April 24, 2006, a lawsuit was filed in New York Federal
Court by plaintiff Robert Corwin against the company, Case
No. 06- V-3141;
2. On April 25, 2006, a lawsuit was filed in New York Federal
Court by plaintiff Diosma Detweiler against the company, Seo
Kyu Lee, Sang Soo Lee and Moon Sung Kim, Case No. 06-CV-3206;
3. On May 15, 2006, a lawsuit was filed in New York Federal
Court by plaintiff Shu-O-Lin-Chen against the company, Seo
Kyu Lee, Sang Soo Lee and Moon Sung Kim, Case No. 06-CV-3691;
and
4. On May 25, 2006, a lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of Kings, by plaintiff Michael
Rubin against the company, Seo Kyu Lee, Sang Soo Lee, Moon
Sung Kim, Dongwoo Chun, Ha Jin Jhun, Choong-ki Kim and Taek
Jin Nam, Case No. 16242/2006. This action was subsequently
removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York (Case No. CV-06-2964).
On June 16, 2006, Colin Garvey, Brett Simon, Peter Paul Enand,
Alan Hedge, Cladine Kurp and James Kurp and West End Capital
Management LLC each filed motions in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York for appointment as lead
plaintiff, consolidation of the putative class action suits
filed in the Southern District of New York, and approval of
selection of lead counsel.
In March 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York appointed West End Capital Management as the lead
plaintiff in the consolidated class action lawsuit against the
company and its underwriters, Jefferies & Company, Inc. and WR
Hambrecht + Co., LLC.
On April 15, 2008, the company announced that it reached a
tentative settlement to resolve the consolidated shareholder
class action lawsuit against the company and certain current and
former directors and officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York filed in April 2006.
Under the terms of the tentative settlement, the company says it
continues to dispute the merits of the lawsuit, but have
approved a compromise payment of $1.0 million.
The settlement provides a dismissal with prejudice of the
lawsuit and full releases for the company and the named officers
and directors from all allegations made in the lawsuit.
The settlement further provides no presumption or admission of
fault, liability or wrongdoing by the company or the directors
or officers.
The compromise payment will be funded by the company's directors
and officers liability insurance.
On May 20, 2008, Jefferies & Company, Inc., the lead
underwriters in the company's IPO, submitted their objections to
the company's tentative settlement to the New York Federal
Court, and the company then submitted its reply to the
objections on June 20, 2008.
Through this objection, the underwriters are seeking a
modification to the stipulation of settlement to preserve the
underwriters' right to contractual indemnity for fees and costs
in the event they defeat plaintiff's claims against them.
Pixelplus Co., Ltd. -- http://www.pixelplus.com/-- is engaged
in designing, developing and marketing complementary metal oxide
semiconductor image sensors for use in mobile camera phones and
other applications, such as personal computers cameras and
security and surveillance systems. The Company's image sensors
are used to capture and convert images into digital signals for
display or transmission. The Company focuses on creating design
technologies to develop and market image sensors with sharp,
colorful, image quality, size efficiency and low power
consumption, while outsourcing its manufacturing, testing and
assembly requirements to independent companies.
QUAKER FABRIC: Settlement Notices Sent in WARN Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on July 7, 2008, that Quaker
Fabric Corp. (NASDAQ: QFAB) reached a tentative settlement of
approximately $1 million in a class action lawsuit alleging that
the company violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining, or
WARN Act.
According to the CAR report, the suit, filed on Sept. 21, 2007,
was a response to the 62-year-old Quaker manufacturing company
shutting its doors a year ago without providing 60 days notice
to workers, as required under the WARN.
About 700 former workers signed onto the suit, filed on behalf
of the final workforce, which at one time numbered 3,000.
Rene S. Roupinian, Esq., of Outten & Golden, which represents
the plaintiffs, said earlier that the preliminary agreement
gives the Quaker plaintiffs the first $100,000 for
administrative expenses and $200,000 of available cash as
priority creditors. They also receive one-third of the
remaining funds, about $700,000.
The preliminary settlement, reached in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware, provides for the class
representative -- former 27-year Quaker maintenance worker
Joseph Aguiar of Fall River -- to receive $15,000 as
compensation for bringing the class-action lawsuit.
The CAR said that attorneys fees and expenses will lower the
approximately $1,000 per person the award would provide.
In an update, Michael Holtzman of the Wicked Local Fall River
writes that letters were already being sent last week to the
approximately 900 former Quaker Fabric workers involved with the
class-action lawsuit.
A fairness hearing to finalize the terms of the deal is
scheduled for Aug. 27, 2008, in the Delaware court.
Quaker class members -- a vast majority of which are Portuguese
immigrants who worked Quaker for decades -- have until Aug. 22
to issue written objections, the settlement states.
Outten & Golden said they were mailing the seven-page
settlement, in English and Portuguese, to everyone who worked at
Quaker within 30 days of the listed shutdown date, July 5, 2007,
or afterward. Each class member would receive an equal share
after expenses, including attorneys' fees, are allocated.
Of the $1 million estimated settlement, the court, on Aug. 27,
will decide whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate to the class members and whether the request for class
counsel attorneys fees and expenses should be approved.
R&G FINANCIAL: Sept. 16 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York has scheduled a hearing on September 16, 2008, at 3:00
p.m., to consider final approval of a deal proposed by R&G
Financial Corporation to settle the shareholder class action and
shareholder derivative lawsuit filed against it in 2005.
The hearing will be held before Judge John E. Sprizzo, at the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in
500 Pearl St., New York.
Any objection or exclusions to and from the settlement must be
submitted by Sept. 2, 2008. Deadline for the submission of a
claim form is on Sept. 26, 2008.
Case Background
On May 26, 2005, investors sued R&G Financial, claiming that the
financial holding company issued false and misleading financial
statements to the investing public (Class Action Reporter,
March 4, 2008).
The class action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York seeking damages for violations
of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who
purchased R&G common stock from April 21, 2003, through and
including April 25, 2005.
The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.
According to the complaint, R&G's financial statements were
materially false and misleading when made because the defendants
failed to disclose:
-- that the company's earnings quality had been
significantly weakened by the company's use of more
aggressive assumptions to generate gain on sale income,
as well as to the value it retained in its interest only
residuals in securitization transactions;
-- that R&G's methodology used to calculate the fair value
of its IO residual interests was incorrect and caused
the company to overstate its financial results by at
least $50 million;
-- that the company's financial statements were not
prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles;
-- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and
was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
condition of the company; and
-- that as a result, the value of the company's net income
and financial results were materially overstated at all
relevant times.
On April 25, 2005, after the close of trading, R&G shocked the
investing public when it announced that it would restate its
earnings for 2003 and 2004.
On this news, R&G stock fell $8.14 per share, or 35 percent, to
close at $15.04 on April 26, 2005, a two-year low.
On June 27, 2005, competing motions for the appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel were filed in court. Judge John
Sprizzo heard oral arguments on July 25-26, 2005, signed an
order consolidating all related cases into one class action, as
"In re R&G Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 05 Civ. 4186 (JES)," and appointing lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2006).
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Jeffrey Alan Barrack, Esq. (jbarrack@barrack.com)
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-963-0600
Fax: 215-963-0838
- and -
Eric Todd Kanefsky, Esq. (erick@blbglaw.com)
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-554-1467
Fax: 212-554-1444
Representing the defendants are:
Maite Aquino, Esq. (aquinom@sullcrom.com)
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Phone: 212-558-4000
- and -
Diana L. Weiss, Esq. (dweiss@orrick.com)
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
Columbia Center
1152 15th Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20005-1706
Phone: 202-339-8984
Fax: 202-339-8500
SECURITY CAPITAL: Bernstein Liebhard to Lead NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Deborah A. Batts of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York appointed Bernstein Liebhard &
Lifshitz, LLP, to act as sole lead counsel in the suit "In re
Security Capital Assurance Ltd. Securities Litigation, Civ. No.
07-CV-11086 (DAB)."
The suit is a securities class action against Security Capital
Assurance Ltd., its subsidiary XL Insurance, Ltd., several
Security Capital officers and directors, and the underwriters of
Security Capital's Secondary Public Offering of June 6, 2007.
The Firm represents the Employees' Retirement System of the
State of Rhode Island, which the Court appointed as lead
plaintiff.
The Firm expects to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint by
August 6, 2008.
Security Capital is a Bermuda-domiciled holding company whose
operating subsidiaries provide credit enhancement and protection
products to the public finance and structured finance markets
throughout the United States and internationally.
The current complaint alleges that Security Capital and the
other defendants knowingly, or with deliberate recklessness,
issued a series of statements between April 23, 2007, and
December 10, 2007, that were false and misleading when made
because Security Capital:
(i) failed to fully disclose the extent of its exposure to
Collateralized Debt Obligations and other residential
mortgage-backed securities;
(ii) failed to adequately reserve for losses as conditions
in the housing and credit markets deteriorated; and
(iii) improperly valued its credit default swaps.
Partner Mel E. Lifshitz, Esq., stated, "ERSRI represents all
purchasers of the publicly-traded securities of Security
Capital. They will prosecute this action vigorously on behalf
of the shareholders harmed by the alleged fraud, which is part
of the fallout from the crisis in sub-prime mortgages."
To contact lead counsel:
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: 212-779-1414
Fax: 212-779-3218
Toll Free: 877-779-1414
SEMGROUP ENERGY: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in N.Y. & Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------------
SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., and SemGroup Energy Partners
G.P., L.L.C., are facing two purported securities fraud class
action lawsuits in New York and Oklahoma, according to the
company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended July 18, 2008.
On July 21, 2008, a lawsuit styled, "Poelman v. SemGroup Energy
Partners, L.P., et al., Civil Action No. 08-CV-6477," was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
On July 22, 2008, another lawsuit, styled, "Carson v. SemGroup
Energy Partners, L.P., et al., Civil Action No. 08-CV-425," was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma against SemGroup Energy Partners L.P., SemGroup Energy
Partners G.P. L.L.C., Kevin L. Foxx, Alex Stallings, and Gregory
C. Wallace.
Both cases were filed as putative class action suits on behalf
of all purchasers of SemGroup Energy Partners L.P.'s common
units between Feb. 20, 2008, and July 17, 2008.
The plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5,
resulting in damages to members of the putative class.
The plaintiffs' specific allegations include that, despite an
obligation to do so, the defendants failed to disclose between
Feb. 20, 2008, and May 8, 2008, that SemGroup was engaged in
high-risk crude oil hedging transactions that could affect its
ability to continue as a going concern or that it was suffering
from liquidity problems.
SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. -- http://www.sglp.com/-- owns,
operates and develops a portfolio of midstream energy assets.
The Company provides crude oil terminalling and storage services
at its terminalling and storage facilities located in Oklahoma,
Kansas and Texas.
SHERWIN WILLIAMS: Continues to Face Lead-Based Paint Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Sherwin Williams Co., along with other companies, is a defendant
in a number of legal proceedings, including individual personal
injury actions, purported class actions, actions brought by the
State of Ohio, and actions brought by various counties, cities,
school districts and other government-related entities that
arise from the manufacture and sale of lead pigments and lead-
based paints, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The plaintiffs are seeking recovery based upon various legal
theories, including negligence, strict liability, breach of
warranty, negligent misrepresentations and omissions, fraudulent
misrepresentations and omissions, concert of action, civil
conspiracy, violations of unfair trade practice and consumer
protection laws, enterprise liability, market share liability,
public nuisance, unjust enrichment and other theories.
The plaintiffs seek various damages and relief, including
personal injury and property damage, costs relating to the
detection and abatement of lead-based paint from buildings,
costs associated with a public education campaign, medical
monitoring costs and others.
The Sherwin-Williams Co. manufactures, distributes and sells
paints, coatings, and related products to professional,
industrial, commercial, and retail customers primarily in North
and South America. The Company is based in Cleveland, Ohio.
SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Court Fives Final Okay to Arkansas Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Miller County, Arkansas approved on a
final basis a settlement in a class action lawsuit originally
filed against Sunbeam Products, Inc., and its parent company,
American Household, Inc., over faulty heating blankets and pads.
Products involved in the suit include any electrically heated
blankets, mattress pads, and blankets with a C100 safety circuit
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007). Customers, led by
Bobbie Fay Grammer and Sheryl Larey, filed the lawsuit against
Sunbeam on December 30, 2004, in Miller County. The plaintiffs
stated that the defendants "designed, manufactured, sold, and
distributed" heating blankets and pads with defects. They
allege that the pads and blankets "will fail rendering them
unusable and likely to ignite fires."
According to the lawsuit, as many as 30 million products were
sold with defects. The suit asserted Sunbeam committed fraud
and neglect in failing to warn consumers regarding the defects.
Amendments to the suit removed American Household as defendant
and added customer Sheryl Larey as class representative.
In 2005, Sunbeam moved the lawsuit from the county to federal
district court in Texarkana, Arkansas, because of a jurisdiction
issue: Sunbeam is a Delaware company with its main offices
located in Florida. On the other hand, the customers named in
the lawsuit are based in Arkansas.
According to an earlier report, the preliminary settlement
approval order was signed on Aug. 14, 2007, by Judge Jim Hudson
of the Circuit Court for Miller County, Arkansas.
On May 15, 2008, Judge Hudson gave final approval to the
settlement, which became final on June 17, 2008.
For more details, contact:
Grammer Settlement
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 9179
Dublin, OH 43017-4179
Phone: 800-915-8621
TELUS MOBILITY: Sued for Charging Incoming Text Message Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Quebec resident Eric Cormier has launched a class action lawsuit
against Telus Mobility following a move by the cellphone
provider to charge customers for incoming text messages, CBC
News reports.
The class action lawsuit was filed against Telus on July 14,
2008.
The report relates that under the new plan, Telus customers will
be charged 15 cents to receive incoming text messages, including
uninvited spam messages. Previously, customers without text
plans were charged only for outgoing messages. Customers with a
text messaging rate plan or bundle will not be affected by the
new charges, CBC notes.
Telus will begin charging customers for messages on Aug. 24.
Industry Minister Jim Prentice has called on the chief executive
officers of Telus to meet with him, calling the introduction of
the new fees a "poorly thought out decision," the report notes.
U.S. FDA: Agrees to Settle Tomatoes' Salmonella Suit for $12MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration agreed to pay $12 million to
settle a class action lawsuit filed against it by Tomatoes et
al., for wrongly naming the group a "fruit of interest" in a
recent salmonella poisoning outbreak now focused on Mexican-
grown jalapeno peppers, David Rensin writes for LA Observed.
The report says that the agreement, in which the government did
not admit wrongdoing and claimed it was "just doing its job,"
put a quick end to a situation that threatened to spin quickly
out of control after a meeting of the Heirloom Tomato Executive
Bushel voted to authorize a strike that would have kept all
varieties -- from roma to Beefmaster to Pink Ggirl, Better Boy,
and Jet Star -- from returning to stores and canneries.
Bert Fieldhand, Esq., who has long argued that tomatoes are a
vegetable, not a fruit, claimed his long-time clients'
reputations had been thoroughly vindicated. "I don't want to
throw rotten tomatoes, but I don't think anyone would believe
that the FDA would . . . pay that kind of money unless they felt
there was significant exposure at trial," he said.
The report relates that the salmonella outbreak has thus far
affected more than 1,500 people across the country, and has
caused a handful of deaths. The Minutemen, a private militia
established to prevent Mexicans from illegally crossing the
southern border, has agreed to add Jalapenos to its prevent
list.
UAL CORP: California Court Yet to Approve Antitrust Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to approve a settlement agreement reached by UAL Corp.
resolving multiple putative class action suits that allege
violations of the antitrust laws with respect to passenger
pricing practices.
Those lawsuits have been consolidated or are pending
consolidation for pretrial activities in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.
UAL has entered into a settlement agreement with a number of the
plaintiffs in the passenger pricing cases to dismiss the company
from the class action lawsuits in return for an agreement to
cooperate with the plaintiffs' factual investigation.
The settlement agreement is subject to review and approval by
the Federal Court, according to the company's July 23, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
UAL Corp. -- http://www.united.com/-- is a holding company
whose principal subsidiary is United Air Lines, Inc., whose
operations consist primarily of the transportation of persons,
property and mail throughout the U.S. and abroad.
UNION PACIFIC: Faces MDL in D.C. Over Rail Fuel Surcharges
----------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corp. is facing a Multidistrict Litigation in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia over rail fuel
surcharges.
Initially, about 20 small rail shippers (many of whom are
represented by the same law firms) filed virtually identical
antitrust lawsuits in various federal district courts against
the company and four other Class I railroads in the U.S.
The original plaintiff filed the first of these claims in the
U.S. District Court in New Jersey on May 14, 2007, and the
additional plaintiffs filed claims in district courts in various
states, including Florida, Illinois, Alabama, Pennsylvania, and
the District of Columbia. These suits allege that the railroads
engaged in price-fixing by establishing common fuel surcharges
for certain rail traffic.
The company received additional complaints following the initial
claim, increasing the total number of complaints to 31,
including one complaint filed by a shipper that is not seeking
class action treatment of its claim.
A few of these suits involve plaintiffs alleging that they are
or were indirect purchasers of rail transportation and seeking
to represent the class of indirect purchasers of rail
transportation that paid fuel surcharges.
These complaints have added allegations under state antitrust
and consumer protection laws.
On Nov. 6, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered that all of the rail fuel surcharge cases be transferred
to Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings, according to the company's July 24, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.
Union Pacific Corp. -- http://www.up.com/-- operates through
its principal operating company, Union Pacific Railroad Co.,
which is a Class I railroad operating in the U.S.
VOYAGER LEARNING: Reaches Settlement in Michigan Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Voyager Learning Co., formerly known as ProQuest Co., reached a
settlement in the consolidated securities fraud class action
lawsuit filed against the company in Michigan, according to
Voyager Learning's July 23, 2008 Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Between February and April 2006, four putative securities class
action complaints, now consolidated and designated as "In re
ProQuest Company Securities Litigation," were filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against
the company and certain of its former and then-current officers
and directors.
Each of these substantially similar lawsuits alleged that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as well as the
associated Rule 10b-5, in connection with the Company's proposed
restatement.
On May 2, 2006, the Court consolidated the four cases and
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel. By
stipulation of the parties, the consolidated lawsuit was stayed
pending restatement of the company's financial statements.
The lead plaintiffs subsequently asked the Court to lift the
stay of proceedings to enable them to file a consolidated
complaint, which they did on July 17, 2006.
The defendants then filed motions for sanctions under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint.
Rather than respond to these motions, the lead plaintiffs moved
to reinstate the stay of proceedings, which was granted.
On Dec. 4, 2006, the Court again lifted the stay of proceedings
and ordered the lead plaintiffs to either respond to the
previously filed motions to dismiss and for sanctions, or to
file an Amended Consolidated Complaint.
On Jan. 24, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed their Amended
Consolidated Complaint, which the defendants moved to dismiss on
March 15, 2007.
On July 22, 2008, Voyager Learning Co. reached an agreement in
principle to settle the consolidated shareholder securities
class action lawsuit.
The settlement will be funded largely by insurance. Under the
terms of the agreement, the company would pay approximately
$5 million in fees and settlement amounts to settle the class
action lawsuit.
The settlement is subject to completion of a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement to be signed by the parties, preliminary
and final court approval, and the participation of a sufficient
percentage of the putative class.
The suit is "In Re: ProQuest Company Securities Litigation, Case
No. 2:06-cv-10619-AC-MKM," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Judge Avern Cohn, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Stuart J. Berman, Esq.
Schiffrin Barroway
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087-5108
Phone: 610-667-7706
- and -
Patrick E. Cafferty, Esq.
(pcafferty@caffertyfaucher.com)
Cafferty Faucher
101 N. Main Street, Suite 450
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Phone: 734-769-2144
Representing the defendants are:
Michael J. Faris, Esq. (michael.faris@lw.com)
Latham & Watkins
233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5800
Chicago, IL 60606-6401
Phone: 312-876-7700
Fax: 312-993-9767
- and -
George B. Donnini, Esq. (donnini@butzel.com)
Butzel Long
150 W. Jefferson, Suite 100
Detroit, MI 48226-4430
Phone: 313-225-7000
Fax: 313-225-7080
* Attorney Brian Christensen Joins Bryan Cave LLP
-------------------------------------------------
Brian Christensen, Esq., previously an in-house counsel with the
Kansas City-based tax preparation company H&R Block Inc. (NYSE:
HRB) has joined ranks with Bryan Cave LLP's Kansas City office,
BizJournals reports.
Mr. Christensen will join the firm as counsel in its commercial
litigation, and labor and employment client service groups.
Mr. Christensen said in 2006 that 95% of H&R Block’s litigation
was outsourced to outside firms.
Bryan Cave has been one of the company's stalwart representative
firms.
A member of the International Association of Defense Counsel,
Mr. Christensen is a frequent lecturer at seminars and
conferences on topics ranging from class-action defense to
records management, the report said.
To contact Bryan Cave LLP:
Bryan Cave LLP
One Kansas City Place
1200 Main Street, Suite 3500
Kansas City, MO 64105-2100
Phone: 1-816-374-3200
Fax: 1-816-374-3300
* UPSG Puts Acquisition of US Target On-Hold Due to Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
S. Jorstad, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of
United Protection Security Group Inc. ("UPSG") -- a Canadian
based company, trading on the TSX Venture Exchange under the
symbol (TSX VENTURE:UZZ) -- said that negotiations with respect
to the purchase of a major U.S. based security services provider
have been formally suspended pending the outcome of
quantification of three class action lawsuits for claims of
alleged unpaid overtime and other benefits, which were filed
against the Target during the due diligence process being
conducted by UPSG.
Initially it was reported in a News Release dated June 2, 2008
that the share purchase agreement closing date was not extended
pending clarification of certain due diligence findings.
Mr. Jorstad states that UPSG's Business Plan has not changed and
the Company will continue to explore other U.S. entry
opportunities into the private security industry in the U.S.
while the situation with the Target is clarified.
Dialog with the Target continues involving the possibility of an
exchange of video surveillance units and other technology.
Don Allan, COO states that, for example, UPSG's involvement with
security arrangements for the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics now
involves two joint venture proposals that includes both the
provision of manpower and electronic surveillance and screening
services, which utilizes some of the technology as noted above
plus that of a British Columbia based software developer under
agreement as noted in a News Release dated July 8, 2008.
The relationships being established enhance UPSG's ability to
continue to compete in major market areas as a significant
player.
United Protection Security Group Inc. --
http://www.unitedprotection.com/-- is an established security
protection company; focused on high impact, high visibility, and
high risk security situations, coupled with one of the broadest
ranges of traditional private security services in the industry.
Delivering 21st Century Solutions to centuries old problems
through a network of 'Elite Private Protection Professionals'.
Pro-Active and Progressive Management has moved the company into
the ranks of, one of, the most dynamic security companies in
Western Canada. With a strong foundation and a dedicated
professional management team, we are moving forward into the
next level in its development strategy.
United Protection Security Group Inc. is committed to providing
its clients with a "superior quality service" at a competitive
price. It is further committed to providing its employees and
associates with the assistance, support, and opportunity to
maximize their individual potential for excellence, peak
performance and personal growth. It is the Company's policy and
highest priority to protect the health and welfare of all its
clients and employees and their respective property.
New Securities Fraud Cases
CIT GROUP: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 25, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against CIT Group, Inc.
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.
The class period is from April 18, 2007, through March 5, 2008.
The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.
Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 23,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
William B. Federman, Esq. (wfederman@aol.com)
Federman & Sherwood
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/
COMPUCREDIT CORP: Brodsky & Smith Files Georgia Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, commenced a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock
of CompuCredit Corporation, between November 6, 2006, and June
9, 2008.
The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of CompuCredit.
For more information, contact:
Evan J. Smith, Esq.
Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
Brodsky & Smith, LLC
Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Phone: 877-LEGAL-90
FIFTH THIRD: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all U.S. citizens or
residents who purchased the common stock of Fifth Third Bancorp
between October 19, 2007, and June 17, 2008.
The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of FITB.
For more information, contact:
Evan J. Smith, Esq.
Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
Brodsky & Smith, LLC
Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Phone: 877-LEGAL-90
FIMALAC SA: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all U.S. citizens or
residents who purchased the common stock of Fimalac, S.A.
between July 26, 2006, and April 20, 2008.
The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of Fimalac.
For more information, contact:
Evan J. Smith, Esq.
Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
Brodsky & Smith, LLC
Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Phone: 877-LEGAL-90
MFS INVESTMENT: Barrack Rodos Files Pennsylvanie Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barrack Rodos & Bacine filed a class action lawsuit against MFS
Investment Management in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania on behalf of investors who
purchased class A shares of certain multi-class MFS stock mutual
funds in the aggregate amount of less than $50,000 during the
period July 28, 2003, through July 28, 2008 , and paid a load or
commission.
The complaint charges MFS, Massachusetts Financial Services Co.,
and MFS Funds Distributors, Inc. with violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec.
78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5.
The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
engaged in a scheme to defraud investors by disseminating
prospectuses for the following mutual funds that contain
incorrect, incomplete and misleading information:
-- Massachusetts Investors Growth Stock Fund (MIGFX);
-- Massachusetts Investors Trust (MITTX);
-- MFS Aggressive Growth Allocation Fund (MAAGX);
-- MFS Conservative Allocation Fund (MACFX);
-- MFS Core Equity Fund (MRGAX);
-- MFS Core Growth Fund (MFCAX);
-- MFS Emerging Growth Fund (MFEGX);
-- MFS Emerging Markets Equity Fund (MEMAX);
-- MFS Global Equity Fund (MWEFX);
-- MFS Global Growth Fund (MWOFX);
-- MFS Global Total Return Fund (MFWTX);
-- MFS Growth Allocation Fund (MAGWX);
-- MFS International Diversification Fund (MDIDX);
-- MFS International Growth Fund (MGRAX);
-- MFS International New Discovery Fund (MIDAX);
-- MFS International Value Fund (MGIAX);
-- MFS Mid Cap Growth Fund (OTCAX);
-- MFS Mid Cap Value Fund (MVCAX);
-- MFS Moderate Allocation Fund (MAMAX);
-- MFS New Discovery Fund (MNDAX);
-- MFS New Endeavor Fund (MECAX);
-- MFS Research Fund (MFRFX);
-- MFS Research International Fund (MRSAX);
-- MFS Sector Rotational Fund (SRFAX);
-- MFS Strategic Value Fund (MSVTX);
-- MFS Technology Fund (MTCAX);
-- MFS Total Return Fund (MSFRX);
-- MFS Union Standard Equity Fund (MUEAX);
-- MFS Utilities Fund (MMUFX); and
-- MFS Value Fund (MEIAX).
According to the complaint, the defendants, in contravention of
their disclosure obligations, knowingly presented class A shares
as the best performing share class for the long-term, causing
the class members to purchase class A shares of the
aforementioned mutual funds, when class B and/or class C shares
would have been their best investment choice for any holding
period. By making misleading disclosures in, and omitting
material information from, the prospectuses for these funds,
defendants earned excessive profits while the plaintiff and
other class members suffered decreased returns on their
investments.
Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 26,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Barrack, Rodos and Bacine
3300 Two Commerce Sq.
2001 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA
Phone: 877-386-3304
SEMGROUP ENERGY: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, has filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased the common
units of SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. between February 20,
2008, and July 17, 2008.
The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of SemGroup.
For more information, contact:
Evan J. Smith, Esq.
Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
Brodsky & Smith, LLC
Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Phone: 877-LEGAL-90
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
July 30, 2008
MANAGING COMPLEX FEDERAL LITIGATION: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO NEW
DEVELOPMENTS, PROCEDURES, & STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
Chicago
Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710
September 22-24, 2008
MEALEY'S NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION SUPERCONFERENCE
BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences
Westin Kierland Resort & Spa, Scottsdale, Arizona
Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963
September 23-24, 2008
DEFENDING CONSUMER FRAUD ECONOMIC INJURY CLAIMS
American Conference Institute
Union League, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Phone: 888-224-2480
October 23-24, 2008
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Bellagio, Las Vegas
Phone: 1-800-320-2227
October 27-28, 2008
POSITIONING THE CLASS ACTION DEFENSE FOR EARLY SUCCESS
American Conference Institute
FireSky Resort & Spa, Scottsdale, Arizona
Phone: 888-224-2480
October 29-30, 2008
AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCT LIABILITY
American Conference Institute
Sutton Place Hotel, Chicago, Illinois
Phone: 888-224-2480
November 7, 2008
NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON CLASS ACTIONS
American Bar Association
New York
Phone: 800-285-2221
December 9-11, 2008
DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Millennium Broadway Hotel, New York
Phone: 888-224-2480
July 9-10, 2009
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2009: PROSECUTION AND
DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
New York
Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710
* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
July 1-31, 2008
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Phone: 512-778-5665
e-mail: info@cleonline.com
July 1-31, 2008
DEBT ELIMINATION SCAMS AND THE INTERNET
(TOGETHER WITH THE HBA COMMERCIAL AND CONSUMER LAW SECTION)
CLEOnline.Com
Phone: 512-778-5665
e-mail: info@cleonline.com
July 1-31, 2008
HBA PRESENTS: ACCORD AND SATISFACTION, NOVATION, RELEASES
AND OTHER CONTRACTS ISSUES
CLEOnline.Com
Phone: 512-778-5665
e-mail: info@cleonline.com
July 1-31, 2008
HBA PRESENTS: BUSINESS TORTS
CLEOnline.Com
Phone: 512-778-5665
e-mail: info@cleonline.com
July 1-31, 2008
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS HOT TOPICS FOR CIVIL LAW
ATTORNEYS IN TEXAS
CLEOnline.Com
Phone: 512-778-5665
e-mail: info@cleonline.com
July 1-31, 2008
HBA PRESENTS: EVALUATING CAR WRECK CASES
CLEOnline.Com
Phone: 512-778-5665
e-mail: info@cleonline.com
July 1-31, 2008
LITIGATING POST-SALE HOUSE CASES IN TEXAS: CLAIMS AGAINST
SELLERS, REALTORS AND INSPECTORS
CLEOnline.Com
Phone: 512-778-5665
e-mail: info@cleonline.com
July 30, 2008
ASBESTOS SERIES: BANKRUPTCY TRUST UPDATES, CLAIMS FILING CRIB
SHEET, AND NEW CARRIER STRATEGIES
BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
Phone: 1-888-287-8258; 503-291-7963
August 5, 2008
ASBESTOS SERIES: DATA ANALYSIS, VENUE UPDATE, AND
STRATEGY REVIEW
BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
Phone: 1-888-287-8258; 503-291-7963
August 12, 2008
NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGES: QUANTIFYING AND DEFENDING
DAMAGES AND OTHER SETTLEMENT TECHNIQUES
BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
Phone: 1-888-287-8258; 503-291-7963
July 17, 2008
EXXON: SUPREME COURT RULES ON PREEMPTION & PUNITIVE DAMAGES
American Law Institute - American Bar Association
Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS
December 4-5, 2008
ASBESTOS LITIGATION
American Law Institute - American Bar Association
Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS
December 13, 2008
MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2007)
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 26TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2008)
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
DIRECT AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERTS
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
GOVERNMENT TORT LIABILITY: CLAIMS, LITIGATION & RECENT
DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING
WRITTEN DISCOVERY
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com
NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com
SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com/Law Education Institute
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Phone: 800-285-2221
e-mail: abacle@abanet.org
*********
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 * * *