/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080929.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, September 29, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 193
Headlines
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Initial Brief in ERISA 401(K) Lawsuit Filed
AWB LTD: Iraqi Women's Lawsuit Over Saddam Kickback Dismissed
BALLY TOTAL: Cheats Employees Via "Paycard", Calif. Suit Claims
CALPINE CORP: Calif. Court Dismisses "Kissa" NRG Merger Lawsuit
CALPINE CORP: Faces Consolidated Suit Over NRG Energy Proposal
CALPINE CORP: Oct. 21 Hearing Fixed to Consider ERISA Suit Deal
CC MEDIA: Faces 22 Coordinated Antitrust Lawsuit in California
CC MEDIA: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Clear Channel Acquisition
GOLDEN OVAL EGGS: Bakery Files Suit Over Price-Fixing of Eggs
HOFBRAUHAUS: Employees Commence Lawsuit Over Illegal Tip-Pooling
INTERNATIONAL RAM ASSOCIATES: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit
ISOLAGEN INC: Settles Securities Class Action & Derivative Suits
JACKSON (MISSISSIPPI): Sued Over Public Transportation System
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Abraham Fruchter to File Lawsuit for Investors
MANDALAY CORP: Faces Calif. Suit Over Processing Fee in Tickets
MGM MIRAGE: Reaches Settlement for FACTA Violations Suit in Nev.
NALGE NUNC: Sued Over Toxic Chemical in Reusable Water Bottles
NOMURA ASSET: Faces Mortgage Backed Securities Lawsuit in Mass.
RADNET INC: To Be Dismissed From DVI Securities Fraud Lawsuit
REDDY ICE: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is on October 7
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Wagering Tickets
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: "Romero" QuickPick Suit Pending in California
SIGMA-ALDRICH: Suit Over Nitric Oxide Plant Accident on Appeal
SONIC SOLUTIONS: California Shareholder Lawsuit Dismissed
SONIC SOLUTIONS: Faces Putative Shareholder Lawsuits in Calif.
SONIC SOLUTIONS: Several Derivative Suits Consolidated in Calif.
SPECTRANICS CORP: Faces Several Securities Fraud Lawsuits
STATION CASINOS: Discovery Ongoing in Nevada Labor Lawsuit
STERLING JEWELERS: EEOC Sues Over Bias Against Female Workers
TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Texas
TRUMP TOWER: Investors Conned into Buying Air Rights, Suit Says
WAL-MART STORES: Supreme Court Recertifies Labor Suit in Mass.
New Securities Fraud Cases
HARRIS STRATEX: Brian Felgoise Files Del. Securities Fraud Suit
MEMC ELECTRONICS: Brian Felgoise Files Missouri Securities Suit
NOVATEL WIRELESS: Izard Nobel Files Securities Lawsuit in Calif.
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Izard Nobel Files Colorado Securities Suit
*********
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Initial Brief in ERISA 401(K) Lawsuit Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK, Sept. 25, 2008 -- Stull, Stull & Brody has filed
its initial brief on the issue of whether the plaintiff's claim
for Plan-wide relief under ERISA Section 502(a)(2), 29 U.S.C.
Section 1132(a)(2) may continue notwithstanding an order denying
class certification.
Stull, Stull & Brody's initial brief was filed in the on-
going ERISA 401(k) class action suit against American Electric
Power Co., Inc.
The class action, "Bridges v. American Electric Power,
2:03-cv-67 (S.D. Ohio)," was brought on behalf of all
participants in AEP's 401(k) defined contribution retirement
plan who purchased and/or held shares of the AEP Stock Fund at
any time between December 9, 1998 and December 31, 2002.
The case alleges that AEP and other fiduciaries of AEP's
401(k) plan negligently managed and administered the 401(k)
plan, and failed to disclose important information to the
participants of the plan, including information about AEP's
allegedly improper energy trading and reporting practices.
Stull, Stull & Brody's initial brief contends that there is
no requirement that claims under ERISA Section 502(a)(2), which
requires that fiduciaries who breach their duties and cause loss
to a 401(k) plan must make good to the plan for such losses,
proceed as a class action.
For more information, contact:
Edwin J. Mills, Esq.
Michael J. Klein, Esq.
Stull, Stull & Brody
6 East 45th Street
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 1-800-337-4983
Fax: 212-490-2022
e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
AWB LTD: Iraqi Women's Lawsuit Over Saddam Kickback Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on Sept. 20, 2007, that two
Iraqi women filed a class action lawsuit against Australian
Wheat Board Limited, AWB (U.S.A.) Limited, and France-based bank
Banque Nationale de Paris Paribas for assisting Saddam Hussein's
regime through kickbacks it paid to the ruler in exchange for
contracts.
According to the CAR, the suit was filed in the U.S. District
Court in New York on behalf of Saadya Mastafa and Kafia Ismail,
as well as their surviving immediate family members. The
plaintiffs claim that Australian wheat exporter AWB Ltd. and its
U.S. arm contributed to injuries and damages the plaintiffs
sustained because of the almost $300 million in kickbacks the
agricultural company paid to the dictator's regime.
In an update, NEWS.com.au relates that the class action lawsuit
has been dismissed by the court.
NEWS.com recounts that AWB previously said that the case was
ill-conceived and that it would vigorously defend the action.
AWB had earlier filed a motion to dismiss the case.
However, the plaintiffs have 30 days to file an appeal against
the court's dismissal of the suit, the report notes.
BALLY TOTAL: Cheats Employees Via "Paycard", Calif. Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bally Total Fitness is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the Los Angeles Superior Court alleging it cheats employees by
forcing them to take their pay via "paycard" or direct deposit,
and charging fees for both, CourtHouse News Service reports.
Bally allegedly has enforced the unfair policy since May 1,
2008, the report says.
Based in Chicago, Illinois, Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp.
(Pink Sheets: BFTH.PK) -- http://www.ballyfitness.com/--
operates fitness centers in the U.S., with over 375 facilities
located in 26 states, Mexico, Canada, Korea, China and the
Caribbean under the Bally Total Fitness(R), Bally Sports
Clubs(R) and Sports Clubs of Canada (R) brands.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
608 University Ave.
Sacramento, CA 95825
Phone: 916-924-3100
Fax: 916-924-1829
CALPINE CORP: Calif. Court Dismisses "Kissa" NRG Merger Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara dismissed a
purported class-action lawsuit against Calpine Corp., entitled
"Kissa v. Calpine Corporation, et al."
On May 27, 2008, Andrew J. Kissa filed a putative class action
complaint in the California Superior Court, County of Santa
Clara against Calpine and its directors. The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the defendants violated their fiduciary
duties to shareholders by negotiating with NRG, which sought to
acquire the company in a stock-for-stock merger.
The complaint also alleges that the price offered by NRG was
inadequate and unfair, and sought declaratory and injunctive
relief directing the defendants to exercise their fiduciary
duties to obtain a transaction in the best interests of
Calpine's shareholders.
On June 27, 2008, the defendants filed a demurrer to the
complaint. On July 11, 2008, Mr. Kissa filed a request for
dismissal of his complaint without prejudice, which was granted
on July 24, 2008, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
Calpine Corp. -- http://www.calpine.com/-- is a power producer
company that operates and develops power generation facilities
in North America. The company's primary business is the
generation and sale of electricity and electricity-related
products and services to wholesale and industrial customers.
Calpine markets electricity produced by its generating
facilities to utilities and other third-party purchasers. The
company's power generation facilities comprise two generation
technologies: natural gas-fired combustion and renewable
geothermal facilities. As of Dec. 31, 2007, it owned or leased
a portfolio of 60 active, clean burning, natural gas-fired power
plants throughout the U.S. and 17 active geothermal power plants
in the Geysers region of northern California.
CALPINE CORP: Faces Consolidated Suit Over NRG Energy Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Calpine Corp. and its directors are facing a consolidated class-
action lawsuit in Texas over NRG Energy, Inc.'s proposal for a
stock-for-stock merger.
On May 22 and 29, 2008, respectively, two putative class action
complaints were filed in the state district court in Harris
County, Texas, against Calpine Corp. and its current directors,
alleging that they either had breached, or would breach, their
fiduciary duties in connection with Calpine Corp.'s review of
NRG Energy's proposal for a stock-for-stock merger on May 14,
2008.
The suits are:
-- "Joseph Leone v. Calpine Corporation, et al.," and
-- "Alan Laties v. Calpine Corporation, et al."
Both lawsuits named the same persons as defendants with the
exception of Kenneth Derr, who was named only in the Leone
action.
In general, the lawsuits sought to enjoin the defendants from
accepting the NRG proposal, a declaration that the defendants
had breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the NRG
proposal, rescission of a transaction based on the terms of the
NRG proposal, a court order requiring the defendants to comply
with their fiduciary duties, damages, attorneys' fees, expenses,
and court costs.
On June 4, 2008, the two lawsuits were consolidated into a
single action.
The plaintiffs have filed a motion seeking their appointment as
interim class representatives and their attorneys' appointment
as interim class counsel. The court has not yet ruled on this
motion, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.
Calpine Corp. -- http://www.calpine.com/-- is a power producer
company that operates and develops power generation facilities
in North America. The company's primary business is the
generation and sale of electricity and electricity-related
products and services to wholesale and industrial customers.
Calpine markets electricity produced by its generating
facilities to utilities and other third-party purchasers. The
company's power generation facilities comprise two generation
technologies: natural gas-fired combustion and renewable
geothermal facilities. As of Dec. 31, 2007, it owned or leased
a portfolio of 60 active, clean burning, natural gas-fired power
plants throughout the U.S. and 17 active geothermal power plants
in the Geysers region of northern California.
CALPINE CORP: Oct. 21 Hearing Fixed to Consider ERISA Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
scheduled an Oct. 21, 2008 fairness hearing to consider final
approval of a proposed settlement in the purported class-action
lawsuit captioned "In re Calpine Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master
File No. C 03-1685 SBA."
Two nearly identical class action complaints were filed against
Calpine, alleging claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act:
-- "Phelps v. Calpine Corporation, et al.;" and
-- "Lenette Poor-Herena v. Calpine Corporation et al."
These suits were later consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under the caption, "In
re Calpine Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master File No. C 03-1685
SBA."
The consolidated complaint, which names as defendants Calpine,
the members of Calpine's board of directors, the company's
401(k) Plan's Advisory Committee and its members, signatories of
the 401(k) Plan's Annual Return/Report of Employee Benefit Plan
Forms 5500 for 2001 and 2002, an employee of a consulting firm
hired by the 401(k) Plan, and unidentified fiduciary defendants,
alleged claims under ERISA on behalf of the participants in the
401(k) Plan from Jan. 5, 2001, to the present who invested in
the Calpine unitized stock fund.
The consolidated complaint alleged that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under ERISA by permitting participants to
buy and hold interests in the Calpine unitized stock fund.
All claims were dismissed with prejudice by the Northern
District Court. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. However, as a
result of Calpine's Chapter 11 filings, the appeal was
automatically stayed with respect to the company.
In addition, Calpine filed a motion with the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court to extend the automatic stay to the individual defendants.
The plaintiffs opposed the motion and a hearing was scheduled
for June 5, 2006; however, prior to the hearing, the parties
stipulated to allow the appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals to proceed.
If the Northern District Court ruling is reversed, the
plaintiffs was then allowed to seek leave from the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court to proceed with the action.
The plaintiffs' opening brief was filed with the Ninth Circuit
on Nov. 6, 2006. Further briefing on the appeal was then stayed
pending completion of the parties' participation in the Ninth
Circuit's alternative dispute resolution program.
On March 21, 2007, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the plaintiff' claims and the purported class in
return for a payment of approximately $4 million by Calpine's
fiduciary insurance carrier, the net proceeds of which will
ultimately be deposited into individual plan members' accounts.
The parties finalized the settlement agreement on March 7, 2008.
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal
without prejudice and remanded the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California by order dated
April 8, 2008.
The court granted preliminary approval on July 17, 2008, and has
scheduled a fairness hearing for Oct. 21, 2008, to consider
whether to give final approval to the settlement, according to
the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.
The suit is "In re Calpine Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master File
No. C 03-1685 SBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. (eciolko@sbtklaw.com)
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
280 King of Prussia
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: 610-667-7706
Fax: 610-667-7056
Robert S. Green, Esq. (rsg@classcounsel.com)
Green Welling LLP
595 Market Street, Suite 2750
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-477-6700
Fax: 415-477-6710
- and -
Robert A. Jigarjian, Esq. (jigarjianlaw@gmail.com)
Jigarjian Law Office
128 Tunstead Avenue
San Anselmo, CA 94960
Phone: 415-341-6660
Representing the defendants is:
Robert Leonard McKague, Esq.
Morrison & Foerster LLP
755 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Phone: 650-813-5600
Fax: 650-494-0792
CC MEDIA: Faces 22 Coordinated Antitrust Lawsuit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
CC Media Holdings, Inc., new parent company of Clear Channel
Communications, Inc., is a co-defendant with Live Nation, Inc.,
(which was spun off as an independent company in December 2005)
in 22 putative class-action lawsuits filed by different named
plaintiffs in various district courts throughout the country,
according to CC Media's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.
The suits generally allege that the defendants monopolized or
attempted to monopolize the market for "live rock concerts" in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs claim
that they paid higher ticket prices for defendants' "rock
concerts" as a result of defendants' conduct. They seek damages
in an undetermined amount.
On April 17, 2006, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict
Litigation centralized these class action proceedings in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
On March 2, 2007, the plaintiffs filed motions for class
certification in five "template" cases involving five regional
markets, Los Angeles, Boston, New York, Chicago and Denver.
The defendants opposed that motion and, on Oct. 22, 2007, the
district court issued its decision certifying the class for each
regional market.
On Nov. 4, 2007, the defendants filed a petition for permission
to appeal the class certification ruling with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On Nov. 5, 2007 the District Court issued a stay on all
proceedings pending the Ninth Circuit's decision on the
company's Petition to Appeal.
On Feb. 19, 2008, the Ninth Circuit denied the company's
Petition to Appeal, and the company filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the District Court's ruling on class
certification which is still pending.
In the Master Separation and Distribution Agreement between the
company and Live Nation that was entered into in connection with
the company's spin-off of Live Nation in December 2005, Live
Nation agreed, among other things, to assume responsibility for
legal actions existing at the time of, or initiated after, the
spin-off in which The company are a defendant if such actions
relate in any material respect to the business of Live Nation.
Pursuant to the agreement, Live Nation also agreed to indemnify
the company with respect to all liabilities assumed by Live
Nation, including those pertaining to the claims discussed
above.
CC Media Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.clearchannel.com/-- the
new parent company of Clear Channel Communications, Inc. is a
global media and entertainment company specializing in mobile
and on-demand entertainment and information services for local
communities and premiere opportunities for advertisers. The
company's businesses include radio and outdoor displays.
CC MEDIA: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Clear Channel Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
CC Media Holdings, Inc., is facing a consolidated lawsuit in
Texas over the acquisition of Clear Channel Communications,
Inc., by CC Media Holdings, Inc., a company that was formed in
May 2007 by private equity funds sponsored by Bain Capital
Partners, LLC, and Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P.
Eight putative class-action lawsuits were filed in the District
Court of Bexar County, Texas, in 2006 in connection with the
merger. Of the eight, three have been voluntarily dismissed and
five are still pending.
The remaining putative class-action lawsuits are:
1. "Teitelbaum v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et
al., No. 2006CI17492" (filed Nov. 14, 2006);
2. "City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement
System v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al.,
No. 2006CI17660" (filed Nov. 16, 2006);
3. "Levy Investments, Ltd. v. Clear Channel
Communications, Inc., et al., No. 2006CI17669" (filed
Nov. 16, 2006);
4. "DD Equity Partners LLC v. Clear Channel
Communications, Inc., et al., No. 2006CI7914 (filed
Nov. 22, 2006); and
5. "Pioneer Investments Kapitalanlagegesellschaft MBH v.
L. Lowry Mays, et al." (filed December 7, 2006).
All the suits were consolidated into one proceeding and all
raise substantially similar allegations on behalf of a purported
class of the company's shareholders against the defendants for
breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the approval of
the merger, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.
CC Media Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.clearchannel.com/-- the
new parent company of Clear Channel Communications, Inc. is a
global media and entertainment company specializing in mobile
and on-demand entertainment and information services for local
communities and premiere opportunities for advertisers. The
company's businesses include radio and outdoor displays.
GOLDEN OVAL EGGS: Bakery Files Suit Over Price-Fixing of Eggs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Florida-based bakery ZaZa Inc. -- doing business as Silvery Tray
Cookies -- has filed a federal lawsuit in Minneapolis alleging a
price-fixing conspiracy involving several Minnesota producers of
processed eggs, Minneapolis Star Tribune reports.
According to Minneapolis Star, ZaZa filed the lawsuit on
Sept. 24 against Golden Oval Eggs of Renville, Minn.; Michael
Foods Inc. of Minnetonka; and MoArk LLC, a unit of the giant
Minnesota cooperative Land O'Lakes Inc.
All three companies have confirmed in public filings or
statements that the Department of Justice is investigating price
fixing allegations against them, the report relates. The
companies have all said they are cooperating with the
government.
Minneapolis Star says that ZaZa -- which is represented by
Lockridge Grindal Nauen of Minneapolis, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer
of New York City, and Criden & Love of South Miami, Florida --
is seeking court approval for class action status.
The lawsuit notes that Michael Foods is the largest supplier of
processed eggs in the world, with 2007 sales of $1.6 billion.
Michael Foods is also North America's largest producer of
processed eggs and has a 45% percent market share.
Meanwhile, the lawsuit says, Golden Oval is among the liquid egg
industry's top 10 producers. The company makes liquid eggs,
whites and yolks, and sells them to other food manufacturers,
retailers, food service customers, restaurants, supermarkets and
food distributors. The company's net sales through the first
five months of 2008 were $165.2 million.
MoArk has operations in Norco, Calif.; Neosho, Mo.; and Bozrah,
Conn. It was in the processed egg business from 2002 through
2006, when Land O'Lakes acquired 100% ownership of MoArk. The
company sold its liquid egg processing assets in 2006 to Golden
Oval to focus on fresh eggs.
The report points out that processed eggs can be sold as a
refrigerated liquid, frozen, or dried form. They can be sold in
wet-packs or dry-pack peeled hard-boiled eggs. They can also be
sold as long rolls of hard-cooked eggs. The lawsuit explains
that commercial bakers, food manufacturers and food service
companies often prefer processed eggs because of their
uniformity and stability. They also can save labor costs,
require minimal storage, and make it easier to control portions.
Processed eggs are homogenous commodities, so customers make
buying decisions based largely on price, the complaint notes.
Minneapolis Star says that the suit seeks to determine whether
the defendants engaged in anti-competitive practices in the
marketing and sale of the eggs.
HOFBRAUHAUS: Employees Commence Lawsuit Over Illegal Tip-Pooling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Waiters and bartenders at the Hofbrauhaus filed a class action
lawsuit alleging their bosses swiped their tips by creating an
illegal "tip pool" for each shift, from which the house swiped a
share, CourtHouse News Service reports.
According to the complaint, another "substantial portion" was
then given to "employees who do not customarily and regularly
receive tips." What was left was divided up among those who
earned the tips, the lawsuit states.
According to Nevada state law, all tips belong solely to the
people who earned them.
The plaintiffs "relied heavily upon receiving tip income, in the
earning of their livelihood," the lawsuit states.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
M. Lani Esteban-Trinidad, Esq.
Esteban-Trinidad Law, P.C.
4315 N. Rancho Drive, Ste. 110
Las Vegas, NV 89130
Phone: 702-736-5297
Fax: 702-736-5299
INTERNATIONAL RAM ASSOCIATES: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Ram Associates is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the San Diego Superior Court (Calif.) alleging it
violates the Labor Code, CourtHouse News Service reports.
CourtHouse News did not report on any further details and
updates regarding the case.
International RAM Associates -- http://www.intlram.com/-- is a
recognized leader in the transportation and security industries
with comprehensive knowledge and experience incorporating
appropriate security measures with command presence.
ISOLAGEN INC: Settles Securities Class Action & Derivative Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
EXTON, Pa., Sept. 25, 2008 -- Isolagen(TM), Inc., reached
an agreement in principle to settle its securities class action
lawsuit and its two derivative actions against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors (Civil
Action Case No. 05-cv-04983-RB, Case No. 06-cv-01302-RB and Case
No. 08-cv-724-RB).
"We are pleased to have reached agreement in principle to
resolve the last of the securities class action and derivative
action lawsuits," said Declan Daly, President and CEO of
Isolagen, Inc. "The Isolagen management team continues to
execute against its goals in an effort to positively advance the
Company."
Payments for all settlements will be funded entirely by the
Company's liability insurance. Under the terms of the proposed
settlements, a payment will be made to the putative class in the
securities action lawsuit. In the two derivative action
settlements, a payment will be made for plaintiffs' attorney
fees. In connection with the proposed settlement of the
securities class action, Isolagen is to receive a release of
indemnification claims asserted by the underwriters of certain
securities offerings who were also named as defendants in the
lawsuit. Also, in connection with the above proposed
settlements, Isolagen is to receive a final payment of $500,000
from it liability insurance carrier for reimbursement of any and
all current and future defense costs.
Finalization of the proposed settlements remain subject to
conditions, including the liability insurance carrier's
compliance with its agreement to provide the funds necessary to
make the settlement payments, as well as the execution of the
definitive settlement documentation and court approval.
Exton, Pa.-based Isolagen Inc. is an aesthetic and
therapeutic company. The company’s technology platform includes
the Isolagen Process(TM), a cell processing system for skin and
tissue rejuvenation which is currently in clinical development
for aesthetic and therapeutic applications including wrinkles,
acne scars, burns and periodontal disease. The Company also
commercializes a scientifically-advanced line of skincare
systems through its majority-owned subsidiary, Agera(R)
Laboratories Inc.
JACKSON (MISSISSIPPI): Sued Over Public Transportation System
-------------------------------------------------------------
A coalition of disabled Jackson residents is asking the courts
to force the city to reform its public transportation system and
comply with federal law, Jackson Clarion Ledger reports.
According to Jackson Clarion, the Mississippi Coalition for
Citizens with Disabilities and Mississippi Protection and
Advocacy filed the suit, alleging that the city's JATRAN bus
service does not offer equal service to disabled citizens. The
lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court, asks for an
injunction against the city of Jackson to force compliance with
the Americans with Disability Act and other federal laws dealing
with disabled access. The lawsuit seeks no monetary damages.
The suit contends that wheelchair lifts "regularly break down"
on JATRAN's fixed-route buses and that the door-to-door service
provided by JATRAN's dozen "paratransit" buses is slow and
inefficient and "fails to provide even minimally adequate
service and is materially inferior to the JATRAN public
transportation available to people without disabilities."
Ward 1 Councilman Jeff Weill, who chairs the city council's
budget committee, told Jackson Clarion that he is willing to
mediate a solution rather than take the matter to court.
"I haven't been on the council that long," said Mr. Weill, who
was elected about a year ago to replace former Councilman Ben
Allen, "but with this lawsuit they have got my attention now."
The report relates that residents with disabilities have been
agitating for years for the city to improve its services to the
disabled. Mary Troupe, executive director of the Mississippi
Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities, said years of
negotiating have failed. Advocates held a news conference in
front of the federal courthouse, where they said Jackson Mayor
Frank Melton and the City Council have ignored their complaints
for too long.
Jackson Clarion recounts that earlier this month, the council
approved Mayor Melton's recommendation to cut $1.5 million from
JATRAN when it set the city's overall budget. The city has not
announced where the cuts would be made, but the plaintiffs said
the cuts further signal that the city has put the complaints of
people with disabilities on the back burner.
Mr. Weill, who supported the cuts to JATRAN, said he thinks the
service can be reformed to meet the needs of the disabled
community without pouring more money into the system. "The city
spent in fiscal year '07 and '08 roughly $8 million on JATRAN,"
he said. "Although it has been cut, I believe there is money
that was previously wasted with inefficient routes, routes that
were at times of the day when there weren't many passengers,
that would be more wisely spent to accommodate people with
handicaps."
Ms. Troupe said the city's public transit system for people with
disabilities has been deteriorating for years. Without it, she
said, residents with disabilities cannot get to work and medical
appointments and run the risk of being isolated.
The report says that in their complaint, the groups are calling
on the city to fix broken wheelchair lifts, retrofit sidewalks
and bus stops to accommodate the disabled, and develop a system
of transportation for disabled riders that is comparable to the
transit system used by able-bodied riders. The fixes likely
would cost millions, but advocates said the city could pay the
majority of those costs with federal grants.
Last year, the report recalls, the city hired Sam Gleese as ADA
coordinator after advocates complained the city had not filled
the federally required position in more than a decade. Mr.
Gleese said he had heard rumors that a lawsuit was coming as
frustration mounted in the disabled community. "Our JATRAN
services in the city have a lot of improvement to do, and it is
not happening very rapidly. That's probably why the suit is
being filed," he said.
Jackson Clarion further recollects that earlier this year, the
City Council approved the purchase of 12 new handilifts to
replace broken units on some of the city's fixed-route buses.
Jim Bender, JATRAN interim general manager, said those units are
being installed.
Mr. Gleese said the new lifts were needed, but more disabled
riders rely on the paratransit buses, those that do not follow
fixed routes or schedules. "Those are the ones that are need of
drastic improvement," he said.
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Abraham Fruchter to File Lawsuit for Investors
---------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK, NY, Sept. 25, 2008 -- Abraham, Fruchter &
Twersky, LLP, has been retained to file a class action lawsuit
on behalf of all persons who purchased the Preferred Series "J"
Stock (Lehman Preferred J) of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
(PINKSHEETS: LEHMQ) from the date of the Company's public
offering on February 5, 2008, and all purchasers traceable
thereto against certain officers and directors of Lehman and
certain Underwriters of the Offering, pursuant to Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
A complaint already filed asserts that Lehman's Prospectus
contained both material misstatements and omissions, which
Plaintiff and the Class relied upon to their detriment. The
representations made in the Company's Prospectus were materially
false and misleading because at the time of the Offering, Lehman
was already suffering from several adverse factors that were not
revealed and adequately addressed in the document; including the
failure to set aside adequate allowances to cover the Company's
ever increasing portfolio of underperforming sub-prime related
products and to adequately write-down commercial and residential
mortgage and real estate assets.
These factors were already causing a material adverse
affect on Lehman's business and directly led to Lehman's
September 15, 2008 announcement that it was seeking protection
under the Federal Bankruptcy Code in the largest bankruptcy
filing in U.S. history.
For more information, contact:
Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
New York, N.Y. 10119
Phone: 212-279-5050
MANDALAY CORP: Faces Calif. Suit Over Processing Fee in Tickets
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mandalay Corp. -- doing business as Mandalay Bay Resort &
Casino, which is owned and operated by MGM Mirage, Inc. -- is
facing a purported class-action lawsuit in California over the
processing fee in event tickets.
On July 14, 2008, the company was served with a putative class-
action lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in
California, under the caption, "Jeff Feld v. Mandalay Corp.
d/b/a Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino."
The action purports to be brought pursuant to California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act on behalf of all California
residents who, during the previous six years, purchased event
tickets from the company's subsidiary, paid a separate
processing fee in addition to the ticket price, and did not
receive or has received inaccurate notice of the processing fee
when they purchased the ticket.
The plaintiff alleges that the company's subsidiary advertised
event tickets at a specified price and then charged purchasers
undisclosed additional fees, specifically a $5 processing fee,
and that the foregoing was unlawful, a breach of contract, an
unfair business practice, and a violation of California's Civil
Code and Business & Professions Code.
The complaint is seeking unspecified monetary damages including
restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs,
according to the company's MGM Mirage, Inc.'s Aug. 8, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
MGM MIRAGE -- http://www.mgmmirage.com/-- is a gaming company
that is engaged in the ownership and operation of casino
resorts, which includes offering gaming, hotel, dining,
entertainment, retail and other resort amenities. As of Dec.
31, 2006, the company’s operations consisted of 23 wholly owned
casino resorts and 50% investments in three casino resorts. It
owns and operates casino resorts in Las Vegas, Nevada, which
include Bellagio, MGM Grand Las Vegas, Mandalay Bay, The Mirage,
Luxor, Treasure Island, New York-New York, Excalibur, Monte
Carlo, Circus Circus Las Vegas and Slots-A-Fun. Operations at
MGM Grand Las Vegas include management of The Signature at MGM
Grand Las Vegas, a condominium-hotel consisting of three towers.
Other Nevada operations include Circus Circus Reno, Gold Strike
in Jean, and Railroad Pass in Henderson. The company has a 50%
investment in Silver Legacy in Reno. The company also owns
Shadow Creek, a golf course located ten miles north of its Las
Vegas Strip resorts.
MGM MIRAGE: Reaches Settlement for FACTA Violations Suit in Nev.
----------------------------------------------------------------
MGM MIRAGE, Inc., settled a purported class-action lawsuit filed
against it in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
over alleged violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
On June 22, 2007, the company was served with a purported
nationwide class-action lawsuit, entitled "Lety Ramirez v. MGM
MIRAGE, Inc., et al."
The suit asserts that the company failed to comply timely with
FACTA's directive that merchants who accept credit and debit
cards not display more than the last five digits of the card
number or the card expiration date on electronically-generated
receipts provided to customers at the point of sale.
FACTA's compliance deadline for electronic machines that were
first put into service before Jan. 1, 2005, was Dec. 4, 2006,
while electronic machines put into use on or after Jan. 1, 2005,
required immediate compliance.
Although the complaint does not assert that the plaintiff
sustained any actual damage, the plaintiff seeks on behalf of
herself and all similarly situated putative class members
throughout the United States statutory damages of $100 (minimum)
to $1,000 (maximum) for each transaction violation, attorneys'
fees, costs, punitive damages and a permanent injunction.
By order entered Dec. 3, 2007, the district court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety but
granted the motion to strike from the complaint plaintiff's
request for injunctive relief.
The company then filed an answer to the complaint on Dec. 20,
2007. No discovery has been propounded on the plaintiff or the
company.
On Feb. 11, 2008, the court granted the parties' stipulation to
stay this case pending issuance of a decision by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on review of the order of a
California federal district court denying class certification in
a FACTA case.
In June 2008, the action was settled with the individual
plaintiff on terms favorable to company, and on June 30, 2008,
the plaintiff filed a voluntary notice of dismissal of the case.
No class was certified in this case.
The suit is "Ramirez v. MGM Mirage, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-
00326-PMP-PAL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada, Judge Philip M. Pro, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Randal D. Shimon, Esq. (randy@shimon-lovaas.com)
Shimon & Lovaas, APC
3016 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 210
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Phone: 702-388-1011
Fax: 702-387-1011
Representing the defendants is:
Patrick G. Byrne, Esq. (pbyrne@swlaw.com)
Snell & Wilmer
3883 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 1100
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Phone: 702-784-5201
Fax: 702-784-5252
NALGE NUNC: Sued Over Toxic Chemical in Reusable Water Bottles
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California woman has filed a federal class action lawsuit
against the makers of the popular Nalgene reusable water
bottles, claiming that the company knew that exposure to
bisphenol A (BPA) from the bottles might cause health problems,
Natural News.com reports.
According to Natural News, the lawsuit came after Nalge Nunc
International Corp., a division of Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
and maker of Nalgene water bottles, announced that it would
recall from stores all bottles made with BPA. The company
further said it would stop using BPA in any of its bottles
within the next few months.
The report says that the lawsuit is believed to be the first
consumer class action suit over the chemical.
The report explains that BPA is a commonly used industrial
chemical. One of its primary functions is to make plastic hard
and transparent, hence its popularity as an ingredient in water
and baby bottles. It is also used in dental sealants and as a
lining for food cans.
Natural News relates that the Nalgene recall announcement
followed a finding by the National Toxicology Program that BPA
exposure can cause cancer, as well as behavioral, developmental
and reproductive problems. In the same week, Canada banned the
use of the substance in baby bottles.
The suit alleges that Nalge Nunc knew of the chemical's risks
but continued to publicly insist that it was safe, the report
notes.
"They address the issue of BPA in their bottles [on their Web
site]; they cite the [FDA] stating that they see no problem with
it. The problem is they didn't cite the many other studies that
show there is a risk and there is a great concern about the
issue," said Harold Hewell, Esq., an attorney for plaintiff Lani
Felix-Lozano.
Ms. Felix-Lozano said that she bought Nalgene bottles for
herself and her daughters for many years, thus exposing the
three of them to dangerous chemicals.
The report notes that the chemical mimics the hormone estrogen
in the body, and has been observed to induce cancer, early
puberty, behavioral and immune system changes, and even to
rewrite the genetic programming of laboratory animals exposed in
the womb.
In the United States, BPA is found in the urine of 95% of people
tested, Natural News says.
NOMURA ASSET: Faces Mortgage Backed Securities Lawsuit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAN DIEGO, September 25, 2008 -- Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of purchasers of Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates pursuant and traceable to
false and misleading Registration Statements dated July 29,
2005, and April 24, 2006, and Prospectus Supplements issued in
connection with the Certificates between September 27, 2005, and
December 1, 2006.
The class includes purchasers of Certificates in the
following trusts:
* Alternative Loan Trust 2006-AF1 Alternative Loan Trust
2006-AF2
* Alternative Loan Trust 2006-AP1 Alternative Loan Trust
2006-AR1
* Alternative Loan Trust 2006-AR2 Alternative Loan Trust
2006-AR3
* Alternative Loan Trust 2006-AR4 Alternative Loan Trust
2006-WF1
The complaint charges Nomura Asset, certain of its officers
and directors and the issuers and underwriters of the
Certificates with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.
Nomura Asset was formed in 1992 for the purpose of acquiring,
owning and transferring mortgage loan assets and selling
interests in them.
The complaint alleges that on July 29, 2005, and April 24,
2006, Nomura Asset and the issuers caused Registration
Statements to be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with, and for the purpose of, issuing
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates. The Certificates were
issued pursuant to Prospectus Supplements, each of which was
incorporated into the Registration Statements.
As detailed in the complaint, the Registration Statements
included false statements and omissions about the origination
practices and appraisal practices which generated the underlying
mortgage loans. As a result, the Certificates sold to the
plaintiff and the Class were secured by assets that had a
greater risk profile than what was represented in the
Registration Statements.
By the fall of 2007, the truth about the performance of the
mortgage loans that secured the Certificates began to be
revealed to the public and the rating agencies began to put
negative watch labels on Certificate tranches or classes,
ultimately downgrading many. As a result, the Certificates are
no longer marketable at prices anywhere near the price paid by
plaintiff and the Class and the holders of the Certificates are
exposed to much more risk with respect to both the timing and
absolute cash flow to be received than the Registration
Statements/Prospectus Supplements represented.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates pursuant and/or
traceable to the Registration Statements.
For more information, contact:
Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 800-449-4900
619-231-1058
RADNET INC: To Be Dismissed From DVI Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Radnet, Inc., is set to be dismissed as a defendant from a the
purported class-action lawsuit, captioned "In Re DVI, Inc.
Securities Litigation," which is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The suit is a securities fraud case under Section 10(b) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. It was brought by
shareholders of DVI, Inc., one of the company's former major
lenders, against DVI officers and directors and a number of
third party defendants, including Radnet.
The case arises from bankruptcy proceedings instituted by DVI in
August 2003. Radnet was named as a defendant in the third
amended complaint filed in July 2004.
The putative plaintiff class consists of those persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired DVI securities between August of
1999 and August of 2003.
The plaintiffs allege that in 2000, Radnet acquired from a third
party one or more unprofitable imaging centers in order to help
DVI conceal the fact that existing DVI loans on the centers were
delinquent. They argue that the company should have known that
DVI was engaging in fraudulent practices to conceal losses, and
the company's alleged "lack of due diligence" in investigating
DVI's finances in the course of these acquisitions amounted to
complicity in deceptive and misleading practices.
The plaintiff has sent to the company a stipulation to dismiss
it from the case in consideration of the company's agreement to
waive its claim for costs against the plaintiff. The dismissal
is subject to the sending of notices to the class and to court
approval, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "In Re DVI, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:03-CV-5336," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Legrome D. Davis,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Clint Krislov, Esq. (Clint@krislovlaw.com)
Krislov & Associates, Ltd.
Civic Opera Building-Suite 1350
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312-606-0500
Fax:312-606-0207
Web site: http://www.krislovlaw.com/
Representing the defendants are:
Bruce M. Cohen, Esq. (bcohen@cohen-lord.com)
Cohen & Lord, P.C.
1801 Century Park East
Suite 2600
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2328
Phone: 310-691-2200
Celia Goldwag Barenholtz, Esq.
(cbarenholtz@cooley.com)
Cooley Godward Kronish LLP
1114 Ave of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Phone: 212-479-6000
Fax: 212-479-6275
- and -
Gregory Ballard, Esq. (gregory.ballard@cwt.com)
Cadwalader wickersham & Taft LLP
One World, Financial Center
New York, NY 10281
Phone: 212-504-6701
REDDY ICE: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is on October 7
--------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK, Sept. 25, 2008 -- Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman
& Gross LLP reminds investors of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc.
(NYSE:FRZ) that October 7, 2008, is the deadline for investors
who want to request that the Court appoint them as Lead
Plaintiff in the class action.
Pomerantz filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, against the
company and certain officers for violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of the Company between Aug. 10, 2005, and Aug. 6,
2008.
Reddy Ice is a Delaware corporation which maintains its
principal executive office in Dallas, Texas. The company
manufactures and distributes packaged ice. The Company is one
of very few packaged ice companies operating in the United
States. On March 6, 2008, the Company announced that federal
officials had executed a search warrant directed by the
Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice in
connection with an investigation into the packaged ice industry.
On this news, the Company's shares fell 33.45 percent.
Subsequently, Home City Ice Company, a competitor of Reddy Ice,
pleaded guilty to conspiring with other packaged ice firms to
allocate customers and territories in the market.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were
known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:
(1) that the Company had engaged, and continued to engage,
in illicit business practices with its competitors in
the packaged ice industry;
(2) that the company had joined with its competitors in the
packaged ice industry in colluding and agreeing to
allocate territories and customers in the United
States' packaged ice market;
(3) that the Company had agreed with competitors in the
industry to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices
for packaged ice in the United States market;
(4) that the Company's revenues had been significantly
increased through the use of such illicit business
practices;
(5) that, as a result, the Company's financial statements
were false and misleading at all relevant times;
(6) that such illicit business practices, when they were
revealed, would initiate an investigation by the
federal authorities into the Company's business
practices;
(7) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and
(8) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
statements about its financial well-being and future
business prospects were lacking in any reasonable
basis.
For more information, contact:
Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com)
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
100 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017-5516
Phone: 888-476-6529
Web site: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Wagering Tickets
------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games Racing LLC, Scientific Games International
Inc., and Scientific Games Corp. are facing a purported class-
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California over "Quick-Pick" wagering tickets,
according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.
The suit, entitled "Jerry Jamgotchian, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. Scientific Games
Corporation, Scientific Games Racing, LLC, Scientific Games
International, Inc. and Does one through ten, Case No. CV 08-
05121," was filed on Aug. 5, 2008.
The suit seeks, among other things, class certification and
damages in excess of $5,000,000 on behalf of a purported class
of persons who "bought 'Quick-Pick' wagering tickets through
Scientific Games' computerized pari-mutuel wagering system" from
July 1, 2007, until June 2, 2008, in California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, New
York, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas or Wisconsin.
The suit is "Jamgotchian v. Scientific Games Corporation et al.,
Case No. 2:08-cv-05121-GHK-CW," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Judge George H. King,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Robert A. Goodin, Esq. (rgoodin@goodinmacbride.com)
Goodin MacBride Squeri Day and Lamprey LLP
505 Sansome Street Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-392-7900
Fax: 415-398-4321
- and -
Kirk B. Hulett, Esq. (kbh@hulettharper.com)
Hulett Harper Stewart LLP
550 West C Street Suite 1600
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-338-1133
Fax: 619-338-1139
Representing the defendants is:
Christopher Chorba, Esq. (cchorba@gibsondunn.com)
Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP
333 South Grand Avenue, 45th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Phone: 213-229-7396
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: "Romero" QuickPick Suit Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit against Scientific Games Racing
LLC, Scientific Games International Inc., and Scientific Games
Corp. is pending in California, according to Scientific Games'
Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The suit, entitled "Angel Romero, on behalf of himself and a
class of similarly situated individuals, vs. Scientific Games
Corporation, Scientific Games International, Inc., Scientific
Games Racing, LLC and Does one through twenty, Case No. BC-
391885," was filed on June 2, 2008, in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County.
The suit seeks, among other things, class certification and
damages of less than $5,000,000 on behalf of a purported class
of California residents who were "purchasers of California horse
racing 'QuickPicks'" from Nov. 1, 2007, until the present.
A status hearing has been scheduled for this month, after which
the company intends to seek dismissal and assert numerous
affirmative defenses, the company said in its regulatory filing.
Scientific Games Corp. -- http://www.scientificgames.com/-- is
supplier of technology-based products, systems and services to
gaming markets worldwide. The company operates in three
business segments: Printed Products Group, Lottery Systems Group
and Diversified Gaming Group. The Printed Products Group
consists of the company's instant lottery ticket business and
its pre-paid phone card business. Instant tickets and related
services includes ticket design and manufacturing, as well as
value-added services, including game design, sales and marketing
support, and warehousing and fulfillment services. The Lottery
Systems Group is a provider of customized computer software,
equipment and data communication services. The Diversified
Gaming Group provides services and systems to private and public
operators in the gaming markets and in the pari-mutuel wagering
industry.
SIGMA-ALDRICH: Suit Over Nitric Oxide Plant Accident on Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit in Ohio over a Sept. 21, 2003
explosion at an Isotec Inc. plant -- owned by a Sigma-Aldrich
Corp. subsidiary -- is still on appeal.
The class-action complaint was filed against a subsidiary of
Sigma-Aldrich in the Montgomery County, Ohio Court of Common
Pleas, in connection with a 2003 explosion in a column at the
company's Isotec facility in Miamisburg, Ohio. The explosion at
the plant's nitric oxide operations caused the evacuation of
surrounding neighborhoods.
The purported class action suit, filed in December 2003,
represents 3,000 individuals.
The case was divided into these four phases:
phase 1: existence of liability,
phase 2: quantification of any compensatory damages,
phase 3: existence of any punitive damages, and
phase 4: quantification of any punitive damages.
Class certification was granted to phases one, three and four,
but denied to phase two.
The compensatory damages for all the plaintiffs must be
established before the case can proceed to the punitive damages
phases.
Sigma-Aldrich has accepted responsibility for phase one, the
existence of liability.
The case is currently in the compensatory damages phase, where,
because no class status yet exists, each plaintiff must
individually establish actual damages.
The initial phase two trial, for 31 plaintiffs, was completed on
April 27, 2007, with a jury verdict establishing actual damages
of approximately $200 per plaintiff.
The plaintiffs filed an appeal in the case, staying further
action until the appeal has been resolved. The original appeal
has been dismissed, but the plaintiffs have refiled.
The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
Sigma-Aldrich Corp. -- http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/-- develops,
manufactures, purchases and distributes a range of biochemicals
and organic chemicals.
SONIC SOLUTIONS: California Shareholder Lawsuit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for the County of Marin
dismissed a putative shareholder class-action lawsuit against
Sonic Solutions and various of its executive officers and
directors, according to Sonic's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.
The putative shareholder class-action suit was filed on Nov. 16,
2007, in the Superior Court of California for the County of
Marin against the company and various of its executive officers
and directors on behalf of a proposed class of persons who
purchased its shares between July 12, 2001, and May 17, 2007.
The action alleges breach of fiduciary duties, and is based on
substantially similar factual allegations and claims as in the
other lawsuits.
The court in the state putative shareholder class action suit
sustained the company's demurrers to the complaint with leave to
amend.
On April 21, 2008, the plaintiffs in that action filed an
amended complaint, which asserts additional claims under the
California Corporations Code. The court sustained the company's
demurrers to the amended complaint, without leave to amend in
part and with leave to amend in part.
The time for the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in this
action has expired and they have not yet done so.
Accordingly, on July 30, 2008, the court dismissed the entire
case with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of the
defendants.
Sonic Solutions -- http://www.sonic.com/-- develops and markets
computer software related to digital media, such as data,
photographs, audio and video in digital formats. Its product
lines focus on the two optical disc-based digital media formats,
the Compact Audio Disc and the Digital Video Disc, as well as
the High Definition Digital Video Disc and Blu-ray Disc formats.
Sonic's Professional Products Group offers hardware and software
authoring solutions for creating packaged media releases in DVD-
Video, DVD-read only memory, as well as HD DVD and BD next-
generation, high-definition and high-density disc formats. The
Roxio Division offers a number of digital media software
application products under the Roxio brand name. The Advanced
Technology Group develops software and software components that
it supplies to the other two operating units and that it
licenses to personal computer application and consumer
electronics developers.
SONIC SOLUTIONS: Faces Putative Shareholder Lawsuits in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Solutions and various of its executive officers and
directors are facing two putative shareholder class action
lawsuits that were filed in California, according to the
company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.
On Oct. 4, 2007, a putative shareholder class action suit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the company and certain of its executive
officers and directors on behalf of a proposed class of
plaintiffs comprised of persons that purchased the company's
shares between Oct. 4, 2002, and May 17, 2007. This action
alleges various violations of the Exchange Act and the rules
promulgated thereunder.
On March 21, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint against the company and various of its executive
officers and directors on behalf of a proposed class of
plaintiffs comprised of persons that purchased the company's
shares between Oct. 23, 2002, and May 17, 2007.
On May 27, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a "corrected" consolidated
amended complaint. The action alleges various violations of the
Exchange Act and the rules thereunder, and is based on
substantially similar factual allegations and claims as in the
derivative actions.
On June 27, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.
Sonic Solutions -- http://www.sonic.com/-- develops and markets
computer software related to digital media, such as data,
photographs, audio and video in digital formats. Its product
lines focus on the two optical disc-based digital media formats,
the Compact Audio Disc and the Digital Video Disc, as well as
the High Definition Digital Video Disc and Blu-ray Disc formats.
Sonic's Professional Products Group offers hardware and software
authoring solutions for creating packaged media releases in DVD-
Video, DVD-read only memory, as well as HD DVD and BD next-
generation, high-definition and high-density disc formats. The
Roxio Division offers a number of digital media software
application products under the Roxio brand name. The Advanced
Technology Group develops software and software components that
it supplies to the other two operating units and that it
licenses to personal computer application and consumer
electronics developers.
SONIC SOLUTIONS: Several Derivative Suits Consolidated in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Solutions is facing several derivative lawsuits in
California wherein it is named as a nominal defendant for
various alleged violations, according to its Aug. 11, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
Between March and June 2007, the company was notified that a
total of five shareholder derivative lawsuits had been filed by
persons identifying themselves as its shareholders and
purporting to act on the company's behalf, naming the company as
a nominal defendant and naming some of its current and former
officers and directors as defendants.
Four of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, and one was filed in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Marin.
In these actions, the plaintiffs assert claims against the
individual defendants for violations of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act, violations of the California Corporations Code,
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting, abuse of
control, gross mismanagement, corporate waste, unjust
enrichment, rescission, constructive fraud, and an accounting
and a constructive trust.
The plaintiffs' claims concern the granting of stock options by
the company and the alleged filing of false and misleading
financial statements. All of these claims are asserted
derivatively on the company's behalf.
The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, an indeterminate amount
of damages from the individual defendants and a judgment
directing the company to reform its corporate governance.
The federal cases were consolidated on Aug. 2, 2007, into one
action captioned "Wilder v. Doris, et al. (C07-1500)," which is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
On April 30, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class-
action and shareholder derivative complaint.
On Sept. 19, 2007, the court in the state action granted the
company's motion to stay the proceeding in its entirety until
final resolution of the consolidated federal action. The court
in the state action is scheduled to review the status of the
stay on Sept. 16, 2008.
Sonic Solutions -- http://www.sonic.com/-- develops and markets
computer software related to digital media, such as data,
photographs, audio and video in digital formats. Its product
lines focus on the two optical disc-based digital media formats,
the Compact Audio Disc and the Digital Video Disc, as well as
the High Definition Digital Video Disc and Blu-ray Disc formats.
Sonic's Professional Products Group offers hardware and software
authoring solutions for creating packaged media releases in DVD-
Video, DVD-read only memory, as well as HD DVD and BD next-
generation, high-definition and high-density disc formats. The
Roxio Division offers a number of digital media software
application products under the Roxio brand name. The Advanced
Technology Group develops software and software components that
it supplies to the other two operating units and that it
licenses to personal computer application and consumer
electronics developers.
SPECTRANICS CORP: Faces Several Securities Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., Sept. 25, 2008 -- Spectranetics
Corporation disclose that several securities class action
lawsuits have been filed against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.
The lawsuits allege that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and omissions in violation of the federal
securities laws. The claims appear to relate to the matters the
Company believes are being investigated by the United States
Food and Drug Administration and the United States Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, which investigation was announced by
the Company earlier this month. The Company intends to defend
itself vigorously against these lawsuits.
The Company also announced that it has received a request
from the Denver office of the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the voluntary production of certain documents. The Company
intends to cooperate fully with the inquiry.
Founded in 1984, Spectranetics -- http://www.spectranetics.com/
-- manufactures and sells the only excimer laser approved in the
United States, Europe and Japan for use in minimally invasive
cardiovascular procedures. This technology treats complex
cardiovascular conditions by photo-ablating multiple lesion
types into tiny particles that are easily absorbed into the
blood stream. The Company's disposable catheters use high-
energy "cool" ultraviolet light to vaporize arterial blockages
in the legs and heart, as well as scar tissue encapsulating
pacing and defibrillation leads.
STATION CASINOS: Discovery Ongoing in Nevada Labor Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a labor-related class-action lawsuit
pending against Station Casinos, Inc., in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada, according to Station Casino's
Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The purported class-action complaint against the company was
initiated on Feb. 4, 2008, by former Station Casinos employees
Josh Luckevich, Cathy Scott and Julie St. Cyr.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company:
-- failed to pay its employees for all hours worked,
-- failed to pay overtime,
-- failed to timely pay wages, and
-- unlawfully converted certain earned wages.
The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, compensatory damages in excess of $5,000,000,
punitive damages and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to
the plaintiffs' counsel.
The company filed a response to the complaint on March 10, 2008.
The parties are currently in the discovery process.
The company reported no further development regarding the case
in its regulatory filing.
The suit is "Josh Lukevich v. Station Casinos, Inc., Case No.
2:08-cv-00141-LRH-LRL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada, Judge Larry R. Hicks, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Kelly McInerney, Esq. (kelly@mcinerneylaw.net)
McInerney & Jones
9460 Double R Blvd., Suite 103
Reno, NV 89521
Phone: 775-853-6440
Fax: 775-853-6445
- and -
Matthew Righetti, Esq. (matt@righettilaw.com)
Righetti Law Firm, P.C.
456 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415-983-0900
Fax: 415-397-9005
Representing the defendants is:
Joanna S. Kishner, Esq. (joanna.kishner@dlapiper.com)
DLA Piper US LLP
3960 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 400
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Phone: 702-677-3900
Fax: 702-737-1612
STERLING JEWELERS: EEOC Sues Over Bias Against Female Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has
filed a lawsuit against Sterling Jewelers, alleging that the
chain discriminated against female employees, National Jeweler
Network reports.
Sterling Jewelers is the parent company of both Kay Jewelers and
Jared The Galleria Of Jewelry, the report notes.
According to National Jeweler, the suit was filed by the EEOC on
Sept. 23, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York in Buffalo, N.Y., on behalf of 19 women who
worked for Sterling dating back to Jan. 1, 2003. The women
claim they were paid less than their male counterparts and
denied promotions on the basis of gender.
The lawsuit was filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
The lawsuit contends that Sterling "pays its female retail sales
employees less than male employees performing substantially
equal work and denies female employees promotional opportunities
for which they are qualified." The lawsuit also states that
Sterling's "unlawful employment practices" are "done with malice
or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of
charging parties and Sterling's other female retail sales
employees."
The EEOC is seeking a jury trial in the case and has requested:
-- an injunction entered against Sterling preventing the
company from engaging in the sex discrimination practices
cited in the lawsuit;
-- to make it mandatory for Sterling to carry out policies,
practices and programs that provide equal opportunity and
to provide monetary compensation in various forms to the
charging parties and other female retail sales employees;
and
-- to make Sterling provide backpay with interest to the
female retail sales employees, court papers state.
Sterling Vice President of Media Relations David Bouffard said
in a statement to National Jeweler that the company does not
believe the charges are valid and intends to defend itself
vigorously, pointing out that the majority of Sterling's store
managers and employees are female.
"We take the allegations raised in this lawsuit very seriously,"
Mr. Bouffard said. "We are confident that these charges do not
reflect the culture of this company. Fairness, opportunity,
integrity and respect are core values at Sterling."
The report points out that this is the second case filed in the
New York court system alleging sexual discrimination at
Sterling.
The report recounts that March 2008, a group of 15 female
employees filed a class-action sex discrimination lawsuit
against the jeweler in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York in Manhattan.
EEOC trial attorney Margaret Malloy, Esq., clarifies that the
two cases are separate and that the parties in the first class-
action suit are in arbitration. She further clarifies that the
EEOC suit against Sterling is the result of the commission's own
investigation.
The EEOC lawsuit was filed after attempts to reach a voluntary
settlement with Sterling failed, the report notes.
TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
TETRA Technologies, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities
fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, according to the company's Aug. 11,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
Between March 27, 2008, and April 30, 2008, two putative class-
action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas against the company and certain of
its officers by certain stockholders on behalf of themselves and
other stockholders who purchased Tetra's common stock between
Jan. 3, 2007, and Oct. 16, 2007.
The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The suits allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws during the period by, among other things,
disseminating false and misleading statements and concealing
material facts concerning the company's current and prospective
business and financial results.
The complaints also allege that as a result of these actions,
the company's stock price was artificially inflated during the
class period, enabling the company's insiders to sell their
personally held shares for a substantial gain. They seek
unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and expenses.
On May 8, 2008, the court consolidated the complaints as "In re
TETRA Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 4:08-cv-
0965." On June 27, 2008, the court appointed Fulton County
Employees' Retirement System as lead plaintiff for the
consolidated actions.
The suit is "In re TETRA Technologies, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 4:08-cv-0965," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Judge Keith P. Ellison,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. (tbilek@bileklaw.com)
The Bilek Law Firm LLP
808 Travis, Ste. 802
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: 713-227-7720
Fax: 713-227-9404
Roger B. Greenberg, Esq.
(rgreenberg@schwartz-junell.com)
Schwartz Junell et al
909 Fannin, Ste. 2700
Houston, TX 77010
Phone: 713-752-0017
Fax: 713-752-0327
- and -
David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
58 S. Service Road, Ste. 200
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: 631-367-7100
Fax: 631-367-1173
Representing the defendants is:
Paul R. Bessette, Esq. (pbessette@akingump.com)
Akin Gump et al
300 W 6th St., Ste. 2100
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: 512-499-6250
Fax: 512-499-6290
TRUMP TOWER: Investors Conned into Buying Air Rights, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Trump International Hotel & Tower is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark
County, Nevada, over allegations that investors were conned into
buying air rights to condominium-hotel rooms that are less
valuable than promised, CourtHouse News Service reports.
The instant complaint involves a scheme among the defendants
through which plaintiffs were illegally and fraudulently induced
into purchasing the air rights to condominium-hotel room units
as investment securities. The eight plaintiffs named in the
suit say the hotel netted "millions of dollars" from investors
who bought condos for $565,000 to $780,000.
The plaintiffs say they paid a 20% deposit for air rights on top
of the purchase prices. They say the defendants informed them
that they could expect easy money and high occupancy rates when
their units were rented out to tourists.
The plaintiffs claim they were persuaded "that as a result of
the Trump brand, (the) rental program, room rates, occupancy
rates, hotel reservations and other amenities . . . would be
profitable and the value of the security would appreciate."
However, the plaintiffs say their revenue share was
"significantly less" than the amount represented. The
plaintiffs want the contracts rescinded. They also seek damages
and civil penalties.
The plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all individuals who
made a deposit to purchase one or more of the securities in the
Trump International Hotel & Tower Las Vegas from the defendants,
and who have not had their deposit returned in full to them.
The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:
(a) whether defendants sold securities within the meaning
of NRS Section 90.460 and the Securities Act of
1933;
(b) whether defendants registered their Securities;
(c) whether defendants' conduct violated NRS Section
90.460;
(d) whether defendants' conduct violated Section 12(a)(1);
(e) whether defendants' conduct violated Section 12(a)(2);
(f) whether defendants' conduct violated NRS Section
90.570;
(g) whether defendants represented that the investments
would earn a rate of return and was guaranteed,
secured or protected, which defendants knew or had
reason to know was false and misleading;
(h) whether defendants concealed material facts and
omitted to state material facts about the investment in
the enterprise;
(i) whether defendants made untrue statements of material
facts about the investment in the enterprise;
(j) whether defendants failed to comply with applicable
laws and regulations concerning the marketing and sale
of investment securities.
(k) whether defendants conducted the offering and sale of
investment securities in the form of the condominium-
hotel room units without all the required licensing and
regulatory approvals; and
(l) whether defendants violated the Interstate Land Sales
and Full Disclosure Act, 15 USC Section 1703(a)(2).
The plaintiffs ask the court for:
-- rescission and restitution as required by law;
-- damages according to proof;
-- interest on all damages as allowed by the laws of
the State of Nevada according to proof at time of trial;
-- a temporary restraining order, permanent or
temporary prohibitory or mandatory injunction or a writ
of prohibition or mandamus;
-- the imposition of a civil penalty of not more than
$2,500 for a single violation or $100,000 for multiple
violations in a single proceeding or a series of related
proceedings;
-- the issuance of a declaratory judgment;
-- an order for an accounting;
-- an order of punitive damages;
-- the appointment of a receiver or conservator for the
defendants' assets;
-- an order of payment of the divisions investigative
costs;
-- an order of such other relief as the court deems
just;
-- consideration paid for the securities and interest
at the legal rate of Nevada from the date of payment
plus all expenses incurred, costs and reasonable
attorney's fees, less the amount of income received on
the securities; and
-- damages for each plaintiff who no longer owns the
securities in the amount that would be recoverable upon
a tender less the value of the securities when the
plaintiff disposed of it, plus interest at the legal
rate of the State from the date of disposition of the
securities, costs and reasonable attorney's fees
determined by the court. Tender requires only notice of
willingness to exchange the securities for the amount
specified.
The suit is "William Spradlin, et al. v. Trump Ruffin Tower 1
LLC, et al., Case No. A572059," filed in the Eighth Judicial
District Court, Clark County, Nevada.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Robert B. Gerard, Esq.
Ricardo R. Ehmann, Esq.
Gerard & Associates
2840 South Jones Blvd.
Building D, Unit 4
Las Vegas, NV 89146
Phone: 702-251-0093
Fax: 702-251-0094
WAL-MART STORES: Supreme Court Recertifies Labor Suit in Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Supreme Court recertified a class action
lawsuit accusing Wal-Mart Stores Inc. of forcing employees to
work off the clock, of denying meal breaks and of failing to pay
overtime and minimum wage, CourtHouse News Service reports.
According to the report, the court vacated a superior court
judge's order to decertify a class of about 67,500 current and
former Wal-Mart hourly employees who worked at 47 Wal-Mart
stores in Massachusetts.
The suit was first filed in Middlesex Superior Court in 2001.
It was filed on behalf of 65,000 present and former Wal-Mart
employees in Massachusetts. It alleges that the company altered
timecards to decrease reported payroll expenses.
In November 2006, a Superior Court judge decertified the suit
and excluded the testimony of the employees' expert witness. An
expert witness claim to have found in Wal-Mart's paper and
electronic payroll records that employees were deprived of wages
for 10.1 million missed rest breaks from 1995 to 2005, that the
company clocked out employees one minute after they clocked in
in 21,383 instances, and that Wal-Mart inserted 13,572 unpaid
meal periods into employees’ records from 2001 to 2005.
When the court decertified the case, the judge said the
employees could not rely on Wal-Mart's payroll records to prove
their case without first demonstrating that they are indeed
accurate.
In January, the employees' attorney, Robert Bonsignore, Esq.,
filed briefs arguing that the case should be allowed to proceed
using Wal-Mart's payroll system records (Class Action Reporter,
Jan. 16, 2008). Federal and state statutes require those
records to be accurate, Mr. Bonsignore said, and Wal-Mart uses
them to pay taxes and report its financial performance to
shareholders.
Subsequently, at the plaintiffs' appeal, the Massachusetts
Supreme Court recertified a class of Wal-Mart employees in the
lawsuit.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq. (rbonsignore@aol.com)
Bonsignore & Brewer
23 Forest Street, Medford, MA 02155
Phone: 781-391-9400
Fax: 781-391-9496
Web site: http://www.bandblaw.net/contact.shtml
New Securities Fraud Cases
HARRIS STRATEX: Brian Felgoise Files Del. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
PHILADELPHIA, PA, Sept. 25, 2008 -- The Law Offices of
Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., filed a securities class action lawsuit
on behalf of shareholders who acquired Harris Stratex Networks,
Inc. (NASDAQ: HSTX) securities between January 29, 2007, and
July 30, 2008, inclusive including former shareholders of
Stratex Networks, Inc., who exchanged their shares for shares of
Harris Stratex Networks in a merger completed in January 2007.
The case is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware, against the company and certain key
officers and directors.
The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.
For more information, contact:
Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. (FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net)
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C.
261 Old York Road, Suite 423
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Phone: 215-886-1900
MEMC ELECTRONICS: Brian Felgoise Files Missouri Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
PHILADELPHIA, PA, Sept. 25, 2008 -- The Law Offices of
Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., commenced a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who acquired MEMC Electronic
Materials, Inc. (NYSE: WFR) securities between June 13, 2008,
and July 23, 2008, inclusive.
The case is pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, against the company and
certain key officers and directors.
The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.
For more information, contact:
Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. (FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net)
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C.
261 Old York Road, Suite 423
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Phone: 215-886-1900
NOVATEL WIRELESS: Izard Nobel Files Securities Lawsuit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
HARTFORD, Conn., Sept. 19, 2008 -- 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 California on behalf
of those who purchased the common stock of Novatel Wireless Inc.
between February 5, 2007, and August 19, 2008.
The Complaint charges that Novatel and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing materially false statements. Specifically, defendants
failed to disclose that Novatel was recognizing revenue in
violation of its own revenue cut-off procedures and Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles, thus rendering the Company's
publicly reported financial results materially false. The
defendants also misrepresented the status of an internal
accounting review by the Company's Audit Committee.
On May 13, 2008, defendants represented that Novatel was
unable to file its Form 10-Q with the SEC on time because of a
review of a single customer contract which they represented was
"substantially completed today."
On August 19, 2008, defendants admitted that the review was
still ongoing, that it involved at least six transactions
representing $9.1 million in revenue, and that when the review
was completed a decision would be made as to whether a
restatement would be required.
Interested parties may move the court no later than
November 17, 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/
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Izard Nobel Files Colorado Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
HARTFORD, Conn., Sept. 25, 2008 -- The law firm of Izard
Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing
investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, commenced a
lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of those
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of The
Spectranetics Corporation between April 19, 2007, and
September 4, 2008, inclusive.
The Complaint charges that Spectranetics and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing materially false statements. Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that defendants' failed to disclose the
following:
(i) that Spectranetics lacked effective regulatory
compliance controls;
(ii) that the Company was illegally and extensively
marketing its laser and catheters for uses that had not
been approved by the United States Food and Drug
Administration;
(iii) that the Company failed to report to the FDA that tests
found its laser caused significant damage to stents it
was using in the clinical trial;
(vi) that the Company illegally tested several products on
patients without FDA approval;
(v) that Spectranetics lacked effective internal controls;
and
(vi) as a result of the above, the Company's financial
results were materially inflated.
Interested parties may move the court no later than November 24,
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/
*********
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 * * *