/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/081023.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, October 23, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 211 Headlines ALBERTSON'S INC: Court Approves "Ward" Suit Deal on Final Basis CAL-MAINE FOODS: Faces Antitrust Suits in Pennsylvania Over Eggs CLASSIFIED VENTURES: Faces Illinois Suit Over Cars.com Over Ads CRITICAL THERAPEUTICS: Settles Del. Suit Over Cornerstone Merger DELTA ENTERPRISE: Infant Death Prompts Recall of Drop Side Cribs E.I. DUPONT: W.Va. Court Denies Class Status in PFOA Lawsuit GN NETCOM: Wireless Headset Batteries Recalled Due to Fire Risk HAARTZ MOUNTAIN: Recalls Rawhide Chips for Possible Health Risk HONEYWELL INT'L: Still Faces Several Automotive Filters Lawsuits JACK ALLEN: Ex-Patients Allege Sexual Misconduct and Molestation KALISPELL REGIONAL: Workers Sue Over Illegally Withdrawn Benefit MASSACHUSETTS TURNPIKE AUTHORITY: Sued Over Fast Lane Discounts NEXTWAVE INC: Class Period Expanded in Securities Fraud Lawsuit OPTIONABLE INC: Shareholders' Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed PLAYKIDS USA: Infant Death Prompts Recall of Convertible Cribs SOCIAL SECURITY: Sued for Halting Benefits to Assumed Felons SONY CORP: Faces New York Lawsuit Over Rear-Projection HDTVs SUPERVALU INC: Calif. Court Gives Final OK to Labor Lawsuit Deal UST INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of West Virginia Lawsuit VISA INC: Court Affirms Dismissal of Interchange Fees Lawsuit VISA INC: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit in Calif. Over "Chargeback" VISA INC: N.Y. Court Extends Fact Discovery in MDL-1720 Matter VISA INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Approving Conversion Fee Lawsuit Deal New Securities Fraud Cases SPECTRANETICS CORP: Charles Johnson Files Colo. Securities Suit ********* ALBERTSON'S INC: Court Approves "Ward" Suit Deal on Final Basis --------------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles County Superior Court in California granted final approval to the proposed settlement in the matter, "Joanne Kay Ward et al. v. Albertson's, Inc. et al.," which was filed against Albertson's Inc., an entity owned by Supervalu, Inc. The suit, filed on Oct. 13, 2000, alleges that the company and its subsidiaries -- Lucky Stores and Sav-on Drug Stores -- paid terminated employees their final paychecks in an untimely manner. The suit sought statutory penalties. On Jan. 4, 2005, the case was certified as a class-action lawsuit. In December 2007, however, the parties agreed to settle the matter. On Sept. 19, 2008, the court granted final approval to that settlement, according to the company's Oct. 15, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 6, 2008. Supervalu, Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a U.S. grocery channel that conducts its retail operations under three retail food store formats: combination stores (defined as food and drug), food stores and limited assortment food stores. The company's business is classified into two segments: Retail food and Supply chain services. CAL-MAINE FOODS: Faces Antitrust Suits in Pennsylvania Over Eggs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., is facing several purported class-action lawsuits in Pennsylvania alleging that it and several others have unlawfully conspired to fix the prices of shell eggs and egg products in violation of antitrust laws, according to the company's Oct. 20, 2008 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Oct. 15, 2008. On Oct. 15, 2008, Cal-Maine Foods was served with process in a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by T.K. Ribbing's Family Restaurant, Falconer, New York, on behalf of itself and "all others similarly situated." The complaint, "T.K. Ribbing's Family Restaurant v. Untied Egg Producers, Inc. et al., Case Number: 2:2008cv04653," was filed on Sept. 25, 2008. It named 16 defendants, including other egg producers and companies part of the egg industry, and industry cooperatives. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, under the U.S. Antitrust laws against defendants. The complaint alleges that the company and all other defendants, by various means and alleged activities, conspired to reduce the supply of eggs and egg products in the U.S., in order to artificially raise the price of eggs and egg products above competitive levels. The plaintiff is seeking certification of a class of all entities that purchased eggs or egg products in the U.S. directly from the defendants from Jan. 1, 2000, through the present. The company also has been named as a defendant in six other suits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, but has not yet been formally served with process in those cases. The allegations in the other lawsuits are similar to the allegations in the T.K. Ribbing's case. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. -- http://www.calmainefoods.com/-- is the producer and marketer of shell eggs in the U.S. The company's primary business is the production, grading, packaging, marketing and distribution of shell eggs. The company sells shell eggs in 29 states, primarily in the southwestern, southeastern, mid-western and mid-Atlantic regions of the U.S. The company is also the producer and marketer of specialty shell eggs in the U.S. Specialty shell eggs include reduced cholesterol, cage free and organic eggs. During the fiscal year ended May 31, 2008 (fiscal 2008), specialty shell eggs represented approximately 14% of the company's shell egg dollar sales. The company markets its specialty shell eggs under two brands: Egg-Land's Best and Farmhouse. The company also produces, markets and distributes private label specialty shell eggs to several customers. On June 27, 2008, the company completed the acquisition of the assets of Zephyr Egg Co., located in Zephyrhills, Florida. CLASSIFIED VENTURES: Faces Illinois Suit Over Cars.com Over Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- Classified Ventures, LLC, owner of Cars.com, is facing a class- action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois claiming the Internet business is stealing the newspaper's customers and confidential business information after canceling a franchise agreement, CourtHouse News Service reports. According to the report, the remedies requested by this action are narrow: injunctive relief pending arbitration of certain disputes between Journal and CV. This relief is necessary to halt CV's improper campaign to harvest exclusive advertising customers of Journal and convert them to become CV's own customers while the parties' contractual relationship (which made Journal and exclusive dealer and franchisee of CV) remains in place and while Journal still has exclusive rights to the sales territory granted to it by CV. Journal asks that the court: A. enter a temporary restraining order, to immediately prevent Defendant from contacting any of Journal's automotive dealership customers and otherwise using or disclosing any of Journal's confidential business information, including Journal's customer list; B. enter a preliminary and permanent injunction, until arbitration to determine arbitrable claims in the underlying dispute between the parties is finally resolved or settled, to: (1) extend the above temporary restraining order (precluding Defendant from contacting any of Journal's dealership customers and otherwise using any Journal confidential business information) for the pendency of any arbitration; and (2) prohibit Defendant from terminating Journal's rights under the Cars.com Affiliate Agreement; and C. award such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate in the circumstances. The suit is "Journal Sentinel, Inc., et al. v. Classified Ventures, LLC, Case No. 08CV5998," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Representing the plaintiff are: R. Rene Friedman, Esq. Katherine K. Ivers, Esq. Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP 225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60606-1229 Phone: 312-201-2000 Fax: 312-201-2555 CRITICAL THERAPEUTICS: Settles Del. Suit Over Cornerstone Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Critical Therapeutics, Inc., settled a purported class-action lawsuit in Delaware regarding Critical Therapeutics, Inc.'s proposed merger with Cornerstone BioPharma Holdings, Inc., according to the company's Oct. 20, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. On Sept. 17, 2008, a purported shareholder class-action lawsuit was filed by a single plaintiff against Critical Therapeutics and each of its directors in the Court of Chancery of The State of Delaware. The lawsuit is captioned, "Jeffrey Benison IRA v. Critical Therapeutics, Inc., Trevor Phillips, Richard W. Dugan, Christopher Mirabelli, and Jean George, Case No. 4039," and was filed in Court of Chancery, State of Delaware. The plaintiff, which claims to be a stockholder of Critical Therapeutics, brought the lawsuit on its own behalf, and is seeking certification of the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of all stockholders of Critical Therapeutics, except the defendants and their affiliates. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached fiduciary duties of loyalty and good faith, including a fiduciary duty of candor, by failing to provide Critical Therapeutics' stockholders with a proxy statement/prospectus adequate to enable them to cast an informed vote on the proposed merger, and by possibly failing to maximize stockholder value by entering into an agreement that effectively discourages competing offers. The complaint seeks, among other things, an order: -- enjoining the defendants from proceeding with or implementing the proposed merger on the terms and under the circumstances as they presently exist, -- invalidating the provisions of the proposed merger that purportedly improperly limit the effective exercise of the defendants' continuing fiduciary duties, -- ordering defendants to explore alternatives and to negotiate in good faith with all bona fide interested parties, -- in the event the proposed merger is consummated, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages, -- awarding compensatory damages against defendants, jointly and severally, and -- awarding the plaintiff and the purported class their costs and fees. On Oct. 17, 2008, Critical Therapeutics and the other defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiff regarding the settlement of the lawsuit. In connection with the settlement, the parties agreed that Critical Therapeutics would make certain additional disclosures to its stockholders, which are contained in a supplement to the proxy statement/prospectus that has been mailed to Critical Therapeutics' stockholders. Subject to the completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to the plaintiff, the memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval. If the court approves the settlement, the settlement will resolve all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the action being settled, including all claims relating to the merger, the merger agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiff's counsel will petition the court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Critical Therapeutics, the amount of which will either be agreed to by the parties or awarded by the court. Lexington, Massachusetts-based Critical Therapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.criticaltherapeutics.com/-- is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of products designed to treat respiratory, inflammatory and critical care diseases linked to the body's inflammatory response. Critical Therapeutics' marketed product is ZYFLO CR, an extended-release formulation of zileuton, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in May 2007 for the prevention and chronic treatment of asthma in adults and children 12 years of age or older. The company licensed from Abbott Laboratories exclusive worldwide rights to ZYFLO CR, ZYFLO, an immediate-release tablet formulation of zileuton, and other formulations of zileuton for multiple diseases and conditions. Critical Therapeutics began selling ZYFLO CR in the U.S. in September 2007. DELTA ENTERPRISE: Infant Death Prompts Recall of Drop Side Cribs ---------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in cooperation with Delta Enterprise Corp., of New York, New York., announced the voluntary recall to replace missing safety pegs involving 985,000 drop side cribs. Failure to use or install safety pegs can cause an entrapment and suffocation risk to infants and toddlers. When the safety pegs in the base of each leg of the crib are missing from the lower track, the crib locks can disengage and detach if lowered below the peg hole, creating a hazardous gap. This gap can lead to the entrapment and suffocation of an infant or toddler. CPSC staff is aware of a death of an 8-month-old child who became entrapped and suffocated when the drop side of the crib detached in a reassembled crib where the safety pegs were not installed. CPSC is also aware of two entrapments and nine disengagement incidents in cribs where the safety pegs were missing. The recall involves all Delta cribs manufactured in Taiwan or Indonesia, with the "Crib Trigger Lock with Safety Peg" drop side hardware design. These model numbers and country of origin can be located on the mattress support board label: 4320, 4340, 4500, 4520, 4530, 4532, 4540, 4542, 4550, 4551, 4580, 4600, 4620, 4624 (production dates 01/06 thru 11/07), 4640, 4660, 4720, 4735, 4742, 4750 (production dates 01/95 thru 12/00), 4760, 4770, 4780, 4790, 4820, 4840, 4850, 4860, 4880, 4890, 4892, 4900, 4910, 4920, 4925-2, 4925-6, 4930, 4940, 4943, 4944, 4947, 4948, 4949, 4950, 4958, 4963, 4968, 4969, 4980. The recalled cribs have date codes ranging from 1995 through December 2005 and one model (4624) was made in 2007. The model numbers are located on the top of the mattress support board. Pictures of the recalled cribs is found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09016a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09017.jpg The cribs, which were made in Taiwan and Indonesia, were sold at major retailers, including Walmart, Kmart and Target.com from January 1995 through September 2007 for about $100. These cribs have also been found to be sold secondhand. Cribs currently sold at retail are not involved. CPSC and Delta urge parents and caregivers to immediately stop using cribs that are missing a safety peg on any leg of the crib and contact Delta to receive a free, easy-to-install repair kit. The kit will include safety pegs in a bold color and warning labels to be affixed to the mattress board. Consumers with cribs that have all safety pegs installed may continue to use the cribs; however, CPSC recommends that these consumers contact Delta for the repair kit for future assembly purposes. Call Delta toll-free at (1-800-816-5304) anytime after 5pm today or log on to http://www.cribrecallcenter.comto order the free replacement kit. Parents and caregivers are encouraged to find a safe, alternative sleep environment for their child if their recalled crib is missing safety pegs. CPSC would like to remind parents not to use any crib with missing, broken, or loose parts. Make sure to tighten hardware from time to time to keep the crib sturdy. When using a drop side crib parents should check to make sure the drop side or any other moving part operates smoothly. Always check all sides and corners of the crib for disengagement. Any disengagement can create a gap and entrap a child. In addition, do not try to repair any side of the crib, especially with tape, wire or rope. E.I. DUPONT: W.Va. Court Denies Class Status in PFOA Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin has ruled that Parkersburg residents could sue E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. over the contamination of the city's water individually, but not as a class, The Herald-Dispatch reports. According to the report, thousands of Parkersburg residents want to sue DuPont as a group, claiming the city's water was contaminated by perfluorooctanoic acid, known as PFOA or C8. The Class Action Reporter explained in a report on Aug. 8, 2008, that PFOA is a synthetic chemical that does not occur naturally in the environment. Companies use PFOA to make fluoropolymers, substances with special properties that have thousands of important manufacturing and industrial applications. According to Herald-Dispatch, DuPont uses the chemical at its nearby Washington Works plant to manufacture Teflon. The residents were asking that DuPont clean up the water and fund a medical monitoring program. The CAR report mentioned that the case was originally filed in the West Virginia state court on behalf of customers of the Parkersburg City Water District, but was removed, on DuPont's request, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. Herald-Dispatch relates that in September, Judge Goodwin ruled that the residents could individually sue the company, but they had failed to meet the requirements to be certified as a class, in part because they could not prove that all were affected the same way and because they were not "sufficiently cohesive" to be a class. Judge Goodwin suggested residents to pursue other approaches. Residents Seek to Appeal The report says that a group of residents are asking a federal appeals court for permission to pursue its effort to collectively press the water contamination lawsuit against the company. According to Herald-Dispatch, lawyers representing the residents have asked the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to appeal now rather than wait for a final outcome of the case, which is still pending before Judge Goodwin. The residents argued they should be allowed to obtain class- action status because DuPont settled a state-filed class-action lawsuit involving the same chemical in February 2005. That lawsuit involved Ohio and West Virginia residents who lived in six water districts near the Washington Works plant. As part of the 2005 settlement, DuPont agreed to fund a health screening project to determine if there are any long-term health issues related to C8. The report says that the request to appeal Judge Goodwin's ruling was filed the same day a three-member science panel released the first of its findings from a health screening. The panel noted that people who lived closest to the plant had the highest levels of C8 in their blood, and those with the highest levels also had high cholesterol levels. Given the data, the panel could not make a link between C8 and diabetes. DuPont spokeswoman Robin Ollis told Herald-Dispatch that Judge Goodwin "made an appropriate ruling in denying class certification. We believe that plaintiff's request for permission to appeal is without merit." GN NETCOM: Wireless Headset Batteries Recalled Due to Fire Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- GN Netcom Inc., of Nashua, New Hampshire, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 525,000 GN9120 Wireless Headsets. The company said an internal short circuit can cause the lithium-ion polymer batteries to overheat, posing a fire hazard. GN Netcom has received 10 reports of incidents involving overheating, including three reports of open flames and property damage to furniture on which the headsets were resting. An additional 37 reports of overheating, three reports of open flames and one report of second degree burns, requiring medical attention, was received outside the U.S. This recall involves GN9120 wireless headsets with ATL lithium- ion polymer batteries. The headsets are intended primarily for professional use in offices and call centers. The product is sold with three components: a base station, headset and power adapter. "GN Netcom" or "GN9120" is printed on the base station and headset. The affected batteries have part number 603028 and have a white plastic enclosure. The batteries are labeled "Made by ATL (Amperex Technology Ltd.)" and "(ATL P/N 603028)." Batteries sold as a replacement part are labeled "GN9120 battery replacement kit." These recalled wireless headsets were manufactured in China and were being sold through GN Netcom, authorized distributors and resellers nationwide from January 2005 through September 2008 for between $150 and $350 as part of the GN9120 headset and about $20 as a replacement part. A picture of the recalled wireless headsets is found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09010.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately stop using and unplug the recalled headsets. Consumers should contact GN Netcom to receive a replacement battery. For additional information, contact GN Netcom at 877-803-6467 between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday ET, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.jabra.com/ HAARTZ MOUNTAIN: Recalls Rawhide Chips for Possible Health Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- October 20, 2008 -- The Hartz Mountain Corporation, Secaucus, NJ is voluntarily recalling one specific lot of Hartz Chicken-Basted Rawhide Chips due to concerns that one or more bags within the lot are potentially contaminated with Salmonella. Hartz is fully cooperating with the US Food and Drug Administration in this voluntary recall. Salmonella can cause serious infections in dogs, and, if there is cross-contamination caused by handling of the rawhide chips, in people as well, especially children, the aged, and people with compromised immune systems. Healthy people potentially infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. On rare occasions, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their healthcare providers. Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Animals can be carriers with no visible symptoms and can potentially infect other animals or humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian. The product involved is 4,850 - 2 pound plastic bags of Hartz Chicken-Basted Rawhide Chips, lot code JC23282, UPC number 3270096463 which were distributed to a national retail customer. While the normal testing that Hartz conducts through an independent outside laboratory did not detect the presence of Salmonella in any Hartz rawhide products, sample testing conducted by another laboratory did indicate the presence of the bacteria in a sample bag of the Chicken-Basted Rawhide Chips. Hartz is aggressively investigating the difference in test results and the potential source of the problem. Although Hartz has not received any reports of animals or humans becoming ill as a result of coming into contact with this product, Hartz is taking immediate steps to remove the product from all retail stores and distribution centers. Dog owners who purchased this product should check the lot code on their bag, and, if the code is not visible, or if the bag has lot code JC23282 imprinted thereon, they should immediately discontinue use of the product and discard it in a proper manner. Consumers can contact Hartz at 1-800-275-1414 with any questions they may have and to obtain reimbursement for purchased product. HONEYWELL INT'L: Still Faces Several Automotive Filters Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International, Inc., continues to face several purported class-action lawsuits in the U.S. And Canada over allegations that 12 filter manufacturers, including Honeywell, engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate U.S. customers for after-market automotive filters, according to the company's Oct. 17, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Initially, a suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on March 31, 2008, by S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, under the caption, "S&E Quick Lube Distributors Inc. v. Champion Labortories, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:2008cv00475." It is a purported class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of direct purchasers who bought filters from the defendants. Parallel purported class-action lawsuits, including those on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the U.S. and Canada. The U.S cases have been consolidated into a single multi- district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The consolidated lawsuit is "S&E Quick Lube Distributors Inc v. Champion Labortories, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:2008cv00475," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Judge Janet Bond Arterton, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Kerry R. Callahan, Esq. (krcallahan@uks.com) Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. One State St., Po Box 231277 Hartford, CT 06123-1277 Phone: 860-548-2600 JACK ALLEN: Ex-Patients Allege Sexual Misconduct and Molestation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against a Louisville doctor already on probation over alleged sexual misconduct, WHAS11 reports. According to the report, the complaint alleges that Dr. Jack Allen sexually embraced female patients and made suggestive remarks to them. Moreover, the class action suit claims that the doctor prescribed inappropriate drugs to a number of female patients while sexually harassing and molesting them. It's not the first time Dr. Allen's drawn attention, the report relates. In 2007, he was ordered by the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure to only treat female patients in the presence of a chaperone. In the recently filed class action lawsuit, some of his past patients are seeking damages, WHAS11 notes. According to court documents, one former patient described Dr. Allen grabbing her around the waist, rubbing his groin against her and remarking you are what every guy wants and that in other visits, similar incidents occurred. KALISPELL REGIONAL: Workers Sue Over Illegally Withdrawn Benefit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Three Kalispell Regional Medical Center employees filed a lawsuit against the hospital and its parent company, Northwest Healthcare, over a benefit that they say was illegally taken away, Montana's News Station reports. According to the report, the benefit was part of a severance pay plan that allowed some employees to cash in on unused sick leave. KRMC said that the hospital has the authority to modify, add to, or discontinue the employee benefits it offers. Joe Bottomly, Esq., the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, is planning to file a motion to make the case a class action lawsuit. This means that the three plaintiffs could be joined by up to 1,000 of their fellow KRMC colleagues. "An employer can give sick leave, not give sick leave, but once they do, and then people act on it and work on it, and have accrued benefits, you can't just take it away," Mr. Bottomly told Montana's News Station. With over 2,000 employees, Northwest Healthcare is the valley's largest employer, the report notes. MASSACHUSETTS TURNPIKE AUTHORITY: Sued Over Fast Lane Discounts --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority over the discount that users of the Fast Lane electronic toll paying system get that E-ZPass users do not, The Associated Press reports. According to AP, the suit charges that offering the discount to one group of toll payers but not the other violates Constitutional protections of interstate commerce. Plaintiffs attorney Matthew Pawa, Esq., told The Boston Globe that the Turnpike cannot charge more for interstate transactions on E-ZPass -- which is used around the Northeast -- than it does for transactions in Massachusetts' intrastate Fast Lane program. Mr. Pawa added that the suit could involve thousands of people and millions of dollars in damages. The AP report says that the Turnpike Authority declined comment regarding the matter. AP notes that about a third of electronic toll users on the Mass Pike use E-ZPass. NEXTWAVE INC: Class Period Expanded in Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 21, 2008 -- A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of California, Civil Action No. 08-1934, alleging an expanded class period, on behalf of the purchasers of the common stock of NextWave Wireless, Inc. (Nasdaq:WAVE) between November 27, 2006, through August 7, 2008. The complaint charges NextWave and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose that: (1) NextWave did not have adequate liquidity to continue operations as it executed its growth strategy and continued making aggressive worldwide acquisitions; (2) NextWave did not have the wherewithal to launch its new WiMAX semiconductor products in the first six months of 2008; (3) NextWave did not have financial resources to continue as a going concern; (4) NextWave did not have the financial resources to continue to operate its world-wide operations through the end of 2008; (5) NextWave had invested all of its marketable securities in high-risk and illiquid auction rate securities and had misrepresented these investments on its balance sheet included in its financial statements; and (6) defendants had no reasonable basis to make favorable statements that the Company's WiMAX semiconductor products would be available for commercial sale in the first half of 2008. On August 7, 2008, after the market closed, NextWave issued its second quarter 2008 financial results, announcing it had only $71.1 million in cash and similar instruments available as of June 30, 2008 and, unless it raised money, its cash would run out at the beginning of October 2008. Upon this news, shares of the Company's stock fell by more than 90%, to close at $0.95 per share. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of NextWave common stock during the Class Period. Interested parties may move the court no later than November 17, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Deborah R. Gross, Esq. (susang@bernardmgross.com) Susan R. Gross, Esq. (debbie@bernardmgross.com) Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. Phone: 866-561-3600 215-561-3600 Web site: http://www.bernardmgross.com/ OPTIONABLE INC: Shareholders' Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ VALHALLA, N.Y., Oct. 21, 2008 -- Optionable Inc. announced that a federal judge has dismissed a shareholder class action lawsuit against the Company. On May 11, 2007, two lawsuits were initially filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. These suits are: -- "Alexander Fleiss v. Optionable Inc., Mark Nordlicht, Kevin Cassidy, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig and Marc-Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 3753 (LAK)," and -- "Robert Rastocky v. Optionable, Inc., Kevin Cassidy and Edward O'Connor, Case No. 07 CV 3755 (CLB)," Subsequently, five additional lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: 1. "Jagdish Patel v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, and Edward J. O'Connor, Case No. 07 CV 3845 (LAK)," filed on May 16, 2007; 2. "Peters v. Optionable, Inc., Mark Nordlicht, Kevin P. Cassidy, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig, and Marc- Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 3877 (LAK)," filed on May 17, 2007; 3. "Manowitz v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, Edward J. O'Conner, and Mark Nordlicht, Case No. 07 CV 3884 (UA)," filed on May 17, 2007; 4. "Glaubach v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, Mark Nordlicht, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig, and Marc-Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 4085 (LAK)," filed on May 24, 2007; and 5. "Bock v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, Mark Nordlicht, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig, and Marc-Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 5948 (LAK)," filed on June 22, 2007. Each of the lawsuits names the company as a defendant and some of the lawsuits name as defendants all or certain of the directors and officers of the company. The directors and officers of the company that were named as defendants include: * Mark Nordlicht, former Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company; * Kevin Cassidy, former Chief Executive Officer and Vice- Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company; * Edward J. O'Connor, President of the Company and member of the Board of Directors; and * Marc-Andre Boisseau, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company. By order dated May 24, 2007, the Rastocky matter was voluntarily dismissed. By Orders dated June 20 and July 3, 2007, the Fleiss, Patel, Peters, Manowitz, and Glaubach cases were consolidated under the caption, "In re Optionable Securities Litigation, Case 07-CV-3753 (LAK)." By Order Nov. 20, 2007, Judge Kaplan granted the motion of KLD Investment Management, LLC, to serve as lead plaintiff and approved its choice of counsel, Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC. On Jan. 17, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. The complaint seeks unspecified damages arising from alleged violations of the federal securities laws, including the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. ss. 78a et seq., and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act, 17 C.F.R. ss. 240.10b -5. The complaint alleges, among other things, that during the class period of Jan. 22, 2007, to May 14, 2007, defendants failed to disclose certain information in public filings and statements, made materially false and misleading statements and misrepresentations in public filings and statements, sold artificially inflated stock and engaged in improper deals, had an improper relationship with and "schemed" with its customer Bank of Montreal, and understated the company's reliance on its relationship with BMO. The complaint alleges that while the company's stock was trading at artificially inflated prices, certain defendants sold shares of common stock of the company. On Feb. 15, 19, and 20, 2008, the company and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint, which motions were opposed by the plaintiffs. On April 3, 2008, Judge Kaplan ordered the individual defendants to file only a single joint reply memorandum in response to the plaintiffs' oppositions. Thus, in April 2008, the company filed its reply memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss the complaint, and the individual defendants filed their joint reply memorandum of the same. Earlier, Optionable, Inc., sought the dismissal of the consolidated shareholder lawsuit entitled "In re Optionable Securities Litigation, Case 07 CV 3753 (LAK)" (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 3, 2008). U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the Southern District of New York issued his ruling on Monday noting that the shareholder lawsuit, which claimed that Optionable had misled investors, was deficient. The dismissal is subject to possible appeal by the plaintiffs. The suit is "In re Optionable Securities Litigation, Case 07 CV 3753 (LAK)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. (malba@csgrr.com) Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 - and - Jeffrey Philip Campisi, Esq. (jcampisi@kaplanfox.com) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-687-1980 Fax: 212-687-1980 Representing the defendants are: Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq. (michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com) Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr L.L.P. 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, Nw Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 212-230-8800 Fax: 212-230-8888 - and - Paul Edouard Dans, Esq. (pdans@eapdlaw.com) Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, LLP 750 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-912-2736 Fax: 212-308-4844 PLAYKIDS USA: Infant Death Prompts Recall of Convertible Cribs -------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in cooperation with Playkids U.S.A. of Brooklyn, N.Y. announced a voluntary recall of about 2,000 convertible cribs. The sides of the convertible crib are made of a mesh that expands, creating a gap between the mattress and the side through which an infant can slip. This poses suffocation and entrapment hazards for young children. CPSC is aware of the death of a 5-month-old child on August 31, 2008, in Brooklyn, N.Y. The child became entrapped between the mattress and the stationary side rail of the convertible crib and suffocated. This recall involves the Playkids U.S.A. convertible crib/playpen/bassinet/bed with model number PLK-909. "Playkids U.S.A." can be found on the packaging and on a label sewn into the side of the crib. The model number can be found on the packaging. The convertible cribs have a drop side rail, a stationary side rail, a canopy assembly, and a bassinet. The sides of the convertible crib, the mattress support, the bassinet, the canopy and the bedskirt are covered in fabric and mesh. The fabric and the mesh come in a variety of colors and patterns. The convertible cribs, which were made in China, were sold in juvenile product retailers in New York from March 2007 through September 2008 for about $100. A picture of the recalled cribs is found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09015.jpg Consumers should stop using the recalled convertible cribs immediately and contact Playkids USA to receive a full refund. For additional information, consumers should contact Playkids USA collect at 718-797-0302 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday. SOCIAL SECURITY: Sued for Halting Benefits to Assumed Felons ------------------------------------------------------------ A class-action lawsuit was filed against Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue contending that more than 100,000 people have had their benefits unjustly halted by the federal government, San Mateo County Times reports. According to the report, one of the two plaintiffs, Rosa Martinez, said that the Social Security Administration informed her that the monthly $870 check she depended on would be cut off because there was an outstanding warrant for her arrest on drug charges, issued in 1980 by the Miami-Dade Police Department. However, Ms. Martinez said that the SSA's letter did not make any sense because she had never been to Miami, had never used illegal drugs and had never been arrested for a crime. According to the report, the suit was recently filed in federal court in San Francisco. It asks a judge to prohibit the federal agency from stopping any more Social Security payments to people "fleeing to avoid prosecution" for a felony, which makes beneficiaries ineligible under a 1996 law. Attorneys for Ms. Martinez and another plaintiff, Jimmy Howard, of Santa Maria, said that the agency has ceased sending benefit checks to people simply because there is an outstanding warrant in their name, without verifying whether the person is fleeing prosecution or is even aware of the warrant, the report notes. In some cases, the administration doesn't even have the right person, the plaintiffs contended. Ms. Martinez, who is disabled and gets Supplemental Security Income, had the same name and birth date as the Miami drug criminal, but that is where the similarities end, her attorneys said. "They're not looking at anything. They're just doing it strictly on this computer matching," Gerald McIntyre, directing attorney for the National Senior Citizens Law Center and one of Ms. Martinez's attorneys, told San Mateo County Times. Ms. Martinez is about 4 feet 6 inches tall, not 5 feet 4 inches like the drug suspect, said Christopher Douglas, a staff attorney for the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, the nonprofit that Ms. Martinez first turned to for help. In addition, the plaintiff was born in Mexico City, not in Denver like the drug suspect. She became a U.S. citizen in 2000. Still, the administration sent Ms. Martinez the letter in December 2007 and cut off her benefits for two months, the report notes. She had to scrape by with loans from her brother and friends, according to court documents. According to the report, benefits were reinstated in February with some help from Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, but then in August, the administration cut off the payments again, and Ms. Martinez missed getting her October check, according to the lawsuit. San Mateo County Times relates that Social Security officials have demanded that Ms. Martinez get proof that she is not the person listed in the warrant, but Mr. Douglas said Miami-Dade police have destroyed the original warrant and "proving a negative was incredibly difficult." A letter by the Social Security Administration's Redwood City district advised Ms. Martinez: "If you believe the warrant was issued in error, Social Security must have an original document that states the warrant was issued in error and does not pertain to you at all. It must state the date the warrant was rescinded. This is the only way this case can be resolved." The report points out that the suit demands that the agency reconsider the eligibility of anyone who gets any of several types of Social Security payments and has been cut off under the "fleeing to avoid prosecution" rule. Mr. McIntyre told San Mateo County Times that the agency must do more investigation to ensure that people with warrants are also actively evading prosecution before cutting off their benefits, as the law requires. Or, in Ms. Martinez's case, make sure that the person has ever been to the place the crime was committed. The report says that along with Mr. McIntyre and the local Legal Aid Society, the plaintiffs are represented by Munger, Tolles & Olson, a firm with offices in San Francisco that took the case pro bono; Disability Rights California; and the Urban Justice Center. SONY CORP: Faces New York Lawsuit Over Rear-Projection HDTVs ------------------------------------------------------------ Sony Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed in Manhattan Federal Court alleging that its rear-projection HDTVs display yellow stains and green haze instead of the promised clear pictures and that Sony refuses to fix them, CourtHouse News Service reports. Allegedly defective models include the XBR2, A2000 and Grand WEGA SXRD. Tokyo-based Sony Corporation is the ultimate parent company of the Sony Group. The Company is primarily focused on Electronics, such as audiovisual/ information technology products & components; Game, such as PlayStation; Entertainment, such as motion pictures and music, and Financial Services, such as insurance and banking sectors. It has five segments: Electronics, Games, Pictures, Financial Services and All Other. SUPERVALU INC: Calif. Court Gives Final OK to Labor Lawsuit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The California Superior Court in and for the County of San Diego granted final approval to the proposed settlement in a purported class-action lawsuit against Supervalu, Inc., and its acquisition, Albertson's Inc. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to pay wages for time worked during meal breaks by its non-exempt employees working in key carrier positions. Sally Wilcox and Dennis Taber filed the complaint with the court in August 2004. It was later certified as a class action. The lawsuit also alleges that Albertson's failed to provide itemized wage statements as required by California law and that Albertson's failed to timely pay wages of terminated or resigned employees as required by California law. It further alleges a violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. The lawsuit seeks recovery of all wages, compensation and penalties owed the members of the class certified, including compensation of one hour of pay for rest or meal period violations and wages for all time worked while employees were clocked out for meal periods or required to remain on the premises during meal periods. It also seeks to recover all past due compensation and penalties for failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements and to pay all wages due at time of termination for members of the class certified with interest from Aug. 6, 2000, to the time of trial. In December 2007, the parties agreed to settle the matter, subject to Court approval. On Aug. 8, 2008, the court granted final approval to the parties' settlement agreement, according to the company's Oct. 15, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 6, 2008. Supervalu, Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a U.S. grocery channel that conducts its retail operations under three retail food store formats: combination stores (defined as food and drug), food stores and limited assortment food stores. The company's business is classified into two segments: Retail food and Supply chain services. UST INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of West Virginia Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in a purported class-action lawsuit against UST, Inc., are appealing the dismissal of their case, which was filed in a West Virginia federal court, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The company has been served with a purported class action complaint filed in federal court in West Virginia, attempting to challenge certain aspects of a prior settlement approved by the Tennessee state court and seeking additional amounts purportedly consistent with subsequent settlements of similar actions, estimated by plaintiffs to be between $8.9 million and $214.2 million, as well as punitive damages and attorneys' fees. In May 2008, the court granted a motion by the defendants to dismiss the case, thereby throwing out the action with prejudice. In June 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. UST, Inc. -- http://www.ustinc.com/-- a holding company for its wholly owned subsidiaries: U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co., and International Wine & Spirits Ltd. The company is engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of consumer products in three operating segments: Smokeless Tobacco Products, Wine and All Other Operations. The Smokeless Tobacco Products segment manufactures and markets smokeless tobacco products. The Wine segment produces and markets varietal and blended wines, and imports and distributes wines from Italy. UST Inc.'s international operations, which market moist smokeless tobacco, are included in the All Other Operations segment. VISA INC: Court Affirms Dismissal of Interchange Fees Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the class-action suit entitled "Kendall, et al. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-04276-JSW," which names subsidiaries of Visa, Inc., as defendants, according to the company's Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The purported class action suit was filed by a group of merchants on Oct. 8, 2004, before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A. Inc., Visa International Corp. and several member banks in California. The suit alleges, among other things, that MasterCard's and Visa's interchange fees contravene the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. The plaintiffs seek damages and an injunction against MasterCard (and Visa) setting interchange and engaging in "joint marketing activities," which plaintiffs allege include the purported negotiation of merchant discount rates with certain merchants. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims in the complaint for failure to state a claim and, in the alternative, also moved for summary judgment with respect to certain of the claims. On July 25, 2005, the court issued an order granting the company's motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, which decision the plaintiffs have appealed. Oral argument on the appeal was held on June 11, 2007. On March 7, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to plead facts sufficient to establish a conspiracy, and that no amendment could cure the pleading defect. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit also held that the plaintiffs were "indirect purchasers" of Visa U.S.A. and could not recover antitrust damages for their claims. The suit is "Kendall, et al. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-04276-JSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Jeffrey S. White, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Richard Joseph Archer, Esq. (archerdic@aol.com) Archer & Hansen 3110 Bohemian Highway Occidental, CA 95465 Phone: 707-874-3438 Fax: 707-874-3438 - and - James Archer Kopcke, Esq. (jameskopcke@yahoo.com) Golden & Kopcke, LLP 22 Battery Street, Suite 610 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-399-9995 Fax: 415-398-5890 Representing the company are: Jay Neil Fastow, Esq. (jay.fastow@weil.com) Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Phone: 212-310-8644 Fax: 212-310-8007 Gianluca Morello, Esq. (gianluca.morello@fowlerwhite.com) Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A., 501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1700 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: 813-769-7867 - and - Wesley Railey Powell, Esq. (wpowell@hunton.com) Hunton & Williams, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Phone: 212-309-1013 Fax: 212-309-1100 VISA INC: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit in Calif. Over "Chargeback" ------------------------------------------------------------- Visa, Inc., is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, entitled, "Robert Smith v. VISA, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:08-cv- 03660-CAS-CT," according to the company's Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. Robert Smith, individually and doing business as Hill Country Custom Cycles, filed a putative class-action suit against Visa, Inc., several banks, and a processor in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 4, 2008. The plaintiff alleges that, due to fluctuations in currency conversion rates, a transaction disputed by a cardholder and ultimately charged back to a merchant by its acquiring bank (a "chargeback") may result in a debit to a merchant's account in excess of the original transaction amount. The lawsuit asserts claims under federal and state antitrust law and a variety of common law claims, including fraud and breach of contract. The suit is "Robert Smith v. VISA, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:08- cv-03660-CAS-CT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Christina A. Snyder, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gayle M. Blatt, Esq. (gmb@cglaw.com) Casey Gerry Reed and Schenk 110 Laurel St. San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-238-1811 Fax: 619-544-9232 - and - Hunter Thomas Hillin, Esq. (hhillin@muellerlaw.com) Law Offices of Mueller 404 West 7th Street Austin, TX 78701 Phone: 512-478-1473 Representing the defendants are: Lawrence P. Ebiner, Esq. (larry.ebiner@hro.com) Holme Roberts & Owen LLP 777 South Figueroa Street Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5826 Phone: 213-572-4300 Fax: 213-572-4400 - and - Douglas B. Adler, Esq. (dadler@skadden.com) Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom 300 S. Grand Avenue Ste 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-687-5000 VISA INC: N.Y. Court Extends Fact Discovery in MDL-1720 Matter -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued an order extending fact discovery to Nov. 21, 2008 with regards to the matter, "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, 1:05-md-01720- JG-CLP," which names subsidiaries of Visa, Inc., as defendants, according to the company's Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. Georgia Litigation On May 6, 2005, a purported class action was filed by a merchant, Animal Land, Inc., against Visa U.S.A. with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging that Visa U.S.A.'s no-surcharge rule violates Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 8, 2008). The plaintiff alleges that under the no-surcharge rule, merchants are not permitted to pass along to cardholders a discrete surcharge to account for the fees that the merchant pays in connection with Visa-branded payment card transactions. The plaintiff alleges that this rule causes the fees paid by merchants to be supracompetitive. The suit seeks treble damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys fees and injunctive relief. The Animal Land case has been transferred to the multidistrict litigation proceedings and is included in the First Amended Class Action Complaint discussed below. Connecticut Litigation On June 22, 2005, a purported class action was filed by a group of merchants with the U.S. District Court of Connecticut against MasterCard, Visa U.S.A., Visa International, and a number of Visa U.S.A., and Visa International member financial institutions alleging, among other things, that Visas and MasterCards purported setting of interchange fees violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In addition, the complaint alleges Visas and MasterCards purported tying and bundling of transaction fees also constitutes a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Other Litigation Since the filing of this complaint, there have been approximately 48 similar complaints, all but 10 of which were styled as class actions, filed on behalf of merchants against Visa U.S.A. and MasterCard, and in some cases, certain Visa U.S.A. and Visa International member financial institutions, in U.S. federal courts. Visa International was named as a defendant in more than 30 of these complaints. Multidistrict Litigation On Oct. 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring these cases to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for coordination of pre-trial proceedings (Multidistrict Litigation 1720). On April 24, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint. Taken together, the claims in the First Amended Class Action Complaint and in the 10 complaints brought on behalf of individual merchants are generally brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. In addition, some of these complaints contain certain state unfair competition law claims. These interchange-related litigations also seek treble damages in an unspecified amount (although several of the complaints allege that the plaintiffs expect that damages will range in the tens of billions of dollars), as well as attorneys fees and injunctive relief. Visa U.S.A., and Visa International answered the First Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint and the individual merchant complaints on June 9, 2006. On July 10, 2007, pursuant to a joint request by the parties, the court entered a scheduling order setting deadlines for completion of fact discovery to June 30, 2008 and expert discovery to Feb. 20, 2009, and for filing all summary judgment and other pretrial motions by March 27, 2009. On Sept. 7, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation to the District Court recommending that the District Court grant the defendants motion to dismiss the class plaintiffs claims for damages incurred prior to Jan. 1, 2004. On Oct. 12, 2007, the Magistrate Judge granted putative class plaintiffs request to brief the issue of whether the Report and Recommendation would affect the claims of non-party members of the putative class that opted out of the "In re Visa Check/ MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation." Following the submissions, the Magistrate Judge declined plaintiffs request to advise on that issue. Putative class plaintiffs filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on Nov. 14, 2007, and defendants filed their responses to those objections on Dec. 13, 2007. On Jan. 8, 2008, the court adopted the Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation without modification, dismissing the class plaintiffs claims for damages incurred prior to Jan. 1, 2004. As part of the Retrospective Responsibility Plan, Visa, Inc. entered into a judgment sharing agreement with Visa U.S.A., Visa International, and certain member financial institutions of Visa U.S.A. on July 1, 2007. On May 8, 2008, putative class plaintiffs served on defendants a motion seeking to certify a class of merchants. Once briefing on the class certification issue is complete, all briefs will be filed with the court. On May 23, 2008, putative class plaintiffs filed a pre-motion letter seeking leave of court to file a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. Among other things, this complaint would: -- add new claims for damages and injunctive relief against Visa and the bank defendants regarding interchange fees for Visa online/PIN debit cards; -- add new claims for damages and injunctive relief against Visa and the bank defendants since the time of Visa's Initial Public Offering regarding interchange fees for Visa's credit, offline debit, and online/PIN debit cards; -- eliminate claims for damages relating to the so-called "no-surcharge" rule and "anti-steering" rule; and -- eliminate claims for damages based on the alleged tie of network processing services and payment guarantee services to the payment card system services. All defendants, but one bank defendant have agreed not to oppose putative class plaintiffs' request. The court entered a revised case management schedule on Aug. 6, 2008, setting deadlines for class certification briefing, expert discovery and dispositive motions and extending fact discovery to Nov. 21, 2008. Visa, Inc. -- http://www.corporate.visa.com/-- is a retail electronic payments network. The company facilitates global commerce through the transfer of value and information among financial institutions, merchants, consumers, businesses and government entities. Its primary customers are financial institutions, for which it provides processing services and payment product platforms, including platforms for consumer credit, debit, prepaid and commercial payments. The company has three business operations: transaction processing services, product platforms and payments network management. In October 2007, the company completed the series of transactions, in which Visa U.S.A., Visa International, Visa Canada and Inovant became direct or indirect subsidiaries of Visa Inc. Visa Europe did not become a subsidiary of Visa Inc., but rather remained owned and governed by its European member financial institutions and entered into a set of contractual arrangements with the company in connection with the reorganization. VISA INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Approving Conversion Fee Lawsuit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to grant final approval to a settlement reached in a consolidated class-action suit in connection to currency conversion "fees," which names subsidiaries of Visa, Inc., as defendants. MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A. Inc., Visa International Corp., several member banks including Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A. (USA), MBNA, and Citicorp Diners Club Inc. are defendants in a number of federal putative class action complaints that allege, among other things, violations of federal antitrust laws based on the asserted one percent currency conversion "fee" (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 25, 2008). Pursuant to an order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the federal complaints have been consolidated in MDL No. 1409 before Judge William H. Pauley III in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In January 2002, the federal plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint adding MBNA Corp. and MBNA America Bank N.A. as defendants. This pleading asserts two theories of antitrust conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act: (i) an alleged "inter-association" conspiracy among MasterCard (together with its members), Visa (together with its members) and Diners Club to fix currency conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of "no less than 1% of the transaction amount and frequently more;" and (ii) two alleged "intra-association" conspiracies, whereby each of Visa and MasterCard is claimed separately to have conspired with its members to fix currency conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of "no less than 1% of the transaction amount" and "to facilitate and encourage institution?and collection?of second tier currency conversion surcharges." The MDL Complaint also asserts that the alleged currency conversion "fees" have not been disclosed as required by the Truth in Lending Act. On July 20, 2006, the defendants in the MDL action entered into agreements settling the MDL action and related matters. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, MasterCard has paid $72,480 to be used for the defendants' settlement fund to settle the MDL action and $13,440, which is expected to be paid in the third quarter of 2007, to settle the matter "Schwartz v. Visa Int'l Corp., et al.," which was brought in the Superior Court of California in February 2000, purportedly on behalf of the general public over the conversion fee. On Nov. 8, 2006, Judge Pauley granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreements. The settlement agreements are subject to final approval and resolution of all appeals. On Nov. 15, 2006, the plaintiff in one of the New York state court cases appealed the preliminary approval of the settlement agreement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On June 6, 2007, the appellate court granted MasterCard's motion to defer briefing until a final settlement is approved in the MDL action. On Feb. 14, 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an objection on behalf of the U.S. to the settlement. Among other things, the objection states that the U.S. is not a member of the class covered by the settlement. Thus, any claims that the U.S. may have against Visa or its member banks relating to foreign transactions will not be released by the settlement. On May 20, 2008 and June 4, 2008, the Department of Justice submitted letters to the court related to its pending objection. On March 31, 2008, the court held a hearing on whether to approve the settlement and enter the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal. The matter remains under submission, according to the company's Aug. 13, 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 Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, Master Docket No. 1:01-md-1409," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge William H. Pauley, III, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: David J. Bershad, Esq. (dbershad@milbergweiss.com) Michael Morris Buchman, Esq. (mbuchman@milbergweiss.com) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Phone: 212-594-5300 212-946-9387 Fax: 212-868-1229 Christopher Burke, Esq. Amelia F. Burroughs, Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins, LLP Suite 1800, 600 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 Fax: 619-231-7423 - and - Sheldon V. Burman, Esq. Law Offices of Sheldon V. Burman, PC 110 East 59th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-935-1600 New Securities Fraud Cases SPECTRANETICS CORP: Charles Johnson Files Colo. Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- MINNEAPOLIS, Oct. 17, 2008 -- Charles H. Johnson & Associates commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Spectranetics Corporation publicly traded securities during the period April 19, 2007, through Sept. 4, 2008. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's business operations and financial performance. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that: 1) the Company was improperly promoting its own products and the products of third parties; 2) the Company was improperly compensating personnel, including personnel involved in two post-market studies of Spectranetics' products from 2002-2005; and 3) the Company was receiving parts from an international source in violation of customs laws. On September 4, 2008, the Company issued a press release announcing that it had been served by the Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement with a search warrant issued by the United States District Court, District of Colorado. The search warrant requested information and correspondence relating to the promotion, use, testing, marketing and sales of certain of the Company's products, among other things. As a result of this disclosure, Spectranetics' closing stock price dropped from $9.00 per share on September 3, 2008, to $4.73 the next day and trading was halted. Interested parties may move the court no later than November 24, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Neal Eisenbraun, Esq. Charles H. Johnson & Associates 2599 Mississippi Street New Brighton, MN 55112 Phone: 651-633-5685 e-mail: cjohnsonlaw@gmail.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 * * *