/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080806.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, August 6, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 155
Headlines
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: $350MM Unpaid Overtime Suit Moves Forward
COMCAST CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Pa. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
COMCAST CORP: Wants Pennsylvania ERISA Violations Suit Dismissed
COMCAST CORP: Court Hears Motions to Certify "Brantley" Issues
COMCAST CORP: Continues to Face Subscribers' Antitrust Lawsuits
FORD MOTOR: Car Buyers Sue Over "Limited Edition" Vehicle
FRESH DEL MONTE: Units Face N.Y. Lawsuit Over DMG Pineapples
FRESH DEL MONTE: Tenn. Court Partially Dismisses Consumer Suit
FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal in Calif. Pineapple Buyers' Suit Denied
FRESH DEL MONTE: Units Respond to Claims in Fla. Consumer Suit
FRESH DEL MONTE: Units Respond to Claims in Ariz. Consumer Suit
FRESH DEL MONTE: Nev. Court Nixes Some Claims in Consumer Suit
GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Sun City Residents Sue Over Wood Trim Product
GT SOLAR: Abraham Fruchter Retained to File IPO-Related Suit
HARRIS BANK: Faces Lawsuit Over Pre-sale & Repossession Notices
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Court Yet to Allow Securities Suit Appeal
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Dismissal of Claims in N.J. Suit Appealed
HOME DEPOT: Employees' Defined Contribution Plan Lawsuit Revived
INSWEB CORP: Continues to Face Securities Lawsuits in Texas
ISRAELI BANKS: Faces ILS6.6BB Suit in Tel Aviv for Selling Funds
MCKESSON CORP: Douglas County Joins Pharmaceutical Pricing Suit
MODINE MANUFACTURING: Judge Asks for Change in "Gates" Suit Deal
NORTEL NETWORKS: Settlement Claims Administration Complete
ROHM & HAAS: Faces Pa. Air and Groundwater Contamination Lawsuit
ROHM & HAAS: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Kentucky Plant Pollution
ROHM & HAAS: Indiana Pension Plan Lawsuit Returns to Lower Court
ROHM & HAAS: Still Faces Multiple Plastics Additives Lawsuits
SHASTA BUILDERS: Calif. Court Dismisses Surplus Premium Lawsuit
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Grand Theft Auto Settlement Hits a Snag
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Settles 32 Securities Fraud Lawsuits
UNITED RENTALS: Reaches $27.5MM Deal in Conn. Securities Lawsuit
UNITED RENTALS: Faces Consolidated Lawsuit Over Cerberus Merger
UNITED RENTALS: Parties in "Lefari" Reach MOU Settling Lawsuit
VALUECLICK: $1MM Settlement in Adware Suit Gets Preliminary Nod
VISA CHECK/MASTERMONEY ANTITRUST: Sept. 15 Claims Deadline Set
VISTEON CORP: Dismissal of Mich. Securities Fraud Suit Appealed
WESTCHESTER COUNTY: New York Retirees Win $3.6-Million Judgment
* Hunton & Williams LLP Brings on Nine Partners in Three Offices
New Securities Fraud Cases
CIT GROUP: Izard Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in New York
EVERGREEN ULTRA: Abraham Fruchter Files Mass. Securities Lawsuit
GT SOLAR: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in New Hampshire
SEMGROUP ENERGY: Howard Smith Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
*********
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: $350MM Unpaid Overtime Suit Moves Forward
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Fulawka filed documents before the Ontario Superior Court
in June to certify her $350-million unpaid overtime lawsuit
against the Bank of Nova Scotia (TSX: BNS) as a national class
action, Jane Bao writes for the Canadian Business.
The suit would cover thousands of current and former non-
management, non-unionized personal or small-business bankers
across Canada.
The suit alleges bank employees have been forced to put in extra
hours to complete job requirements.
The Bank of Nova Scotia is headquartered in Toronto, Canada, and
its assets totaled CDN$408 billion as of July 31, 2007.
Scotiabank Sud Americano is headquartered in Santiago, Chile,
and its assets totaled $3.5 billion as of June 30, 2007. Banco
del Desarrollo is headquartered in Santiago, Chile and its
assets totaled $5.1 billion as of June 30, 2007.
Representing Ms. Fulawka are:
Roy Elliott O'Connor
200 Front Street West, Suite 2300
Toronto, Ontario M5V 3K2
Canada
Phone: 416-362-1989
Fax: 416-362-6204
- and -
Sack Goldblatt Mitchell
30 Metcalfe St., Unit 500
Ottawa, ON, Canada
Phone: 613-235-5327
COMCAST CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Pa. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corp., Comcast Chief Executive Officer Brian Roberts,
and other top executives of the company are asking the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to
dismiss a securities fraud lawsuit filed against them, according
to the company's July 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.
The executives are accused of inflating share price through
false and misleading reports while dumping 585,792 of their own
shares at artificially high prices, for more than $15 million
(Class Action Reporter, May 7, 2008).
Named plaintiff Marilyn Clark brought this action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of
all those who purchased the publicly-traded securities of
Comcast between Feb. 1, 2007, and Dec. 4, 2007, inclusive, and
who were damaged, thereby.
The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:
(a) whether the federal securities laws were violated by
defendants' acts as alleged;
(b) whether statements made by defendants to the investing
public during the class period misrepresented material
facts about the business and operations of Comcast;
(c) whether the price of Comcast common stock was
artificially inflated during the class period; and
(d) whether to what extent the members of the class have
sustained damages and the proper measure of damages;
The plaintiff asks the court to:
-- determine that this action is a proper class action,
designating the plaintiff as lead plaintiff and
certifying her as a class representative under Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
plaintiff's counsel as lead counsel;
-- award compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff and
the other class members against all defendants, jointly
and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
defendants' wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at
trial, including interest; and
-- award the plaintiff and the class their reasonable costs
and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel
fees and expert fees.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the case in February 2008.
The plaintiff did not respond, but instead sought leave to amend
the complaint, which the court granted. The plaintiff filed an
amended complaint in May 2008, naming only the company and two
current officers as defendants.
In June 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. The court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the
motion.
The suit is "Marilyn Clark et al. v. Comcast Corp. et al., Case
No. 08-CV-00052," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Harvey Bartle, III,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Laura Andracchio, Esq. (lauraa@csgrr.com)
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-231-1058
Fax: 619-231-7423
- and -
Bernard M. Gross, Esq.
Bernard M. Gross, PC
450 The Wanamaker Bldg.
100 Penn Sq. East
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: 215-561-3600
Fax: 215-561-3000
e-mail: peggy@bernardmgross.com
Representing the defendants are:
M. Norman Goldberger, Esq. (mgoldberger@hangley.com)
Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin
One Logan Square, 27th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-496-7021
- and -
Michael P. Carroll, Esq.
Davis, Polk & Wardwell
450 Lexington Ave.
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-450-4000
COMCAST CORP: Wants Pennsylvania ERISA Violations Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corp. is seeking the dismissal of an amended complaint
in a purported class action lawsuit filed before the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania over
alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.
The suit was filed on Feb. 15, 2008, on behalf of plaintiff
Robert Urban. Aside from the company, the suit also named as
individual defendants:
-- Brian L. Roberts;
-- Ralph J. Roberts;
-- S. Decker Anstrom;
-- Kenneth J. Bacon;
-- Sheldon M. Bonovitz;
-- Edward D. Breen;
-- Julian A. Brodsky;
-- Joseph J. Collins;
-- Michael Cook;
-- Jeffrey A. Honickman;
-- Judith Rodin;
-- Michael I. Sovern;
-- Lawrence J. Salva; and
-- Unknown Fiduciary Defendants 1-30.
The proposed class comprises participants in the company's
retirement-investment (401)(k) plan that invested in the plan's
company stock account.
The plaintiff asserts that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in managing the plan. Mr. Urban is seeking
unspecified damages.
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in June 2008, and in
July 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, according to the company's July 30, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "Urban v. Comcast Corporation et al., Case No. 2:08-
cv-00773-HB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Judge Harvey Bartle, III, presiding.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Michael D. Donovan, Esq. (mdonovan@donovansearles.com)
Donovan Searles, LLC
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-732-6067
Fax: 215-732-8060
- and -
Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
Gainey & McKenna
295 Madison Ave., 4th Fl
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-983-1300
Representing the defendants are:
Thomas S. Gigot, Esq.
Groom Law Group, Chartered
1701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202-857-0620
- and -
M. Norman Goldberger, Esq. (mgoldberger@hangley.com)
Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin
One Logan Square, 27th Floor
Philadelphia, pA 19103
Phone: 215-496-7021
COMCAST CORP: Court Hears Motions to Certify "Brantley" Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 4, 2008 hearing is scheduled for a certain motion in the
purported class-action lawsuit entitled, "Rob Brantley et al v.
NBC Universal, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:2007cv06101," which names
Comcast Corp., as a defendant.
The company was among the defendants named in the purported
class action lawsuit filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on Sept. 20, 2007.
Listed as plaintiffs in the matter are:
-- Rob Brantley,
-- Darryn Cooke,
-- William Costley,
-- Beverly Costley,
-- Christina Hills,
-- Michael B. Kovac,
-- Michelle Navarrette,
-- Timothy J. Stabosz, and
-- Joseph Vranich.
The defendants in the case are:
-- NBC Universal, Inc.,
-- Viacom Inc.,
-- The Walt Disney company,
-- Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.,
-- Time Warner Inc.,
-- Time Warner Cable Inc.,
-- Comcast Corp.,
-- Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.,
-- Cox Communiations, Inc.,
-- The Directv Group, Inc.,
-- Echostar Satellite LLC,
-- Charter Communications, Inc., and
-- Cablevision Systems Corp.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants who produce video
programming have entered into agreements with the defendants who
distribute video programming via cable and satellite, which
preclude the distributors from reselling channels to subscribers
on an a la carte (or channel-by-channel) basis in violation of
federal antitrust laws.
The plaintiffs seek treble damages for the loss of their ability
to pick and choose the specific channels to which they wish to
subscribe, and injunctive relief requiring each distributor
defendant to resell certain channels to its subscribers on an a
la carte basis.
The potential class is comprised of all persons residing in the
U.S. who have subscribed to an expanded basic level of video
service provided by one of the distributor defendants.
In December 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
case.
On March 12, 2008, the court granted the motion to dismiss, with
permission for the plaintiffs to replead their complaint. On
March 20, 2008, the plaintiffs served an amended complaint.
The company filed a renewed motion to dismiss this amended
complaint on April 22, 2008. In June 2008, the Central District
denied this renewed dismissal motion.
In July 2008, the company and the other defendants filed motions
to certify certain issues decided in the Central District's June
2008 order for interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.
The Central District had scheduled a hearing on these motions
for Aug. 4, 2008, according to the company's July 30, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "Rob Brantley et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-06101-CAS-VBK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Christina A.
Snyder presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq. (mblecher@blechercollins.com)
Blecher & Collins
515 South Figueroa Street, 17th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-622-4222
Representing the defendants are:
Arthur J. Burke, Esq. (arthur.burke@dpw.com)
Davis Polk and Wardwell
1600 El Camino Real
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Phone: 650-752-2005
John D. Lombardo, Esq. (john.lombardo@aporter.com)
Arnold and Porter
777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Fl
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2513
Phone: 213-243-4000
- and -
Steven F. Cherry, Esq. (steven.cherry@wilmerhale.com)
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202-663-6321
COMCAST CORP: Continues to Face Subscribers' Antitrust Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corp. continues to face purported antitrust class action
lawsuits filed by its subscribers in connection with the
company's certain subscriber exchange transactions with other
cable providers.
The company was named as defendant in two suits originally filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
The potential class in the Massachusetts case is the company's
subscriber base in the "Boston Cluster" area, and the potential
class in the Pennsylvania case is the company's subscriber base
in the "Philadelphia and Chicago Clusters," as those terms are
defined in the complaints.
In each case, the plaintiffs allege that certain subscriber
exchange transactions with other cable providers resulted in
unlawful "horizontal market restraints" in those areas and seek
damages pursuant to antitrust statutes, including treble
damages.
The company's motion to dismiss the Pennsylvania case on the
pleadings was denied and classes of "Philadelphia Cluster," and
"Chicago Cluster" subscribers were certified.
The company's motion to dismiss the Massachusetts case, which
was recently transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, was also denied.
The company is proceeding with discovery on plaintiffs claims
concerning the Philadelphia Cluster. The plaintiffs claims
concerning the other two clusters are stayed pending
determination of the Philadelphia Cluster claims.
The company reported no development on the matter in its
July 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
Pennsylvania-based Comcast Corp. -- http://www.comcast.com/--
is a cable operator in the U.S. and offers a variety of consumer
entertainment and communication products and services.
FORD MOTOR: Car Buyers Sue Over "Limited Edition" Vehicle
---------------------------------------------------------
Car buyers filed a class action lawsuit against Ford Motor Co.,
complaining that a limited edition of a modified Ford Mustang
was not so limited after all, Reuters reports.
According to Reuters, the lawsuit was filed on August 4, 2008,
in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan on behalf of Drew
Conner, of Bardonia, New York, and at least 100 other buyers of
the 2007 Roush Stage 3 BlackJack vehicles.
The suit claims that the plaintiff paid a premium price of
nearly $59,000 last year because Ford advertised that only 100
would be made. It also accuses Ford and Roush Performance
Products Inc. of manufacturing at least 100 more of the vehicles
in 2008.
"The vehicles purchased by the plaintiff and the other class
members were not as unique or rare as the defendants had stated
them to be," Reuters quotes the complaint as stating. "Their
value from scarcity and as collectors' items were and are
dramatically less than the buyers had been led to believe their
value would be."
Ford manufactured a limited run of a modified version of the
Ford Mustang, made especially for conversion by Roush into the
Stage 3 BlackJack, the complaint says.
The complaint is seeking a jury trial and more than $12 million
in damages, Reuters relates.
Reuters says that representatives of Ford were not immediately
available to comment.
FRESH DEL MONTE: Units Face N.Y. Lawsuit Over DMG Pineapples
------------------------------------------------------------
Two subsidiaries of Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc., are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit in New York over Del Monte Gold
pineapples.
The consolidated complaint was filed against the company's
subsidiaries on Aug. 2, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
This consolidated action is brought as a putative class-action
lawsuit on behalf of all direct and indirect purchasers of Del
Monte Gold pineapples from March 1, 1996, through the present
and merges four actions brought by fruit wholesalers and two
actions brought by individual consumers.
The consolidated complaint alleges claims for:
-- monopolization and attempted monopolization;
-- restraint of trade;
-- unfair and deceptive trade practices; and
-- unjust enrichment.
On May 27, 2005, the company's subsidiaries filed a motion to
dismiss the indirect and direct purchasers' claims for unjust
enrichment.
On June 29, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a joint motion for class
certification.
On Feb. 20, 2008, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification of the indirect purchasers and only granted
class certification of the direct purchasers' claims for
monopolization and attempted monopolization which were
uncontested by the company's subsidiaries.
Also, on Feb. 20, 2008, the Court granted the motion of the
company's subsidiaries to dismiss the direct purchasers' claims
for unjust enrichment and denied as moot the motion to dismiss
the indirect purchasers' state law claims on the basis of the
Court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for class certification of
the indirect purchasers, according to the company's July 30,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 27, 2008.
Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/
-- is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor
of fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer
and distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices,
beverages and snacks. The company's global business, conducted
through subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing,
transportation and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce
together with prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East
and Africa. Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas,
pineapples, melons, tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches,
plums, nectarines, cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and
South America, Africa, and the Philippines. It also source
products from North America, Africa and Europe. The Company
distributes its products in North America, Europe, Asia, the
Middle East, North Africa and South America. Fresh Del Monte
markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand.
FRESH DEL MONTE: Tenn. Court Partially Dismisses Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Tennessee state court partially dismissed a purported class-
action lawsuit filed against Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc., by
pineapple buyers.
On March 5, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a
putative class action complaint against the company's
subsidiaries in the state court of Tennessee on behalf of
consumers who purchased (other than for resale) Del Monte Gold
pineapples in Tennessee from March 1, 1996, to May 6, 2003.
The complaint, which is pending in a Tennessee state court,
alleges violations of the Tennessee Trade Practices Act and the
Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.
On April 14, 2004, the subsidiaries removed this action to
federal court. The plaintiffs filed a motion for remand to
state court, which was granted by the court on July 7, 2004.
On Feb. 18, 2005, the company's subsidiaries filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint.
On May 25, 2006, the court granted the motion in part,
dismissing only the plaintiffs' claim under the Tennessee
Consumer Protection Act, according to the company's July 30,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 27, 2008.
Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/
-- is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor
of fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer
and distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices,
beverages and snacks. The company's global business, conducted
through subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing,
transportation and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce
together with prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East
and Africa. Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas,
pineapples, melons, tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches,
plums, nectarines, cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and
South America, Africa, and the Philippines. It also source
products from North America, Africa and Europe. The Company
distributes its products in North America, Europe, Asia, the
Middle East, North Africa and South America. Fresh Del Monte
markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand.
FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal in Calif. Pineapple Buyers' Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appellate court denied an interlocutory appeal by Fresh Del
Monte Produce, Inc., with regard to a purported class action
lawsuit filed by consumers of its pineapple product.
Between March 17, 2004, and March 18, 2004, three alleged
individual consumers separately filed putative class action
complaints against the company and its subsidiaries in the state
court of California on behalf of residents of California who
purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold pineapples
between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003.
The complaints allege violations of the Cartwright Act, common
law monopolization, unfair competition in violation of the
California Business and Professional Code, unjust enrichment and
violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
On April 19, 2004, the company removed these actions to federal
court. The plaintiffs filed a motion for remand to the state
court of California, which remand request was granted separately
by the court in July 2004. These actions were allowed to
proceed in the state court of California.
In one of the three actions, the company filed a motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. This dismissal request was
granted in part and denied in part.
On Nov. 9, 2005, the three actions were consolidated under one
amended complaint with a single claim for unfair competition in
violation of the California Business and Professional Code.
The company filed a motion to dismiss this one remaining claim,
which was denied by the Court on Jan. 6, 2006. The appellate
court denied the request for an interlocutory appeal on March 2,
2006, according to the company's July 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 27, 2008.
Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/
-- is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor
of fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer
and distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices,
beverages and snacks. The company's global business, conducted
through subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing,
transportation and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce
together with prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East
and Africa. Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas,
pineapples, melons, tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches,
plums, nectarines, cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and
South America, Africa, and the Philippines. It also source
products from North America, Africa and Europe. The Company
distributes its products in North America, Europe, Asia, the
Middle East, North Africa and South America. Fresh Del Monte
markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand.
FRESH DEL MONTE: Units Respond to Claims in Fla. Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc., filed an answer
to the remaining claims in a purported class-action suit filed
in Florida by a buyer of the company's pineapple product,
according to the company's July 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 27, 2008.
On April 19, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a
putative class action complaint against the company's
subsidiaries in the state court of Florida on behalf of Florida
residents who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold
pineapples between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003.
The complaint alleges fraudulent concealment/tolling of statute
of limitations, violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment.
On May 11, 2004, the subsidiaries removed this action to federal
court. The plaintiffs filed a motion for remand to state court
and the company's subsidiaries opposed that motion.
The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand. The case
now proceeds in the state court of Florida.
On Oct. 27, 2004, the company's subsidiaries filed a motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, which motion was granted on
Jan. 23, 2006, with leave for plaintiffs to amend. The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Feb. 13, 2006.
On March 10, 2006, the company's subsidiaries filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in part. On Sept. 27, 2006, the
state court granted this motion and dismissed with prejudice the
plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment and for violation of
the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act relating to
pineapples purchased before April 19, 2000.
The subsidiaries filed an answer to the remaining claims of the
amended complaint on Oct. 12, 2006.
The company reported no further development in the case in its
regulatory filing.
Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/
-- is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor
of fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer
and distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices,
beverages and snacks. The company's global business, conducted
through subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing,
transportation and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce
together with prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East
and Africa. Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas,
pineapples, melons, tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches,
plums, nectarines, cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and
South America, Africa, and the Philippines. It also source
products from North America, Africa and Europe. The Company
distributes its products in North America, Europe, Asia, the
Middle East, North Africa and South America. Fresh Del Monte
markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand.
FRESH DEL MONTE: Units Respond to Claims in Ariz. Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc., have filed an
answer to the remaining claims in a purported class action
lawsuit filed in an Arizona court over the company's pineapple
product.
On April 29, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a
putative class action complaint against the company's
subsidiaries in the state court of Arizona on behalf of
residents of Arizona who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del
Monte Gold pineapples between November 1997 and January 2003.
The complaint alleges monopolization and attempted
monopolization in violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act,
and unjust enrichment in violation of common law.
On May 24, 2004, the company's subsidiaries removed this action
to federal court. Thus the action, in October 2004, was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for remand, which request was
granted by the court on April 20, 2005. The case now proceeds
in Arizona state court.
On July 25, 2005, the company's subsidiaries filed a motion to
dismiss the claim for violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud
Act, which dismissal motion was granted by the state court on
Feb. 18, 2006.
The company's subsidiaries filed an answer to the remaining
claims of the complaint on Oct. 12, 2006.
The company reported no further development in the matter in its
July 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 27, 2008.
Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/
-- is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor
of fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer
and distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices,
beverages and snacks. The company's global business, conducted
through subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing,
transportation and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce
together with prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East
and Africa. Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas,
pineapples, melons, tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches,
plums, nectarines, cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and
South America, Africa, and the Philippines. It also source
products from North America, Africa and Europe. The Company
distributes its products in North America, Europe, Asia, the
Middle East, North Africa and South America. Fresh Del Monte
markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand.
FRESH DEL MONTE: Nev. Court Nixes Some Claims in Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc., have filed an
answer to the remaining claims in a class-action lawsuit filed
in Nevada in connection with the company's pineapple product.
On July 2, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative
class action complaint, which was served on Aug. 24, 2004,
against the company's subsidiaries in the state court of Nevada
on behalf of Nevada residents who purchased (other than for re-
sale) Del Monte Gold pineapples between November 1997 and
January 2003.
The complaint alleges restraint of trade in violation of Nevada
statutes, common law monopolization and unjust enrichment.
On Sept. 13, 2004, the company's subsidiaries removed this
action to federal court. Thus the action was later transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for remand, which was subsequently
granted by the court on April 20, 2005. This action now
proceeds in Nevada state court.
On April 11, 2006, the court granted in part the company's
subsidiaries' motion to dismiss the complaint, dismissing the
claims for common law monopolization, unjust enrichment and
violation of Nevada's Unfair Trade Practices Act in its
application prior to July 1, 2001.
The company's subsidiaries filed an answer to the remaining
claims of the amended complaint on June 30, 2006.
The company reported no further development in the matter in its
July 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 27, 2008.
Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/
-- is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor
of fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer
and distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices,
beverages and snacks. The company's global business, conducted
through subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing,
transportation and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce
together with prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East
and Africa. Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas,
pineapples, melons, tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches,
plums, nectarines, cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and
South America, Africa, and the Philippines. It also source
products from North America, Africa and Europe. The Company
distributes its products in North America, Europe, Asia, the
Middle East, North Africa and South America. Fresh Del Monte
markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand.
GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Sun City Residents Sue Over Wood Trim Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several Sun City Hilton Head residents are suing the
manufacturer and supplier of a wood trim product used in their
homes, according to McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
The report says that in an updated complaint filed on March 17,
2008, Jim and Nancy Lancaster, Art and Jeannette Holland, and
Wendell and Phyllis Turner claim that PrimeTrim, a fiberboard
product manufactured by Atlanta-based Georgia-Pacific and sold
by Grayco Home Center, is defective.
McClatchy-Tribune recounts that the lawsuit originally was filed
in November 2007 in Beaufort County Court of Common Pleas. The
complaint states that PrimeTrim on the plaintiffs' homes failed
to keep out moisture, leading to "property damage and water
intrusion."
According to the report, PrimeTrim, first manufactured in 1992,
is made of processed wood fiber and pre-treated with resin. It
has been marketed as an alternative to wood for interior and
exterior trim.
The plaintiffs' lawyer, Joe DaPore, Esq., of Charleston-based
Young Clement Rivers law firm, said that the product was
installed in hundreds of homes in the gated community.
"The Sun City people do a great job maintaining their homes, and
the product is still not holding up," Mr. DaPore said.
Mr. DaPore told McClatchy-Tribune that he will file paperwork
asking the court to hear the case as a class action lawsuit
because the product was used in hundreds of homes.
A decision on whether the case will be heard as a class action
won't be made until next spring, the report notes.
Attorneys representing Georgia-Pacific and Grayco did not return
phone calls and e-mails left by McClatchy-Tribune.
GT SOLAR: Abraham Fruchter Retained to File IPO-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, has been retained to file a
class action lawsuit arising out of the initial public offering
of GT Solar International, Inc.
GT Solar completed its IPO of 30,300,000 shares at $16.50 per
share on July 24, 2008. LDK Solar Co., Ltd. -- GT Solar's
largest customer -- then announced that it would be purchasing
equipment from one of GT Solar's competitors rather than from
the Company. GT Solar's stock tumbled by more than 20% from the
IPO price.
The proceeds of the Offering, or more than $450 million, went to
its controlling shareholder, GT Solar Holdings LLC.
The complaint AF&T has prepared for its client asserts claims
against, among others, GT Solar Holdings LLC with respect to the
proceeds it received from the IPO.
Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 30,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
Philip T. Taylor, Esq.
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
New York, N.Y. 10119
Phone: 212-279-5050
HARRIS BANK: Faces Lawsuit Over Pre-sale & Repossession Notices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harris Bank NA is facing a class-action complaint before Jackson
County, Kan., Circuit Court, over allegations that the bank
mailed pre-sale and repossession notices that failed to meet
legal requirements, CourtHouse News Service reports.
Harris N.A., a subsidiary of BMO Financial Group, is an
integrated financial services organization that provides more
than one million personal, business, and corporate clients with
banking, lending, investing, and wealth management solutions.
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Court Yet to Allow Securities Suit Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has yet
to rule on a motion to appeal the dismissal of a consolidated
securities fraud class action lawsuit brought against The
Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., and its top officers.
Initially, two securities class action complaints, now
consolidated, were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut alleging claims against the company and
certain of its executive officers under Section 10(b) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.
The consolidated amended complaint alleges on behalf of a
putative class of shareholders that the company and the four
named individual defendants, as control persons of the company,
failed to disclose to the investing public that The Hartford's
business and growth was predicated on the unlawful activity
alleged in the NYAG Complaint.
The NYAG Complaint was filed by New York Attorney General Eliot
Spitzer on Oct. 14, 2004. It was a civil complaint over
insurance fraud that was filed against Marsh, Inc., and Marsh &
McLennan Companies, Inc., alleging that certain insurance
companies participated with Marsh in arrangements to submit
inflated bids for business insurance and paid contingent
commissions to ensure that Marsh would direct business to them.
The class period alleged in the consolidated class action suit
is Aug. 6, 2003, through Oct. 13, 2004, the day before the NYAG
Complaint was filed. The complaint seeks damages and attorneys'
fees.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated case
in June 2005, and, on July 13, 2006, the district court granted
the motion. The plaintiffs have noticed an appeal of the
dismissal.
The company reported no development in the matter in its
July 28, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "Staehr v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-01740-CFD," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, Judge Christopher F.
Droney, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Erin Green Comite, Esq. (ecomite@scott-scott.com)
Scott & Scott
108 Norwich Ave., P.O. Box 192
Colchester, CT 06415
Phone: 860-537-5537
Fax: 869-537-4432
- and -
Tor Gronborg, Esq. (torg@lerachlaw.com)
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-231-1058
Fax: 631-231-7423
Representing the defendants are:
Jack C. Auspitz, Esq. (jauspitz@mofo.com)
Morrison & Foerster
1290 Avenue of The Americas
New York, NY 10104-0050
Phone: 212-468-8000
Fax: 212-468-7900
- and -
Timothy Andrew Diemand, Esq. (tdiemand@wiggin.com)
Wiggin & Dana
One Cityplace, 185 Asylum St.
Hartford, CT 06103
Phone: 860-297-3738
Fax: 860-525-9380
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Dismissal of Claims in N.J. Suit Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a multidistrict litigation against the
Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., have appealed the
dismissal of certain claims in the matter, which is pending with
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
There are two consolidated amended complaints filed in the
multidistrict litigation, one related to alleged conduct in
connection with the sale of property-casualty insurance and the
other related to alleged conduct in connection with the sale of
group benefits products.
The company and various of its subsidiaries are named in both
complaints. The actions assert, on behalf of a class of persons
who purchased insurance through the broker defendants, claims
under the Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, state law, and in the case of the group
benefits complaint, claims under ERISA arising from conduct
similar to that alleged in the NYAG Complaint.
The NYAG Complaint was filed by New York Attorney General Eliot
Spitzer on Oct. 14, 2004. It was a civil complaint over
insurance fraud that was filed against Marsh, Inc., and Marsh &
McLennan Companies, Inc., alleging that certain insurance
companies participated with Marsh in arrangements to submit
inflated bids for business insurance and paid contingent
commissions to ensure that Marsh would direct business to them.
The class period alleged in the multidistrict litigation is 1994
through the date of class certification, which has not yet
occurred. The complaints seek treble damages, injunctive and
declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees.
On Oct. 3, 2006, the court denied in part the defendants'
motions to dismiss the two consolidated amended complaints but
found the complaints deficient in other respects and ordered the
plaintiffs to file supplemental pleadings.
After the plaintiffs filed their supplemental pleadings, the
defendants renewed their motions to dismiss.
The district court has dismissed the Sherman Act and RICO claims
in both complaints for failure to state a claim and has granted
the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the ERISA claims
in the group-benefits products complaint.
The district court has further declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims, has dismissed those
state law claims without prejudice, and has closed both cases.
The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of claims in both
consolidated amended complaints, except the ERISA claims,
according to the company's July 28, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.
Connecticut-based The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. --
http://www.thehartford.com/-- is a diversified insurance and
financial services company, which provides investment products,
individual life, group life and group disability insurance
products, and property and casualty insurance products in the
U.S.
HOME DEPOT: Employees' Defined Contribution Plan Lawsuit Revived
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by Home Depot employees against
former company chief executive officer Robert Nardelli and
several directors has been revived by a federal appellate court
decision that gives a life line to the retirees while being pro-
business, two lawyers from Atlanta's Ford & Harrison who studied
the case told Rachel Tobin Ramos of The Atlanta Journal-
Constitution.
According to the report, the lawsuit alleges that CEO Nardelli
and other Home Depot directors like co-founder Ken Langone,
mismanaged the employees' defined contribution plan by
purchasing Home Depot stock even though the executives backdated
stock options. As a result, the suit claims, Home Depot's share
price deflated when the backdating schemed was revealed, making
the value of the employees' stock portfolio plummet.
The report relates that the lawsuit, filed under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, was initially dismissed by the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in
Atlanta. However, on July 31, 2008, the 11th Circuit Court of
Appeals in Atlanta partially ruled in favor of the employees'
class action, which ruling means that the case can move forward.
"We're pretty happy with the result," Jeffrey Norton, Esq., of
Harwood Feffer, in New York, who represents the Home Depot
employees, told Atlanta Journal.
The class includes any employee since 2001 that invested in the
401(k) portfolio with Home Depot stock, Mr. Norton said. That
includes current employees. There are about 330,000 U.S. Home
Depot employees.
Mr. Norton said the basis of the claim is that Home Depot
employees' retirement portfolios would have done much better if
the company had bought different stock. He said that it is
called the "alternative investment" theory. "In ERISA cases,"
he explained, "the damage is measured not by stock price, but on
how well this individual or plan would have done had the money
been prudently invested in a better-performing stock."
Mr. Norton added that tens of millions of dollars are at stake
if his side wins. The claims, he said, most likely would be
paid from insurance money, not from Mr. Nardelli's, Mr.
Langone's or Home Depot's wallets.
Atlanta Journal says that the two Ford & Harrison lawyers --
Joelle Sharman, Esq., a partner who works with ERISA cases, and
Tiffany Downs, Esq., both not involved in the case -- see the
appellate court ruling as pro-business because it forces
employees to complain first to the company before filing a
lawsuit.
"I like the opinion," said Ms. Sharman, adding that she thinks
the ruling could have repercussions far beyond the Home Depot
case.
"It puts all these extra procedural hurdles in front of the
retiree and it gives the employer a chance to fix the error if
it did have an error," Ms. Downs added.
According to Atlanta Journal, Norton must now file an
administrative appeal with the Home Depot committee that
oversees the retirees' investment portfolio.
"We're pleased that the Court of Appeals said that the
plaintiffs must now pursue any of their claims outside of the
courtroom," Home Depot spokesman Ron DeFeo told Atlanta Journal.
"We will address their claims in the appropriate administrative
forum."
Atlanta Journal recalls that several lawsuits were brought by
employee and investor anger at Mr. Nardelli, who left Home Depot
in January 2007 with a $210-million severance package after a
tumultuous six years as CEO. Mr. Nardelli is now CEO of the
privately held Chrysler auto giant.
INSWEB CORP: Continues to Face Securities Lawsuits in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
InsWeb Corporation is a defendant in:
i) a class action lawsuit that alleges InsWeb violated
certain federal securities laws at the time of its
initial public offering;
ii) a securities lawsuit alleging certain officers and
directors and significant shareholders violated the
short swing trading prohibition of Section 16(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act; and
iii) a patent infringement lawsuit in the eastern district of
Texas.
According to the InsWeb's recent 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, the company cannot
accurately predict the ultimate outcome of these matters at this
time and therefore, cannot estimate the range of probable loss,
if any, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation.
InsWeb believes it has meritorious defenses; however it cannot
assure that it will prevail in any of these actions.
An unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse effect on
InsWeb's financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows.
InsWeb Corporation operates an online insurance marketplace that
enables consumers to shop online and obtain insurance company-
sponsored quotes for various insurance products. The insurance
companies that participate in InsWeb's online insurance
marketplace offer automobile, homeowners, and term life
insurance products. InsWeb also has contractual relationships
with third-party providers for term life, small business,
renters, condominium insurance, home warranty, recreational
vehicle, motorcycle, critical illness, and health insurance. The
company was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Gold River,
California.
ISRAELI BANKS: Faces ILS6.6BB Suit in Tel Aviv for Selling Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of investors in provident and mutual funds filed a
class-action complaint in Tel Aviv District Court against:
-- Bank Hapoalim (TASE: POLI; LSE:80OA),
-- Bank Leumi (TASE: LUMI),
-- Mizrahi-Tefahot and
-- Yahav
claiming the money the banks received from insurance companies
for the sale of the provident and mutual funds belongs not to
the banks but to the investors, Hila Raz of the Haaretz Daily
reports.
The banks received billions of shekels for the funds, the report
says.
Haaretz Daily recounts that the plaintiffs claim ownership of
the funds on the grounds that they invested in participation
units, rendering them and not the banks the de facto owners of
the funds.
The capital market reform, shaped by a committee headed by
former treasury director-general Joseph Bachar, forced the banks
to sell their holdings in provident and mutual funds to prevent
conflicts of interest, the report states.
The plaintiffs say that the new fund managers jacked up
management fees, even doubling them, to shorten the term of
returning their investment.
The plaintiffs also urge the commissioner of capital markets,
insurance and savings at the Finance Ministry, and the Israel
Securities Authority to join forces with them.
MCKESSON CORP: Douglas County Joins Pharmaceutical Pricing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas County Commissioners this week agreed to file a lawsuit
against major pharmaceutical distributor McKesson Corporation
and another company alleging a scheme to inflate wholesale
prices of prescription drugs, George Diepenbrock writes for
LJWorld.com.
According to the report, the commissioners expect their claim
for damages against McKesson and First DataBank Inc. to become
part of a class-action lawsuit in federal court, filed in
Boston.
County Counselor Evan Ice told LJWorld.com that the
commissioners allege that prescription drugs rates were too high
in 2008 and several years before. The county is self-insured,
and commissioners each year set aside funds to pay employees'
health-care claims.
The report relates that after an executive session,
Commissioners Charles Jones and Bob Johnson voted to retain the
law firm Kotchen and Low of Washington, D.C., while attorneys
for Lawrence-based Stevens and Brand will serve as local
counsel.
Commissioner Jere McElhaney, on the other hand, abstained from
joining in the case because he said he has a relative who works
in the pharmaceutical industry. He also said he does not
support class-action lawsuits.
LJWorld.com notes that a similar federal lawsuit was filed in
2005 in Boston alleging the same two companies artificially
inflated prescription drug prices from 2001 to 2005. That
lawsuit is pending.
As for this new case, Chris Burger, Esq., of Stevens and Brand
told commissioners that the Washington law firm wanted the
county's lawsuit on file immediately in federal court in
Massachusetts. He said attorneys can seek class certification
in the lawsuit over the next two months.
Mr. Burger also said that attorneys have until October to
discuss a settlement in the case.
MODINE MANUFACTURING: Judge Asks for Change in "Gates" Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania is asking both parties in a
purported class action suit filed against Modine Manufacturing
Co., as well as against Rohm & Haas Co., Morton International,
and Huntsman Corp., to tweak a tentative settlement reached in
the suit, Kevin Craver writes for the Northwest Herald.
The case, "Gates, et al. v. Rohm and Haas Co., et al., Case No.
06-1743," involves allegations of personal injury from exposure
to solvents that were allegedly released to groundwater and air
for an undetermined period of time.
The suit seeks damages for medical monitoring and property value
diminution for a putative class of residents of a community that
are allegedly at risk for personal injuries as a result of
exposure to this same allegedly contaminated groundwater and
air. The plaintiffs' counsel had threatened to file further
personal injury cases.
The company mediated the cases in December 2007 and has executed
agreements with the plaintiffs' counsel settling the class
action (Class Action Reporter, June 4, 2008).
The settlement, which was tentatively reached in January, calls
for Modine to pay $1.4 million toward establishing a medical
monitoring fund for village residents wanting an MRI (Class
Action Reporter, July 2, 2008).
Another $100,000 would go to eligible village landowners for
property damage relief. The remaining $500,000 would cover
court-approved legal fees and the cost of implementing the
settlement.
According to Northwest Herald, the medical-monitoring class
includes anyone who lived in village limits for a cumulative
year between Jan. 1, 1968, and Dec. 31, 2002. The property
damage class includes anyone who owned property in the village
between April 25, 2006, and Jan. 18, 2008. Eligible residents
have until 30 days after Judge Pratter approves the settlement
to apply.
But Judge Pratter, at an earlier hearing, asked that the
settlement between the plaintiffs' attorney and Modine emphasize
consulting with residents' physicians more than seeking an MRI.
The proposed settlement never required village residents wanting
an MRI to use the company, plaintiff attorney Aaron Freiwald,
Esq., said.
Open Advanced MRI offered discounted rates after Mr. Freiwald
and Modine announced in January that the company would settle
for $2 million toward medical monitoring and property damage
relief.
"Nobody was ever going to require people to go to any particular
doctor or any particular company, and that's the way it was
always going to be, and that's the way it's going to be now,"
Mr. Freiwald said.
Judge Pratter also asked Modine and Mr. Freiwald to send a draft
of the notice that will go out should the court give final
approval to the settlement by Aug. 15.
The judge also is expected to rule this year on whether the
class-action lawsuit against Rohm and Haas can proceed to a
civil trial.
The suit is "Gates, et al. v. Rohm and Haas Company, et al.,
Case No. 06-1743," filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Gene E.K. Pratter,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Aaron J. Freiwald, Esq. (ajf@layserfreiwald.com)
Layser & Freiwald PC
1500 Walnut St., 18th Fl.
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: 215-875-8000
Representing the defendants is:
Albert G. Bixler, Esq. (abixler@eckertseamans.com)
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC
1515 Market Street, 9th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: 215-851-8412
NORTEL NETWORKS: Settlement Claims Administration Complete
----------------------------------------------------------
Administration of the settlement claims in the US$2.4-billion
settlement in a U.S. global class-action suit against Nortel
Networks Corp. is now substantially complete, according to the
company's recent 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Approximately 4% of the settlement shares were issued to certain
plaintiffs' counsel in the first quarter of 2007. Almost all of
the remaining settlement shares were distributed in the second
quarter of 2008 to claimants and plaintiffs' counsel as approved
by the courts. As of June 30, 2008, approximately 3% of the
settlement shares remained to be distributed, and will be
distributed on an ongoing basis through the claims
administration process.
The cash portion of the settlement that was placed in escrow in
2006 has now been distributed by the claims administrator to all
of the approved claimants, net of an amount held in reserve by
the claims administrator to cover contingencies and certain
settlement costs.
Case History
Subsequent to Nortel's announcement on Feb. 15, 2001, in which
it provided revised guidance for its financial performance for
the 2001 fiscal year and the first quarter of 2001, Nortel and
certain of its then-current officers and directors were named as
defendants in several purported class action lawsuits in the
U.S. and Canada (Nortel I Class Actions).
These lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, where all the U.S. lawsuits were
consolidated, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Supreme
Court of British Columbia and the Quebec Superior Court were
filed on behalf of shareholders who acquired securities of
Nortel during certain periods between October 24, 2000 and
February 15, 2001.
The lawsuits allege, among other things, violations of U.S.
federal and Canadian provincial securities laws. These matters
also have been the subject of review by Canadian and U.S.
securities regulatory authorities.
Subsequent to Nortel's announcement on March 10, 2004, in which
it indicated it was likely that Nortel would need to revise its
previously announced unaudited results for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2003, and the results reported in certain of its
quarterly reports in 2003, and to restate its previously filed
financial results for one or more earlier periods, Nortel and
certain of its then-current and former officers and directors
were named as defendants in several purported class action
lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada (Nortel II Class Actions).
These lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and
the Quebec Superior Court were filed on behalf of shareholders
who acquired securities of Nortel during certain periods between
Feb. 16, 2001, and July 28, 2004.
The lawsuits allege, among other things, violations of U.S.
federal and Canadian provincial securities laws, negligence,
misrepresentations, oppressive conduct, insider trading and
violations of Canadian corporation and competition laws in
connection with certain of Nortel's financial results.
These matters are also the subject of investigations by Canadian
and U.S. securities regulatory and criminal investigative
authorities.
During 2006, Nortel entered into agreements to settle all of the
Nortel I Class Actions and Nortel II Class Actions (Global Class
Action Settlement) concurrently, except one related Canadian
action.
In December 2006 and January 2007, the Global Class Action
Settlement was approved by the courts in New York, Ontario,
British Columbia and Quebec, and became effective on March 20,
2007.
Under the terms of the Global Class Action Settlement, Nortel
will pay $575 million in cash and issue approximately 62,866,775
common shares of Nortel (representing approximately 14.5% of
Nortel's common shares outstanding as of Feb. 7, 2006, the date
an agreement in principle was reached with the plaintiffs in the
U.S. class action lawsuits), reflecting Nortel's 1 for 10 common
share consolidation on Dec. 1, 2006, to the plaintiffs.
Nortel will also contribute to the plaintiffs one-half of any
recovery from its ongoing litigation against certain of its
former senior officers who were terminated for cause in 2004,
which seeks the return of payments made to them in 2003 under
Nortel's bonus plan.
The total settlement amount will include all plaintiffs' court-
approved attorneys' fees. On June 1, 2006, Nortel placed
$575 million plus accrued interest of $5 million into escrow and
has classified this amount as restricted cash.
As a result of the Global Class Action Settlement, Nortel
established a litigation reserve and recorded a charge in the
amount of $2,474 million to its full-year 2005 financial
results, $575 million of which related to the cash portion of
the Global Class Action Settlement, while $1,899 million related
to the equity component.
The equity component of the litigation reserve has been adjusted
each quarter since February 2006 to reflect the fair value of
the common shares issuable.
The effective date of the Global Class Action Settlement was
March 20, 2007, on which date the number of shares issuable in
connection with the equity component was fixed.
As such, a final measurement date occurred for the equity
component of the settlement and the value of the shares issuable
was fixed at their fair value of $1,626 million on the effective
date.
Nortel recorded a shareholder litigation settlement recovery of
$54 million during the first quarter of 2007 as a result of a
final fair value adjustment for the equity component of the
Global Class Action Settlement made on March 20, 2007.
In addition, the litigation reserve related to the equity
component was reclassified to additional paid-in capital within
shareholders' equity on March 20, 2007 as the number of issuable
shares was fixed on that date. The reclassified amount will be
further reclassified to common shares as the shares are issued.
At the effective date of March 20, 2007, Nortel also removed the
restricted cash and corresponding litigation reserve related to
the cash portion of the settlement as the funds are controlled
by the escrow agents and Nortel's obligation has been
extinguished.
Nortel's insurers have agreed to pay $229 million in cash toward
the settlement and Nortel has agreed to certain indemnification
obligations with its insurers.
Nortel believes that it is unlikely that these indemnification
obligations will materially increase its total cash payment
obligations under the Global Class Action Settlement.
Under the terms of the Global Class Action Settlement, Nortel
also agreed to certain corporate governance enhancements. These
enhancements include the codification of certain of Nortel's
current governance practices in the written mandate for its
Board of Directors and the inclusion in its Statement of
Corporate Governance Practices contained in Nortel's annual
proxy circular and proxy statement of disclosure regarding
certain other governance practices.
In August 2006, Nortel reached a separate agreement in principle
to settle a class action in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice that is not covered by the Global Class Action
Settlement, subject to court approval (Ontario Settlement).
In February 2007, the court approved the Ontario Settlement.
The settlement did not have a material impact on Nortel's
financial condition and an accrued liability was recorded in the
third quarter of 2006.
Nortel Networks Corp. -- http://www.nortel.com/-- is a global
supplier of networking solutions serving both service provider
and enterprise customers. Nortel's networking solutions include
hardware and software products and services. It designs,
develops, engineers, markets, sells, supplies, licenses,
installs, services and supports these networking solutions
worldwide. Nortel operates in four segments: Mobility and
Converged Core Networks (MCCN), Enterprise Solutions (ES), Metro
Ethernet Networks (MEN) and Global Services (GS).
ROHM & HAAS: Faces Pa. Air and Groundwater Contamination Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rohm & Haas Co. continues to face a purported class-action
lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania over alleged toxic contamination of air and
groundwater by one of its installations located about one mile
north of McCullom Lake Village.
The suit entitled, "Gates et al. v. Rohm and Haas company et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-01743-GP," was filed by Glenn and Donna
Gates on April 25, 2006.
The suit seeks certification of a class comprised of the owners
and residents of about 500 homes in McCullom Lake Village,
seeking medical monitoring and compensation for alleged property
value diminution, among other things.
The company reported no development in the matter in its
July 25, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "Gates et al. v. Rohm and Haas company et al., Case
No. 2:06-cv-01743-GP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Gene E.K. Pratter,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Aaron J. Freiwald, Esq. (ajf@layserfreiwald.com)
Layser & Freiwald PC
1500 Walnut St., 18th Fl.
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: 215-875-8000
Representing the defendants are:
Jennifer A. Battle (jbattle@schnader.com)
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
1600 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7286
Phone: 215-751-2647
- and -
Albert G. Bixler, Esq. (abixler@eckertseamans.com)
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC
Two Liberty Place 22nd Floor
50 South 16th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: 215-851-8412
ROHM & HAAS: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Kentucky Plant Pollution
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rohm & Haas Co. continues to face a purported class action
lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky captioned, "Donaway et al. v. Rohm and Haas Co.,
Louisville Plant, Case No. 3:06-cv-00575-JGH."
The complaint was filed on Nov. 9 2006, by individuals alleging
that their persons or properties were invaded by particulate and
air contaminants from Rohm's Louisville plant. It seeks class
action certification as there are hundreds of potential
plaintiffs residing in neighborhoods within two miles of the
plant.
The company reported no development in the matter in its
July 25, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is the "Donaway et al. v. Rohm and Haas company,
Louisville Plant, Case No. 3:06-cv-00575-JGH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Judge John
G. Heyburn, II, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Mark K. Gray, Esq. (mkgrayatty@aol.com)
Gray & White
500 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 1200 PNC Plaza
Louisville, KY 40202
Phone: 502-585-2060
Fax: 502-581-1933
Representing the defendant is:
Hiram Ely, III, Esq. (he@gdm.com)
Greenebaum Doll & McDonald PLLC
3500 National City Tower, 101 South Fifth Street
Louisville, KY 40202-3103
Phone: 502-587-3562
Fax: 502-540-2159
ROHM & HAAS: Indiana Pension Plan Lawsuit Returns to Lower Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit involving participants in Rohm & Haas Co.'s pension
plan has returned to a lower court after the U.S. Supreme Court
denied a petition to hear an appeal by the company in the
matter.
On Dec. 22, 2005, a federal judge in Indiana issued an order
granting a class of participants in the Rohm and Haas pension
plan the right to a cost-of-living adjustment as part of the
retirement benefit for those who elect a lump sum benefit.
The defendants had argued that this decision contravenes the
plain language of the plan, which clearly and expressly excludes
a discretionary COLA for participants who elect a lump sum
benefit.
In August 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision that participants in
the plan who elected a lump sum benefit during a class period
have the right to a COLA as part of their retirement benefit.
In March 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the company's
petition to hear its appeal, and the case now returns to the
lower court for further proceedings.
When the proceedings in the lower court have concluded, the
pension trust will be required to pay certain COLA costs.
The company reported no further development in the matter in its
July 25, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
Rohm & Haas Co. -- http://www.rohmhaas.com/-- is a global
specialty materials company whose portfolio of global businesses
includes specialty materials, electronic materials and salt.
The company's products enable the creation of consumer goods and
other products found in a segment of dynamic markets, including
building and construction, electronics, packaging and paper,
industrial and other, transportation, household and personal
care, water and food. It has operations with approximately 100
manufacturing and 33 research facilities in 27 countries.
ROHM & HAAS: Still Faces Multiple Plastics Additives Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rohm & Haas Co. and several others continue to face several
purported class-action lawsuits alleging antitrust violations
over the sale of plastics additives, according to the company's
July 25, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The company is a party to 13 private federal court civil
antitrust actions related to plastics additives matters, nine of
which have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, including one that originally
had been filed in the State Court in Ohio and another involving
an individual direct purchaser claim that was filed in federal
court in Ohio.
Eight of these actions have been brought against Rohm and Haas
and other producers of plastics additives products by direct
purchasers of these products and seek civil damages as a result
of alleged violations of the antitrust laws. The named
plaintiffs in seven of these actions have sued on behalf of all
similarly situated purchasers of plastics additives products.
The named plaintiff in the eighth action sued in its individual
capacity, and that case has been resolved.
Federal law provides that persons who have been injured by
violations of federal antitrust law may recover three times
their actual damages plus attorneys' fees.
In the fall of 2006, the District Court issued an order in the
consolidated case certifying six subclasses of direct purchasers
premised on the types of plastics additives products that have
been identified in the litigation.
On April 9, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit agreed to hear an appeal from the District Court's
certification order.
As a result of the appeal, the District Court has stayed
indefinitely the consolidated direct purchaser cases.
The ninth action involves an indirect purchaser class action
antitrust complaint filed in the District Court in August 2005,
consolidating all but one of several indirect purchaser cases
that previously had been filed in various state courts,
including Tennessee, Vermont, Nebraska, Arizona, Kansas and
Ohio.
The District Court dismissed from the consolidated action the
claims arising from the states of Nebraska, Kansas and Ohio, and
allowed the claims from Arizona, Tennessee and Vermont to
continue.
Because of the significant effect that the decision of the Third
Circuit on the appeal of class certification in the direct
purchaser cases may have on the indirect purchaser class, the
parties agreed to stay this case pending the outcome of the
appeal.
In June 2008, four additional indirect purchaser class actions
were filed in various federal courts on behalf of classes of
indirect purchasers in Minnesota, Florida, the District of
Columbia and Massachusetts.
The company anticipate that these actions will be consolidated
with the ongoing litigation in the District Court in
Philadelphia.
The remaining state court indirect class action is pending in
California and is dormant.
Rohm & Haas Co. -- http://www.rohmhaas.com/-- is a global
specialty materials company whose portfolio of global businesses
includes specialty materials, electronic materials and salt.
The company's products enable the creation of consumer goods and
other products found in a segment of dynamic markets, including
building and construction, electronics, packaging and paper,
industrial and other, transportation, household and personal
care, water and food. It has operations with approximately 100
manufacturing and 33 research facilities in 27 countries.
SHASTA BUILDERS: Calif. Court Dismisses Surplus Premium Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On July 22, 2008, Judge Peter Lichtman of the Los Angeles County
Superior Court dismissed a $100-million class action lawsuit
filed last year against Shasta Builders' Exchange, Shasta CEO
Kent Dagg, State Compensation Insurance Fund, and former State
Compensation Insurance Fund officers, David Benda writes for The
Record Searchlight.
ACRO Constructors of Burbank launched the suit on May 22, 2007,
on behalf of all State Fund policyholders, estimated to be about
230,000.
Mr. Dagg and others were accused of diverting at least
$25 million in surplus premium proceeds to their organizations
over four years, money that should have gone back to
policyholders as dividends, according to the complaint filed by
ACRO Constructors of Burbank.
The lawsuit sought a jury trial, $25 million in restitution, and
$75 million in compensatory and punitive damages.
State Compensation Insurance Fund spokeswoman Jennifer Vargen
said, "The court's decision affirms State Fund's board of
director's authority to uphold our fiduciary responsibility to
our policyholders and their insured workers."
State Fund serves as California's workers compensation insurance
carrier of last resort. The quasi-governmental organization has
offices across the state, including a branch in Redding near
Shasta View Drive and Highway 44 that employs more than 200
claims adjusters, fraud investigators and others.
The report notes that Mr. Dagg served on State Fund's five-
member board from 2004 until he resigned in November 2006.
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Grand Theft Auto Settlement Hits a Snag
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Shirley Wohl Kram of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York has put the brakes on a settlement
that was reached in the case captioned "In Re: Grand
Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation, Case No. 1:06-md-
01739-SWK," which was filed against Take-Two Interactive
Software, Inc., and its subsidiary, Rockstar Games, various
reports say.
GigaLaw.com says that Judge Kram, in a recent decision, wrote
that purchasers of the game could not be lumped together in a
class action.
Judge Kram's ruling stated that the claims of members of the
proposed class would be affected by the law in each purchaser's
home state and therefore could not be resolved in a single
proceeding in federal court in New York, Jonathan D. Glater of
the New York Times recounts.
"Accordingly, the court decertifies the settlement class on the
grounds that common issues do not predominate over
individualized issues," the judge wrote.
The judge's latest decision undermines a settlement agreement
reached between lawyers for purchasers of the game who contended
they were offended by the hidden scenes, on the one hand, and
lawyers for the game’s makers, Take-Two Interactive Software and
Rockstar Games.
NY Times states that a lawyer for the game makers, Jeffrey S.
Jacobson, Esq., at Debevoise & Plimpton in New York, said that
the decision was under review. A lawyer representing the
plaintiffs could not immediately be reached for comment.
Case Background
In July 2005, the defendants -- Take-Two Interactive Software
and its subsidiary, Rockstar Games -- were subjects of four
purported class action complaints (Class Action Reporter,
May 28, 2008).
Two of the four complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, one was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the
other was filed in the Circuit Court in St. Clair County,
Illinois (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 11, 2008).
The plaintiffs, alleged purchasers of the defendants' Grand
Theft Auto: San Andreas First Edition video game manufactured
before July 20, 2005, assert that the company engaged in
consumer deception, false advertising and breached an implied
warranty of merchantability and were unjustly enriched as a
result of the company's alleged failure to disclose that Grand
Theft Auto: San Andreas contained "hidden" content, which
resulted in the game receiving a Mature 17+ (M) rating from the
Entertainment Software Rating Board rather than an Adults Only
18+ rating.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation later transferred
all the cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, which consolidated them under the caption,
"In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation (No. II),
06-MD-1739 (SWK)(MHD)."
Settlement
In November 2007, the defendants reached an agreement to settle
the matter.
Under the terms of the settlement, class members will be able to
claim benefits if they swear that they:
(a) bought a copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
before July 20, 2005;
(b) were offended and upset by the ability of consumers to
modify and alter the game's content using the third-
party Hot Coffee modification;
(c) would not have bought the game had they known that
consumers could modify and alter the game's content
using the third-party Hot Coffee modification; and
(d) would have returned the game, upon learning the game
could be modified and altered, if they thought this
possible.
Settlement class members who attest to these facts may apply for
benefits that range from an exchange of the game disk for an
edited copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas to a cash payment
Between $5 to $35 for consumers who submit detailed proofs of
purchase.
In late 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement
(Class Action Reporter, April 18, 2008).
Objection to Legal Fees
Despite getting preliminary approval, NY Times relates that the
settlement, particularly the legal fees, have drawn an objection
from a game-player who just happens to be a lawyer as well.
Seeking to scuttle the deal is Theodore H. Frank, Esq., who
directs the Legal Center for the Public Interest at the American
Enterprise Institute, where he writes about class actions,
liability and other topics.
NY Times says that that the lawyers who brought the class
action, namely Seth R. Lesser, Esq., and his colleagues at 10
other law firms, have asked for more than $1.3 million in legal
Fees.
"There are two possibilities," Mr. Frank told NY Times of the
settlement. "Possibility one is they have a meritorious lawsuit
and they're selling out the class for attorneys' fees. The
other possibility is that, and frankly I think this is the more
likely possibility, they brought a meritless lawsuit that had no
business being brought to court at all."
GTA Class Action Settlement on the net:
http://www.gtasettlement.com/
The suit is "In Re: Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer
Litigation, Case No. 1:06-md-01739-SWK," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Shirley Wohl Kram, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
Locks Law Firm PLLC
110 East 55th St.
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 888-8LLF-NYC
Representing the company is:
Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq.
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
919 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-909-6000
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Settles 32 Securities Fraud Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International has settled 32 purported securities class
action lawsuits arising from actions alleged to have been taken
by its prior management.
All legal contingencies that could have affected the final order
approving the settlement expired on February 21, 2008.
The settlement did not resolve all securities cases, and several
remain outstanding. In addition, the settlement did not resolve
claims arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
and the lawsuits arising thereunder.
If the unresolved securities proceedings, including the opt-out
cases, were to be determined adversely to Tyco International,
the company's share of any additional potential losses, which
are not presently estimable, may have a material adverse effect
on our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.
Under the terms of the settlement, the plaintiffs agreed to
release all claims against Tyco International, the other
settling defendants, and ten other individuals in consideration
for the payment of $2,975 million from Tyco International to the
certified class.
The deadline for deciding not to participate in the class
settlement was September 28, 2007.
As of such date, Tyco International received opt-out notices
from individuals and entities totaling approximately 4% of the
shares owned by class members, including shares owned by the
State of New Jersey pension funds mentioned below.
A number of these individuals and entities have filed claims
separately against Tyco International and Tyco International,
Covidien, and Tyco Electronics.
Any judgments resulting from such claims, or from claims that
are filed in the future, would not reduce the settlement amount.
Generally, the claims asserted by these plaintiffs include
claims similar to those asserted by the settling plaintiffs;
namely, violations of the disclosure provisions of federal
securities laws.
Tyco International intends to vigorously defend any litigation
resulting from opt-out claims. It is not possible at this time
to predict the final outcome or to estimate the amount of loss
or range of possible loss, if any, that might result from an
adverse resolution of the asserted or unasserted claims from
individuals that have opted out.
Tyco International Ltd. -- http://www.tyco.com/-- is a global,
diversified company that provides vital products and services to
customers in five business segments: Fire & Security,
Electronics, Healthcare, Engineered Products & Services, and
Plastics & Adhesives. With 2004 revenue of $40 billion, Tyco
employs approximately 250,000 people worldwide.
UNITED RENTALS: Reaches $27.5MM Deal in Conn. Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Rentals, Inc., reached a $27.5-million settlement in a
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against
it in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut,
according to the company's July 29, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.
Initially, three purported class-action lawsuits were filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut. The plaintiff in each of the lawsuits initially
sought to sue on behalf of a purported class comprised of
purchasers of the company's securities from Oct. 23, 2003, to
Aug. 30, 2004.
The lawsuits initially named as the defendants the company, its
former chairman, its vice chairman and then-chief executive
officer, its former president and chief financial officer, and
its former corporate controller.
These initial complaints alleged, among other things, that
certain of the company's SEC filings and other public statements
contained false and misleading statements which resulted in
damages to the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class
when they purchased the company's securities.
On the basis of those allegations, the plaintiffs in each action
asserted claims (a) against all defendants under Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and (b) against
one or more of the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.
The complaints sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs
and expenses.
On Feb. 1, 2005, the Court entered an order consolidating the
three actions. The consolidated action is now entitled, "In re
United Rentals, Inc. Securities Litigation."
The Court then appointed City of Pontiac Policeman's and
Fireman's Retirement System as lead plaintiff for the purported
class.
On June 5, 2006, pursuant to a schedule agreed to by the parties
and approved by the Court, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint, which:
-- added allegations relating to, among other things, the
conclusions of the Special Committee and other matters
disclosed in the 2005 Form 10-K,
-- amended the purported class period to include
purchasers of the company's securities from Feb. 28,
2001, to Aug. 30, 2004, and
-- named as an additional defendant the company's first
chief financial officer.
In September 2006, the company and certain of the individual
defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
in this action. Briefing with respect to these motions is now
complete.
On March 10, 2008, the company announced that it had entered
into a memorandum of understanding with the lead plaintiff's
counsel to settle the case.
The memorandum of understanding provides that the claims of the
purported plaintiff class will be settled for a cash payment of
$27.5 million.
The suit is "In re United Rentals, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 04-CV-1615," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Judge Christopher F. Droney, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Erin Green Comite, Esq. (ecomite@scott-scott.com)
Scott & Scott
108 Norwich Ave., P.O. Box 192
Colchester, CT 06415
Phone: 860-537-5537
Fax: 869-537-4432
- and -
Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. (nancy@snlaw.net)
Schatz & Nobel
One Corporate Center, 20 Church St., Suite 1700
Hartford, CT 06103
Phone: 860-493-6292
Fax: 860-493-6290
Representing the defendants are:
David M. Bizar, Esq. (dmbizar@dbh.com)
Day, Berry & Howard
Hartford, CT 06103-3499
Phone: 860-275-0648
Fax: 860-275-0343
- and -
Alan R. Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@kramerlevin.com)
Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel
1177 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Phone: 212-715-9100
UNITED RENTALS: Faces Consolidated Lawsuit Over Cerberus Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Rentals, Inc., is facing a consolidated class-action
lawsuit in Connecticut over a merger agreement between the
company and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.
Subsequent to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 announcement that
affiliates of Cerberus had notified the company that they were
not prepared to proceed with the purchase of the company on the
terms set forth in a merger agreement, three putative class
action lawsuits were filed against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut.
The plaintiff in each of the lawsuits sought to sue on behalf of
a purported class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the company's securities between Aug. 29, 2007, and Nov. 14,
2007.
The lawsuits named as defendants the company, its directors and
certain of its officers and alleged, among other things, that
the named plaintiff and members of the purported class suffered
damages when they purchased or otherwise acquired securities
issued by the company, as a result of false and misleading
statements and material omissions relating to the contemplated
merger with affiliates of Cerberus, contained in:
-- proxy materials that the company disseminated and
filed with the SEC in anticipation of the Oct. 19,
2007 special meeting of stockholders; and
-- certain of the company's filings with the SEC and
other public statements.
On the basis of those allegations, plaintiff in each action
asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 thereunder; and against the
individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The complaints in these actions sought unspecified compensatory
damages, costs, expenses and fees.
On Feb. 7, 2008, the Court entered an order consolidating the
three actions and appointing the Institutional Investor Group,
consisting of First New York Securities, L.L.C. and Omni
Partners LLP, as lead plaintiffs for the purported class.
The actions are now consolidated under the caption, "Vincent
DeCicco v. United Rentals, Inc., et al."
On March 24, 2008, pursuant to a schedule approved by the Court,
lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which,
among other things:
-- amended the purported class period to include
purchasers of the company's publicly traded securities
from July 23, 2007, to Nov. 14, 2007;
-- dropped as defendants one of the company's officers
and all but one of the company's directors;
-- named as additional defendants Cerberus, certain of
its affiliates, its chief executive officer and one of
its managing directors; and
-- withdrew the previously asserted claim under Section
14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder.
On May 16, 2008, all defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in this action. Briefing with
respect to those motions is complete.
The suit is "Vincent DeCicco v. United Rentals, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:07-cv-01708-JCH," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut, Judge Janet C. Hall, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Robert N. Cappucci, Esq. (rcappucci@Entwistle-Law.com)
Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP
280 Park Ave., 26th Fl. West
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-894-7200
Fax: 212-894-7272
- and -
Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. (jabraham@aftlaw.com)
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
New York, NY 10119
Phone: 212-279-5050
Fax: 212-279-3655
Representing the defendants are:
David J. Elliott, Esq. (djelliott@daypitney.com)
Day Pitney LLP
242 Trumbull St.
Hartford, CT 06103-1212
Phone: 860-275-0100
Fax: 860-275-0343
- and -
Alan R. Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@kramerlevin.com)
Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel
1177 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Phone: 212-715-9300
Fax: 212-715-8000
UNITED RENTALS: Parties in "Lefari" Reach MOU Settling Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case "Donald Lefari v. United Rentals, Inc.
et al.," have entered into a memorandum of understanding that
settles the matter, according to the company's July 29, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
Following the company's July 23, 2007 announcement of the merger
agreement with affiliates of Cerberus, a putative class-action
lawsuit against the proposed acquisition was filed.
Specifically, the putative class action complaint was filed in
Connecticut State Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-
Norwalk, on July 23, 2007.
The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all common
stockholders of United Rentals names as defendants the company,
all of the company's directors, and Cerberus, and sought to
enjoin the proposed acquisition of the company by affiliates of
Cerberus.
On Sept. 19, 2007, the parties to the Lefari action entered into
a memorandum of understanding to settle the action and a
settlement agreement was expected to be negotiated by the
parties.
The company reported no further development in the case in its
regulatory filing.
United Rentals, Inc. -- http://www.ur.com/-- is an equipment
rental company. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, excluding
its traffic control operations, the company's network consisted
of 697 rental locations in the U.S., Canada and Mexico. It
offers for rent over 2,900 classes of rental equipment,
including heavy machines and hand tools, to customers that
include construction and industrial companies, manufacturers,
utilities, municipalities, homeowners and others.
VALUECLICK: $1MM Settlement in Adware Suit Gets Preliminary Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
A preliminary settlement has been approved in a class-action
case against ad network ValueClick and its subsidiaries
Commission Junction and Be Free, Jacqui Cheng writes for
Arstechnica.
The case, which originated as two separate cases brought on
behalf of the publishers and advertisers that worked with
ValueClick, focused on the presence of adware within the
Commission Junction or Be Free network and the company's
inaction when it came to holding publishers to a code of
conduct, the report recounts.
An earlier Class Action Report report recounted that the two
putative class action suits were filed April 20, 2007, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by
Mireille Carrier and Settlement Recovery Center. The suits
allege that ValueClick, Commission Junction, and Be Free engaged
in unfair business practices resulting in harm to affiliates and
merchants on their affiliate networks. According to the
complaints, ValueClick failed to take reasonable steps to
address malicious adware and adware users on its networks (Class
Action Reporter, June 28, 2007).
Arstechnica notes that Adware creators essentially "hijacked"
commissions from other advertisers and publishers on
ValueClick's network, the lawsuit alleged. Once that happened,
ValueClick and gang failed to disclose the existence of this
commission theft to its legit partners, resulting in what the
plaintiffs believe were relatively significant losses.
ValueClick denied the allegations and argued that it had no
legal duty to the plaintiffs to monitor for noncompliant
software or to restore any lost commissions due to adware, the
report relates. The company also said that its monitoring
systems already satisfied its legal obligations to advertising
and publishing partners, and that no further action was
necessary.
As part of the settlement, Arstechnica notes, ValueClick does
not admit to any of the allegations, but it has agreed to pay
$1 million into a settlement fund that will be used to
compensate class members.
In order to avoid future litigation, the company and its
affiliates have not only agreed to pay into the $1 million
settlement fund, but also to an independent audit of the
network's practices regarding the handling of adware. It also
agreed to begin tracking more data and to make improvements to
its Network Quality procedures. Partners that are under
investigation for hijacking clicks using adware will have their
click data automatically preserved for further investigation.
A report by the CAR on July 9, 2008, stated that the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California had set a
court date of January 2009 to consider final approval of the
settlement.
The suit "Settlement Recovery Center LLC v. Valueclick Inc. et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-02638-FMC-CT," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
Florence-Marie Cooper presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. (jefff@hbsslaw.com)
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: 510-725-3000
- and -
Kassra Powell Nassiri, Esq.
(knassiri@nassiri-jung.com)
Nassiri and Jung
251 Kearny Street, Suite 501
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone: 415-373-5699
Representing the defendants is:
S. Ashlie Beringer, Esq. (aberinger@gibsondunn.com)
Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP
1801 California Street, Suite 4200
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303-298-5718
VISA CHECK/MASTERMONEY ANTITRUST: Sept. 15 Claims Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York set
a Sept. 15, 2008 deadline for claimants to file a claim form or
cashing in a claim in the settlement of the lawsuit entitled,
"In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation, Case 96-
5238."
Case Background
The lawsuit, which is also known as "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et
al. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. and MasterCard International, Inc.," is
a class-action lawsuit that was filed and litigated before the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 11, 2008).
The class consists of all businesses and organizations in the
U.S. that accepted Visa and MasterCard debit and credit cards
for payment at any time during the period Oct. 25, 1992, to
June 21, 2003.
The class plaintiffs claimed that, through their "Honor All
Cards" policies, Visa and MasterCard forced merchants to accept
Visa and MasterCard signature debit card (also Visa Check,
MasterMoney or Debit MasterCard) transactions at
supracompetitive prices.
The merchants also claimed that Visa and MasterCard were
attempting to monopolize the debit card business in the U.S.
In April 2003, just as the trial was about to begin, Visa and
MasterCard opted to settle the matter.
As part of the settlement, Visa and MasterCard agreed to
eliminate their "Honor All Cards" policies, which required
merchants that accepted their credit cards to also accept their
signature debit card transactions. Prior to this untying of
credit and debit, they also agreed to lower debit card fees for
an interim period by one-third.
In addition, they agreed to re-label the Visa Check and
MasterMoney debit cards with the word "DEBIT" on the front and
to do other things related to the untying of debit cards from
credit cards.
Visa and MasterCard also agreed to pay $3.05 billion over time
into a settlement fund, which will be used to provide
compensation to class members, and will be distributed to class
members after the attorneys' fees, expenses and cost of notice
and administration approved by the court have been deducted.
For more details, contact:
Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 9000-6014
Merrick, NY 11566-9000
Phone: 1-888-641-4437
Settlement Web site:
http://www.InReVisaCheck-MasterMoneyAntitrustLitigation.com/
VISTEON CORP: Dismissal of Mich. Securities Fraud Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a securities fraud suit filed against Visteon
Corp. have appealed a ruling of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan dismissing the matter.
The Van Buren Township, Michigan-based company is a leading
global supplier of automotive systems, modules and components to
global vehicle manufacturers and the automotive aftermarket.
In February 2005, a shareholder lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against it
and certain of its current and former officers.
In July 2005, the Public Employees' Retirement System of
Mississippi was appointed as lead plaintiff in this matter.
In September 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, which alleges, among other things, that the company
and its independent registered public accounting firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, made misleading statements of
material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in
order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which they were made, not misleading.
The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of
purchasers of the company's securities during the period between
June 28, 2000, and Jan. 31, 2005. Class-action status has not
yet been certified in the case.
On Aug. 31, 2006, a motion by the defendants to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim was granted by
the court. The plaintiffs have appealed this decision.
The company reported no development in the matter in its
July 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "Ley v. Visteon Corp., et al., Case No. 2:05-cc-
70737-RHC-VMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Judge Robert H. Cleland, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
E. Powell Miller, Esq. (emiller335@aol.com)
Marc L. Newman, Esq.
Miller Shea (Rochester)
950 W. University Drive Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Phone: 248-841-2200
Representing the defendants are:
Michael A. Duffy, Esq. (maduffy@kirkland.com)
Kirkland & Ellis
200 E. Randolph Drive, Suite 6000
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: 312-861-2000
Fax: 312-861-2200
Jenice C. Mitchell, Esq. (jmitchell@foley.com)
Foley & Lardner
500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700
Detroit, MI 48226-3489
Phone: 313-234-7100
- and -
Thomas P. Bruetsch, Esq. (tbruetsch@bodmanllp.com)
Bodman (Troy)
201 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 500
Troy, MI 48084
Phone: 248-743-6000
WESTCHESTER COUNTY: New York Retirees Win $3.6-Million Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Civil Service Employees Association, New York's leading union,
has won a $3.6 million class action lawsuit against Westchester
County on behalf of 1,600 retired union members.
The union filed a suit in 2004 claiming the county unilaterally
and illegally diminished the health insurance benefits of
workers who retired between January 1993 and May 2004.
In May 2004, CSEA and the county concluded negotiations for a
new contract, which included increased co-pays and deductibles
for health insurance. CSEA and the union members who ratified
the agreement understood that current employees and future
retirees would have to pay the higher amounts.
However, the county, on its own, decided to also apply the
changes to workers who had already retired. While contracts
between the parties prior to 1993 specifically stated that the
agreed upon health insurance benefits were effective for the
duration of the contract, such language was omitted from the two
most recent agreements in effect between January 1993 and May
2004. CSEA argued that the intent of the omission was to create
a vested lifetime benefit for workers who retired during the
terms of those agreements.
In her decision, dated July 29, 2008, Westchester State Supreme
Court Judge Joan Lefkowitz agreed with the union, ruling,
"plaintiffs' health insurance benefits in the prior collective
bargaining agreements survived those agreements and may not be
diminished without their consent."
"This is a huge victory for our retirees," said CSEA Westchester
County Unit President Jack McPhillips. "They are living on
fixed incomes and never expected they would be forced to pay
more for their health care."
CSEA President Danny Donohue said the case highlighted the need
for the retiree health insurance legislation (S.6457a) the union
is backing. The bill, which the Senate and Assembly passed in
the last legislative session, and awaits Gov. David Paterson's
signature, would prohibit public employers from shifting health
care costs to retirees and prohibit them from diminishing health
insurance benefits for one year while a study is completed to
determine how to provide health insurance in the most cost-
effective manner.
"This is about doing what's morally right and fair," Mr. Donohue
said. "It's about making sure localities live up to their
responsibility to retirees that their health care coverage will
continue to be there as promised."
* Hunton & Williams LLP Brings on Nine Partners in Three Offices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hunton & Williams LLP is continuing its aggressive national
expansion adding nine partners from Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld LLP, led by Richard L. Wyatt Jr., Esq., a member of the
firm's executive committee and past chairman of the litigation;
labor & employment; intellectual property; and international
trade practices. Six of the new partners will join the firm in
Washington, two will join in Houston, and one will join in Los
Angeles.
These partners will help grow several of Hunton & Williams' key
practice areas, including corporate securities, M&A, labor and
employment, RICO and intellectual property. The group handles
complex litigation and corporate work for many national and
global clients. Seven of the new partners are class action
litigators who will join the firm's 300-member litigation
practice, one of the largest in the nation. One of the partners
is a corporate, securities and M&A attorney and one is an
intellectual property attorney. This group follows eight labor
and employment class action lawyers who left Akin Gump to join
Hunton & Williams on July 1.
Mr. Wyatt joins as co-head of Hunton & Williams' litigation
group, and will be based in the Washington office. Joining Mr.
Wyatt in Washington are litigation partners Michael J. Mueller,
Esq., who will be co-head of the firm's commercial litigation
practice, Joseph P. Esposito, Esq., Michael A. O'Shea, Esq., and
Todd M. Stenerson, Esq. J. Steven Patterson, Esq., a corporate,
securities and M&A partner, will join the firm's Washington
office as co-head of its corporate, securities and M&A practice.
Augmenting the firm's Houston office are partners Kevin J.
White, Esq., and Holly H. Williamson, Esq., both well-known
labor and employment litigators. Bringing additional strength to
Hunton & Williams' growing presence in Los Angeles is Phillip J.
Eskenazi, Esq., who focuses on complex business litigation, and
was named one of California's top 20 lawyers under 40 in 2006.
"Richard and his partners are leaders in their fields who share
our dedication to providing excellent client service," said
Wally Martinez, Esq., Hunton & Williams' managing partner.
"Over the past few years we have made significant strategic
decisions to bring on high-level lateral partners in key
practices and geographic regions. This group will significantly
strengthen our national litigation and corporate practices out
of Washington and continue our expansion in California and
Texas."
Mr. Wyatt and his team regularly advise the management and
boards of public companies in connection with complex business
litigation, strategic reviews of business and transactional
alternatives and director compliance with fiduciary duties.
Mr. Wyatt frequently serves as lead counsel in appeals from
adverse decisions in matters not originally handled by him or
members of his firm.
"Hunton & Williams offered us a partnership and platform that is
almost unique in the current legal world. It is a strong,
client-focused global firm with a vast array of top tier
partners and practices. This team has been privileged to work
together and serve many of our common clients for decades. In
Hunton & Williams we found a firm that shares our ideals of
teamwork and understands our client devotion," said Mr. Wyatt.
"In addition, while the firm has an extraordinary tradition of
providing high quality legal services, it also has a forward-
looking strategic plan that aligns perfectly with the current
and future needs of our clients. We are honored to join the
firm and we are thrilled to be part of Hunton's future
endeavors."
Mr. Wyatt has served as strategic and lead counsel to both
plaintiffs and defendants in litigation involving antitrust,
securities, RICO, labor and employment, and First Amendment. He
is currently representing a client in its defense of 25 class
actions arising from an invasion of its computer network and
prosecuting an antitrust case on behalf of another client. He
is also representing a major construction company in a damages
trial following an adverse liability decision before his
engagement. He currently serves as national employment law
class action counsel for a major US company for which he and his
partners routinely defend employment law and wage-hour class
actions. He is also defending multiple shareholder actions
challenging the recent acquisition of a major fast food chain.
Hunton & Williams -- http://www.hunton.com/-- provides legal
services to a broad array of entities including corporations,
financial institutions, governments and individuals.
New Securities Fraud Cases
CIT GROUP: Izard Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, filed a lawsuit seeking class action status in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all those who purchased the common stock
of CIT Group, Inc., between April 18, 2007, and March 5, 2008,
inclusive.
The Complaint alleges that CIT and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws by issuing materially
false statements regarding the Company's financial condition.
Specifically, CIT's public financial statements failed to
account for tens of millions of dollars in loans to Silver State
Helicopter, which were highly unlikely to be repaid and should
have been written off. On March 6, 2008, Keefe, Bruyette &
Woods issued an analyst report on CIT lowering its first quarter
2008 earnings per share estimate by $.08 based on concerns that
CIT would have to write down a significant portion of its
private student loan portfolio, including the risk that the
Company would have to charge off $179 million of private student
loans made to students of Silver State, which recently filed for
bankruptcy. As a result, CIT's stock price dropped $4.50 on
March 6, 2008.
Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 23,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
Izard Nobel LLP
20 Church Street, Suite 1700
Hartford, CT 06103
Phone: 800-797-5499
e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com/
EVERGREEN ULTRA: Abraham Fruchter Files Mass. Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased
shares of the Evergreen Ultra Short Opportunities Fund pursuant
to the Registration Statement/Prospectus from August 17, 2007,
until June 18, 2008.
The claims asserted arise Section 11 and 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Sections 77k and 77l(a)(2),
and have been asserted against:
-- Wachovia Corporation,
-- Evergreen Fixed Income Trust,
-- Evergreen Distributor, Inc.,
-- Dennis H. Ferro and
-- Kasey Phillips.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants solicited and sold
shares based upon materially false and misleading statements
concerning the calculation of the Fund's net asset value.
The Fund's NAV was valued at artificially inflated prices
resulting in the sale and redemption of the Fund's shares to the
Class at incorrect prices. The plaintiff and the class were
harmed by the Defendants' false and misleading statements in
causing them to pay improperly inflated prices and also by
redeeming shares of other selling shareholders at inflated
prices.
Interested parties may move the court no later than August 22,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. (jabraham@aftlaw.com)
Philip T. Taylor, Esq. (ptaylor@aftlaw.com)
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
New York, NY 10119
Phone: 212-279-5050
Fax: 212-279-3655
GT SOLAR: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in New Hampshire
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, discloses that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of New Hampshire on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of GT Solar International, Inc., pursuant to
the Company's initial public offering on July 23, 2008, or
before the July 25, 2008 announcement by GT Solar customer, LDK
Solar Co. Ltd., that it had signed a contract with a competitor
of GT Solar.
The complaint charges GT Solar, certain of its officers and
directors and the Company's underwriters with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933. In particular, the complaint alleges
that GT Solar failed to disclose the extent of risk surrounding
its business relationship with one of its customers, LDK Solar
Co., Ltd.
On July 25, 2008, within days of the IPO, LDK announced that it
had signed a contract with a competitor of GT Solar. On this
news GT Solar's shares declined to a low of $9.30, closing at
$12.59 per share on July 25, 2008.
Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 30,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Charles J. Piven, Esq.
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
The World Trade Center-Baltimore
401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
Baltimore, MD 21202
Phone: 410-332-0030
e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com
Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com/
SEMGROUP ENERGY: Howard Smith Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith has filed a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of the common units
of SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. (Nasdaq: SGLP) between
February 20, 2008, and July 17, 2008, inclusive.
The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning SemGroup's financial condition and prospects,
thereby artificially inflating the price of SemGroup units.
Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 19,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Howard G. Smith, Esq.
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem, PA 19020
Phone: 215-638-4847
Toll-Free: 888-638-4847
e-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com
Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------
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
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 * * *