/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/050209.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, February 9, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 28
Headlines
ALLFIRST FINANCIAL: Shareholder Suits Target Former Executives
BETTER PLUMBERS: OH A.G. Petro Launches Suit For Consumer Fraud
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Utah Receives $565T From Buspar Settlement
CHINA AVIATION: Murray Frank Expands Class Period For Lawsuit
CONNECTICUT: Republican Lawmaker Proposes Bill V. Obesity Suits
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION: Recalls Durangos Due To Fire Hazard
DIGI INTERNATIONAL: Asks NY Court To Approve Lawsuit Settlement
DUBBSTER: Recalls 470 Girls' Sweatshirts Due To Flammability
FORD MOTOR: Recalls 358,857 Focus Cars For Injury, Accident Risk
FOX ENTERTAINMENT: Shareholders Launch Fraud Lawsuits in DE, NY
GUARDIAN ALERT: PA A.G. Corbett Commences Consumer Fraud Suit
IV FLUSH: FDA Reissues Warning Against Use Of Preloaded Syringes
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: SEC Moves For Distribution Of Disgorgement
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Ohio Retirement Systems Named Lead Plaintiffs
NEVER-ENUFF: Reaches Agreement With A.G. To Issue Refunds
PRIMECO PERSONAL: Municipalities Ordered To Reimburse Customers
PULITZER INC.: Two Shareholders Sue To Spoil Planned Buy-Out
SOUTH CAROLINA: Court Penalizes Defendants in SEC Fraud Case
TENNESSEE: To Participate in $27M Nationwide SUV Safety Campaign
TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: CA Court Orders Stock Lawsuits Consolidated
UNIFI INC.: NC Court Junks Consolidated Cotton Antitrust Lawsuit
UNITED KINGDOM: Law Firms Prepare For European Class Actions
UNITED STATES: Senate Begins Debate On Class Action Reform Bill
VIXEL CORPORATION: Gateway Partners Appeal Stock Suit Settlement
VIXEL CORPORATION: Receives $300T Reimbursement For Settlement
WASHINGTON: Utilities to Issue $10 Mil In Refunds To Customers
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
New Securities Fraud Cases
51JOB INC.: Bull & Lifshitz Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
51JOB INC.: Chitwood & Harley Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
51JOB INC.: Emerson Poynter Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
51JOB INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
51JOB INC.: Stull & Brody Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
CHINA AVAITION: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
SIERRA WIRELESS: Weiss & Lurie Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
TOWER AUTOMOTIVE: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NY
TOWER AUTOMOTIVE: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges NY Securities Suit
*********
ALLFIRST FINANCIAL: Shareholder Suits Target Former Executives
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two lawsuits initiated by shareholders of Allfirst Financial,
who are alleging fraud among top executives at the company that
suffered one of the largest bank frauds in history, will be
merged into a 70-page complaint in federal court in New York,
the Associated Press reports.
According to shareholders, executives should have known about
and policed the $690 million trading scandal. The civil suits
mark the first fraud accusations against executives at the
former Baltimore bank since currency trader John Rusnak's 7 1/2
years sentence in January 2003, after pleading guilty to
criminal charges.
"A lot of people concluded this was a lone-wolf case and the
higher-ups were victims. But those executives were actively
hiding their heads in the sand," Don Enright, an attorney
representing the shareholders told AP. "We are confident that
we can show these executives were aware that something was very
wrong with their currency trading operations and ignored the
problem for years."
On February 6, 2002, executives of Allied Irish Banks PLC, one
of Ireland's largest banks, announced a huge fraud at their U.S.
banking operation based in Baltimore. An investigation by Eugene
Ludwig, a former U.S. comptroller of the currency, concluded
that Mr. Rusnak acted alone in amassing and covering up hundreds
of millions of dollars in losses over five years with bad trades
of the U.S. dollar against the Japanese yen. However, Mr.
Ludwig told AP he had only weeks to investigate what was
described as the fourth largest bank fraud in history and didn't
consider his report "definitive."
Less than eight months after the scandal broke, Allied Irish
sold its majority stake in Allfirst to M&T Bank Corp., and in an
instant 1,100 Allfirst employees lost their jobs, but Allied
Irish retained legal liability in the Rusnak affair. The company
and other defendants in the class action suit will likely seek
to have it dismissed before any executive is deposed or summoned
to testify.
Shareholders in the class-action suit allege executives
knowingly or recklessly disregarded clues about Mr. Rusnak's
scheme, enabling the company to report higher profits to
investors. Allfirst revised years of financial statements after
disclosing that it had caught Mr. Rusnak.
Banking consultant Bert Ely of Ely & Co. in Alexandria, Va.,
said that "everyone who looked at this case closely" found that
top executives weren't aware of Mr. Rusnak's fraud because of a
breakdown of internal controls. "And the negligent ones
basically got the boot. They were thoroughly disgraced."
Others said not enough was done to hold the executives
accountable. "To say they didn't know what was going on is a
load of bunk. That's what they're paid the big bucks for,"
Stuart Greenberg, a private banking consultant in Baltimore,
told AP. "They were captains of the ship. Last I checked, the
captain is supposed to go down with the ship."
BETTER PLUMBERS: OH A.G. Petro Launches Suit For Consumer Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro filed suit against Better
Plumbers and Home Improvement, Inc., and its owner, James
Durkin, in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court, alleging that Mr.
Durkin and his company failed to deliver products ordered by
consumers, performed shoddy work, failed to obtain necessary
permits and licenses and continued to operate after a court
ordered them to cease business until proper permits and licenses
were obtained. Consumer complaints received in Petro's office
claim losses between $300 and $10,000.
"Unscrupulous contractors are receiving large down payments to
perform work and either failing to honor their agreements or
performing such shoddy work that consumers are forced to hire
someone else to correct the problems," Petro said.
On December 17, 2002, Mahoning County Common Pleas Court, in
James Durkin d.b.a. Better Plumbing & Home Improvement v.
Shirley Nichols, ruled that Durkin and his company could not do
business until it was properly licensed and paid all judgments,
as well as any consumer transaction that was still outstanding.
Despite this ruling, consumer complaints received by Petro's
office show that Durkin is ignoring this order by continuing to
conduct business, which is a violation of Ohio's consumer laws.
Attorney General Petro asked the court to issue an order that
would permanently prohibit Better Home Improvement and Durkin
from conducting plumbing and home improvement business in Ohio.
Petro also asked that the court order Durkin and his company to
refund consumers and pay a civil penalty.
Consumers can file complaints with Attorney General Jim Petro's
Consumer Protection Section online: http://www.ag.state.oh.usor
by phone toll-free: 800-282-0515. For more information, contact
Michelle Gatchell, Attorney General's Office, by Phone:
(614) 466-3840
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Utah Receives $565T From Buspar Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Utah is receiving $565,000 from a settlement with
the manufacturer of the anti-anxiety drug BuSpar, Utah Attorney
General Mark Shurtleff announced in a statement.
Bristol-Myers Squibb paid over $41 million to settle a multi-
state antitrust lawsuit for allegedly making false statements to
the Food & Drug Administration and conspiring to keep generic
drugs from entering the marketplace. Last July the drug
manufacturer also sent $177,314 to 305 individual Utahns, which
means the state of Utah and its citizens received a total of
$742,506.
"Thanks to the dedicated lawyers of this office, consumers have
been made whole and the state of Utah is no longer suffering the
consequences of a company that illegally inflated drug prices,"
said A.G. Shurtleff.
The settlement will be distributed as:
(1) $11,017 - University of Utah Medical Plan
(2) $275,084 - Utah Medicaid Office
(3) $5,473 - Utah Developmental Center
(4) $24,110 - Utah State Hospital
(5) $60,025 - Public Employees Health Program
(6) $189,483 - Attorney General Antitrust Litigation Fund
The settlement covered individuals and organizations that
purchased BuSpar between 1998 and 2003 and filed valid claims by
December 5, 2003. Assistants Attorney General Ronald Ockey and
James Palmer represented Utah in the settlement. The suit was
filed in 2001 against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Watson Pharma,
Inc. and Danbury Pharmacal, Inc. and settled two years later.
CHINA AVIATION: Murray Frank Expands Class Period For Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has expanded the
period covered by the class action lawsuit it is initiating
against China Aviation Oil (Singapore) Corp. (C47.SG) in New
York, the Dow Jones reports.
The firm, which didn't explain the change in dates, had
originally filed the suit in January on behalf of shareholders
who purchased CAO shares between February 5, 2004 and November
30, 2004. In its statement, the law firm said that the start
date for the period covered by the class action lawsuit has been
reset to March 27, 2003 with the deadline for investors to join
the lawsuit still on March 6, 2005.
In its statement, Murray, Frank & Sailer alleged that CAO didn't
have the necessary risk management controls in place for hedging
and trading, contrary to its prospectus. They also alleged that
the Singapore-listed Chinese jet fuel importer had issued false
and misleading statements regarding its business and prospects.
Furthermore, the law firm alleges that the funds raised for an
acquisition were used to meet margin calls on derivative losses,
and CAO's financial statements were grossly overstated to hide
liabilities in excess of US$550 million due to derivative
trading losses.
CAO had around 7,000 minority shareholders when its shares were
suspended from trading on the Singapore Exchange on November 29,
2004, following revelations that it had incurred trading losses
of around $550 million.
Lawyers here have warned that a U.S. class action suit against
CAO would be futile as the company doesn't have U.S. assets and
courts there don't have jurisdiction in Singapore.
CONNECTICUT: Republican Lawmaker Proposes Bill V. Obesity Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut House Minority Leader Robert Ward, R-North Branford
is proposing legislation that would shield fast-food
establishments, including McDonald's, and other restaurants from
lawsuits that allege they are to blame for obesity, The
Associated Press reports.
The Republican lawmaker told The AP, "While I recognize that
there is a problem of obesity, it is one that can best be
addressed with individual responsibility, not suing people who
produce or sell food."
Similar bills, known as "cheeseburger bills," have been cooking
on the legislative burner in statehouses across the country with
fourteen states already enacting legislation bans these kinds of
lawsuits. According to the National Restaurant Association,
lawmakers in 18 states including New Mexico, California, Georgia
and Oklahoma have proposed similar legislation this year.
Trial lawyers have generally been opposed to the bills. Rick
Newman, president of the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association,
told The AP, "As a general rule, we think that the courts are
able to handle legal disputes rather than the Legislature ruling
what's in and out of bounds."
Sen. Ward also said he wants to keep Connecticut from becoming
the battleground for another lawsuit and that he also wants to
protect small businesses from incurring large legal costs to
defend themselves.
Connecticut restaurant owners are mobilizing in support of the
measure. Simon Flynn, president of the Connecticut Restaurant
Association, told AP that restaurant owners should not be
legally responsible for the lifestyle choices of their
customers. He further said, "There's the fear that we may be
stopping someone's rightful position to sue. What we want to do
is eliminate these merit less lawsuits in which you're demanding
restaurants take responsibility for somebody's lifestyle."
The House Minority Leader expects that it will be hard to get
the bill passed in a Democrat-controlled legislature, which
awaits action in the Judiciary Committee.
To prove how difficult it is, the Republican lawmaker pointed
out the recent comments of the Co-chairman of the Public Health
Committee, Sen. Christopher Murphy, who was hesitant to exempt
fast-food businesses from lawsuits. Sen. Murphy, D-Southington
told AP "Do the lawsuits sound silly to me? You bet . But should
we exempt the fast food industry from culpability for not
telling the truth about how bad their food is? No."
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION: Recalls Durangos Due To Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
DaimlerChrysler Corporation is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 26,000 Dodge Durango SUVs, model 2005.
On the SUV, the fuel tank filler tube inlet check valve may not
fully close at the end of refueling. This could allow some fuel
to escape from the vehicle filler neck. Fuel leakage in the
presence of an ignition source can result in a fire.
Dealers will inspect the inlet check valves and replace the fuel
tank assembly. The manufacturer has not yet provided an owner
notification schedule. For more details, contact the Company by
Phone: 1-800-853-1403 or the NHTSA's auto safety hotline:
1-888-327-4236.
DIGI INTERNATIONAL: Asks NY Court To Approve Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Digi International, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York to grant preliminary
approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class
action filed against it, NetSilicon, certain of its officers and
certain underwriters involved in NetSilicon's initial public
offering (IPO).
On April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed, asserting claims relating to the initial public
offering (IPO) of NetSilicon and approximately 300 other public
companies. The consolidated suit asserts, among other things,
that NetSilicon's IPO prospectus and registration statement
violated federal securities laws because they contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding the conduct of
NetSilicon's IPO underwriters in allocating shares in
NetSilicon's IPO to the underwriters' customers.
Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the two named
officers were dismissed from the lawsuit, without prejudice, on
October 9, 2002. In June 2003, the Company elected to
participate in a proposed settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs in this litigation. If ultimately approved by the
Court, this proposed settlement would result in a dismissal,
with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the
Company and against any of the other issuer defendants who elect
to participate in the proposed settlement, together with the
current or former officers and directors of participating
issuers who were named as individual defendants.
Formal settlement documents, including a stipulation of
settlement and related documents were filed with the Court in
June 2004. The plaintiffs in the case against the Company,
along with the plaintiffs in the other related cases in which
issuer defendants have agreed to the proposed settlement, have
requested preliminary approval by the Court of the proposed
settlement, including the form of the notice of the proposed
settlement that will be sent to members of the proposed classes
in each settling case. Certain underwriters who were named as
defendants in the settling cases, and who are not parties to the
proposed settlement, have filed an opposition to preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement of those cases.
Consummation of the proposed settlement remains conditioned on,
among other things, receipt of both preliminary and final Court
approval. If the court preliminarily approves the proposed
settlement, it will direct that notice of the terms of the
proposed settlement be published in a newspaper and mailed to
all proposed class members and schedule a fairness hearing, at
which objections to the proposed settlement will be heard.
Thereafter, the Court will determine whether to grant final
approval to the proposed settlement.
DUBBSTER: Recalls 470 Girls' Sweatshirts Due To Flammability
------------------------------------------------------------
Dubbster (H & M private label), H & M, of New York, N.Y. is
cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling about 470 Girls' Cardigan
Sweaters with Faux Fur Trim.
The furry trim on the sweaters is dangerously flammable. The
recalled cardigan sweaters are black with a black faux fur trim
around the wrists, neck and down the front center of the
sweater. The sweaters were sold in girls' sizes 7Y through 14Y
and are made of 100 percent acrylic. "Dubbster" and RN number
"0101255" is printed on the inside neck label of the sweaters.
Manufactured in Indonesia, the sweaters were sold at all H & M
stores in the northeastern United States from November 2004
through December 2004 for about $20.
Consumers should return the recalled sweaters to any H & M
location to receive a refund.
Consumer Contact: For additional information contact H & M toll-
free at (877) 439-6261 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday or visit the firm's web site at
http://www.hm.com.
FORD MOTOR: Recalls 358,857 Focus Cars For Injury, Accident Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling
358,857 Ford Focus passenger cars, models 2000-2002.
Certain passenger vehicles with four or five doors and
originally sold or currently registered in Connecticut,
Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia, a build-
up of corrosion at the pawl pivot area of the rear door latch
that can cause a binding condition on the pawl that may affect
proper engagement of the pawl into the catch. The occupant may
experience difficulty opening or closing a rear door and
eventually the rear door may not latch properly. If not latched
properly, the door may open while the vehicle is in motion. If
an occupant fell out of the vehicle, personal injuries could
occur.
Dealers will have a lower rocker seal added to the door and have
the rear door latches evaluated. A latch that passes the
evaluation will be lubricated to prevent future corrosion. A
latch that does not pass the evaluation will be replaced. In
addition, a sticker will be affixed to the rear doors advising
the owners to use the recommended lubricant. The recall is
expected to begin on March 1,2005.
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-392-3673
or the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.
FOX ENTERTAINMENT: Shareholders Launch Fraud Lawsuits in DE, NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. faces a number of purported class
actions filed in Delaware and New York, generally alleging,
among other things, that News Corporation and the members of the
Company's board of directors have breached fiduciary duties owed
to the public stockholders of the Company, including as a result
of News Corporation offering to acquire shares of the Company's
Class A common stock at an unfair price and at a time that
disadvantages the Company's stockholders. The complaints
generally seek, declaratory and injunctive relief and damages in
an unspecified amount.
The Company is currently aware of seventeen purported class
action complaints that have been filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware challenging the Offer. The Delaware
complaints are captioned:
(1) Allen v. News Corp., et al., No. 979-N;
(2) Mascarenhas v. Fox Entm't Group, et al., No. 980-N;
(3) Shemesh v. Fox Entm't. Group, et al., No. 981-N;
(4) Striffler v. FEG Holdings, et al., No. 982-N;
(5) Howard Vogel Ret. Plan v. Powers, et al., No. 984-N;
(6) Doniger v. News Corp., et al., No. 985-N;
(7) Engle v. Murdoch, et al., No. 986-N;
(8) Shrank v. Murdoch, et al., No. 988-N;
(9) Blackman v. Fox Entm't. Group, et al., No. 991-N;
(10) Fishbone v. News Corp., et al., No. 994-N;
(11) Kennel v. News Corp., et al., No. 995-N;
(12) Millner v. News Corp., et al., No. 996-N;
(13) Pipefitters Locals v. Fox Entm't. Group, et al., No.
1003-N;
(14) Molinari v. News Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1018-N;
(15) Seaview Services v. Fox Entertainment, et al., C.A. No.
1026-N;
(16) Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana v. Powers, et
al., C.A. No. 1033-N; and
(17) New Jersey Building Laborers' Pension Fund v. Powers,
et al., C.A. No. 1034.
The Shrank action, No. 988-N, was voluntarily dismissed on
January 19, 2005.
The Company is also currently aware of two purported class
action complaints raising substantially similar claims that have
been filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of New York. The New York complaints are captioned: "Shrank v.
Murdoch, et al., Index No. 600114/2005;" and "Green Meadows Ptr.
v. Fox Entertainment, et al., No. 100706/2005."
On January 21, 2005, certain plaintiffs in the Delaware lawsuits
filed a motion that seeks to consolidate the Delaware actions.
In addition, News Corporation has filed motions to dismiss and
to stay discovery, and the plaintiffs have filed a motion for
expedited proceedings. On February 3, 2005, the Court of
Chancery denied News Corporation's motion to stay discovery, and
granted the plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery and
motion to consolidate.
All of the complaints generally allege, among other things, that
News Corporation and the members of the Company's board of
directors purportedly breached fiduciary duties owed to the
public stockholders of the Company in connection with the Offer
by:
(i) offering to acquire their shares at an unfair price;
(ii) offering to acquire their shares at a time that
disadvantages the public stockholders;
(iii) having the Company appoint directors who are neither
independent nor disinterested to a special committee
created to consider the Offer; and
(iv) failing to adequately disclose information material to
the Offer, including disclosure with respect to the
Company's 2005 budget.
As for relief, the plaintiffs seek, among other things: an order
that the complaints are properly maintainable as a class action;
a declaration that defendants have breached their fiduciary
duties and other duties to the plaintiffs and other members of
the purported class; injunctive relief; unspecified monetary
damages; attorneys' fees, costs and expenses; and such other and
further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
GUARDIAN ALERT: PA A.G. Corbett Commences Consumer Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Philadelphia Attorney General's Bureau of Consumer
Protection filed a civil lawsuit against a Pike County
businessman and his home security company accused of illegally
contacting consumers at their homes and falsely claiming an
affiliation with corporate giant General Electric and consumers'
local police departments. The lawsuit follows an investigation
into complaints from more than a dozen consumers located in
Philadelphia, plus Bucks, Chester, Monroe and Pike counties.
The complaint identified the defendants as Kenneth A. Broda, RR
1, Box 1087, Dingmans Ferry, Pike County, individually, and
doing business as Guardian Alert and Advanced Concepts of NY,
Inc. Mr. Broda operated the business from his home address. The
lawsuit accuses the defendants of violating Pennsylvania's
Telemarketer Registration Act and Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law.
According to investigators, the defendants through 2003
conducted a telemarketing campaign in northeastern and
southeastern Pennsylvania to promote or sell private home alarm
systems. The telemarketing calls originated from two call
centers located in India.
Agents said telemarketers told consumers that they were chosen
to receive a free home alarm system that would be installed in
their homes at no charge. The callers also stated that the offer
included two free airline tickets.
The A.G. Corbett said more than a dozen Pennsylvania consumers
complained to his office that they received these calls despite
officially registering their names, addresses and telephone
numbers on the state's "no call" registry. Under Pennsylvania
law, as of November 1, 2002, all telemarketers are prohibited
from calling any consumer who is enrolled on the official list.
Many consumers said when they asked the callers to identify
themselves, the name of the company on whose behalf they were
calling or provide other contact information, the callers
typically hung up. In other cases, the callers claimed that the
Pennsylvania "Do Not Call" law did not apply to them. According
to the lawsuit, the defendants failed to purchase Pennsylvania's
"no call" list prior to conducting their telemarketing campaign.
The suit also claims that the defendants failed to:
(1) Register the business name Guardian Alert with the
Pennsylvania Department of State.
(2) Register Advanced Concepts of NY, Inc., with the
Pennsylvania Corporation Bureau as a foreign
corporation authorized to conduct business in the
Commonwealth.
(3) Register as a telemarketer with the Attorney General at
least 30 days prior to engaging in telemarketing
activities and post the proper bond.
(4) Ensure that the callers promptly disclosed their names,
the nature of the calls, the name of the telemarketing
business and other identifying contact information
including a return telephone number and address.
(5) Reveal their telephone number by blocking it from
consumers' caller ID systems in violation of state law.
A.G. Corbett said the lawsuit also accuses the defendants of
falsely claiming an affiliation with a major company and the
consumers' local police departments to encourage participation
in the sales campaign. The Company made money by requiring
consumers to sign a three-year contract that included monthly
charges and maintenance fees.
Consumers said the defendants claimed to be working as a
division of General Electric, when in reality the defendants had
no affiliation with the corporate giant. In other instances,
consumers were allegedly told that Guardian Alert was affiliated
or had the approval of their local police department.
The complaint asks the court to require the defendants to:
(i) Immediately cease violations of Pennsylvania's
Telemarketer Registration Act and Consumer Protection
Law.
(ii) Forfeit their rights to conduct business in the
Commonwealth.
(iii) Pay civil penalties of $1,000 per violation and $3,000
for each violation involving a consumer age 60 or
older.
(iv) Pay the Commonwealth's investigation costs.
Consumers who wish to file a complaint in the case are asked to
contact the Attorney General's Bureau of Consumer Protection by
Phone: 1-800-441-2555 or visit the website:
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.
The lawsuit was filed in Monroe County Court. The case is being
handled by Senior Deputy Attorney General E. Barry Creany of the
Bureau of Consumer Protection in Ebensburg.
IV FLUSH: FDA Reissues Warning Against Use Of Preloaded Syringes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reissuing a nationwide
alert against the use of all lots of preloaded syringes
containing either heparin or sodium chloride intravenous
catheter flushes manufactured by the IV Flush, LLC and
distributed by Pinnacle Medical Supply, of Rowlett, Texas,
because new cases of infections that may associated with the use
of these unapproved and possibly contaminated products have been
reported.
On January 31, 2005 FDA warned consumers and institutions who
have these preloaded syringes containing heparin or sodium
chloride intravenous flushes to NOT USE THEM and immediately
return them to the IV Flush, LLC or the original distributor.
Since that initial warning FDA has been informed of a cluster of
Pseudomonas fluorescens (P. fluorescens) infections in patients
that may be associated with the heparin flushes. These cases are
continuing to be investigated.
The heparin and sodium chloride containing intravenous flushes
were sold to distributors who redistributed to other medical
distributors and hospitals. Some of the intravenous flushes may
have been provided to patients for home use. They can be
identified by the syringe label, which reads in part: "IV Flush
Dallas, TX."
IV Flush, LLC, is notifying its distributors by phone and letter
and has requested those distributors contact their customers.
The company is arranging for return of all recalled products.
P. fluorescens is an infrequent cause of infection, but has been
reported to cause outbreaks of pseudobacteremia, i.e., presence
in a blood culture in the absence of clinical evidence of
bloodstream infection. P. fluorescens has also been reported as
the cause of procedure-related infections and infections
resulting from transfusion with contaminated blood components.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at
1-972-463-7389. Persons wanting to report anything to the Food
and Drug Administration regarding either of these products may
contact FDA's MedWatch office at 1 800-FDA-1088. Clinicians with
patients possibly infected from these products should report
cases to their state or local health department and the FDA.
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: SEC Moves For Distribution Of Disgorgement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission moved for an order to
establish a Disgorgement Fund in the amount of approximately
$25,598,360.08 presently being held in the Court Registry
Investment System (CRIS) account in this case.
The Commission requested that the money be transferred to the
account established by the Claims Administrator in In Re Lucent
Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 00CV-621(JAP).
The Commission further proposed that the Court authorize the
Claims Administrator to pay the appropriate taxes on the
interest earned in the CRIS account and then distribute the
funds to the class members who have qualified to receive funds
under the class allocation plan approved in that action. The
scope of the class includes all persons or entities that
purchased Lucent common stock during the period beginning
October 26, 1999, through and including Dec. 20, 2000. This
class period substantially overlaps with the transactions
described in the Commission's complaint, which encompassed the
period December 1999 through December 2000. The Claims
Administrator is The Garden City Group, Inc., 105 Maxess Road,
Melville, New York 11747, Att: Neil Zola.
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Ohio Retirement Systems Named Lead Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two Ohio public retirement systems and Ohio's Bureau of Workers'
Compensation (OBWC) were appointed as co-lead plaintiffs along
with the state of New Jersey in a class action lawsuit against
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., the world's largest provider
of insurance brokerage and consulting services, which allegedly
misled investors by concealing fraudulent practices and
misrepresenting the company's earnings, Attorney General Jim
Petro announced in a statement.
"I commend the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio (STRS
Ohio) and Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) for
taking such a strong stand against corporate fraud and abuse,"
said Petro. "Their assertive stance against these corporate
wrongdoers will both protect and fortify their resources for all
members of both systems."
The claims against Marsh & McLennan were brought to light after
an investigation revealed the company was allegedly engaging in
price-fixing, bid-rigging and accepting improper payments from
other insurance companies steering business without regard to
the companies' clients. In the two days following the
announcement of the investigation, Marsh & McLennan lost $9
billion in market capital as the company's stock dropped 50
percent.
"These types of business practices cannot be tolerated," said
Petro. "The bid-rigging and price-fixing schemes not only hurt
the company's clients, but had a tremendous negative impact on
the company's shareholders."
Marsh & McLennan designed and executed a plan under which
insurance companies paid "contingent commissions" to steer
business to the companies and shield them from competition.
Marsh also created incentives to favor certain insurance
companies when a policy came up for renewal. Marsh & McLennan
never revealed to the investing public the true nature of
contingent commissions or the huge role they played in the
company's earnings. One former company executive has reported
that if the questionable payments were eliminated, half of the
company's profits would be lost.
"Obtaining co-lead plaintiff status will allow Ohio to have a
strong say in the direction this litigation takes," Attorney
General Petro said. "All members of this class action will
benefit from our aggressive stance against fraud and abuse."
The two state retirement systems and OBWC were appointed co-lead
plaintiff status with the State of New Jersey - Department of
the Treasury. The Marsh & McLennan securities fraud class action
is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
For more information, contact Michelle Gatchell, Attorney
General's Office, by Phone: (614) 466-3840
NEVER-ENUFF: Reaches Agreement With A.G. To Issue Refunds
---------------------------------------------------------
A Cambria County, Pennsylvania Internet Service Provider will
issue refunds or credits to consumers who paid for Internet
services that were promised but never provided, state Attorney
General Tom Corbett announced in a statement.
In an agreement filed by the Bureau of Consumer Protection,
former or existing customers who failed to receive the purchased
services are entitled to a credit or refund and have until April
14 to file a complaint with the Office of Attorney General.
A.G. Corbett said an "Assurance of Voluntary Compliance"
agreement was reached with Richard A. Bradford and his wife
Marcilee Bradford, both individually, and doing business as
Never-Enuff Internet Services, 2101 Bigler Ave., North Cambria,
Cambria County. The assurance resolves alleged violations of
Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law.
According to investigators, 14 Cambria and Indiana County
consumers filed complaints claiming that the company accepted
payment for Internet services, but failed to provide those
services during January, February and March 2004. Some customers
claimed that they were unable to access the internet. Other
consumers claimed that while they were able to log on to the
Internet their service was frequently disconnected.
Additional complaints included claims that the business:
(1) Falsely promised that it would correct Internet service
problems within a specific time period.
(2) Failed to issue refunds to consumers who purchased
Internet services but failed to receive them.
(3) Either failed to disclose or failed to clearly and
conspicuously disclose all of the terms and conditions
of the services to be provided.
(4) Misrepresented to consumers that refund checks were
being prepared and that consumers would receive the
checks within a specific time period.
(5) Failed to inform consumers that the telephone number
provided to access the Internet was not a local number
resulting in potential long distance charges.
(6) Failed to maintain the customer service telephone
number and office hours as promised.
Under the terms of the Assurance, the company and its operators
admit no wrongdoing and agree to:
(i) Issue refunds or credits to eligible consumers who
already filed complaints with the Office of Attorney
General.
(ii) Provide cash refunds to former customers who purchased
Internet services between January and March 2004 and
failed to receive services.
(iii) Provide cash refunds to former customers who prepaid
for Internet services that they did not receive.
(iv) Contact credit reporting agencies to remove any
negative reporting on customers who failed to pay for
services from January through March 2004 or who
canceled services during that time period.
(v) Permanently cease operating in violation of
Pennsylvania's Consumer Protection Law.
(vi) Pay $1,000 in civil penalties and the Commonwealth's
investigation costs.
A.G. Corbett said consumers who are eligible for a credit or
refund must obtain a complaint form by calling 1-800-441-2555 or
visiting www.attorneygeneral.gov. The deadline for filing
complaints is April 14, 2005.
The Assurance was filed in Cambria County Court. The case is
being handled by Deputy Attorney General Margie A. Anderson of
Corbett's Bureau of Consumer Protection in Ebensburg.
PRIMECO PERSONAL: Municipalities Ordered To Reimburse Customers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Based on a statute ruled unconstitutional by the Illinois
Supreme Court, Cook County Circuit Judge Patrick McGann has
ruled that 234 municipalities from Skokie to Downstate West
Frankfort must reimburse wireless phone customers $1.3 million
in fees that were charged, the Chicago Tribune reports.
However, many of the municipalities are now banding together to
consider appealing the case, which promises to take months or
years to resolve because of the millions of dollars at stake for
landline phone companies that were charged the same fee.
Jack Siegel, a lawyer for the village of Skokie, which is
representing all municipalities involved in the class-action
suit, told the Tribune "The fact of the matter is, the public
doesn't get much out of this."
Judge McGann had ruled that the wireless company formerly known
as PrimeCo Personal Communications, which has merged with U.S.
Cellular Corp., is owed money for fees charged by municipalities
from 1998 to 2001. He also ruled that the statute as applied to
land-based companies was constitutional, giving municipal
lawyers more ammunition to challenge the court ruling regarding
the wireless companies.
Jeffrey Randall, village attorney for Glenview, which owes more
than $18,600 under the judgment told the Chicago Tribune, "Now
the whole case will go back on appeal." He also said that if the
judge rules that other wireless companies also are owed a
refund, the village could be forced to pay another $93,000.
A status hearing is scheduled for Monday with the judge expected
to issue a final order March 9. The initial lawsuit was based
on an Illinois statute, approved by the Legislature in 1998,
that allowed municipalities to impose an infrastructure
maintenance fee so it applied to cellular providers as well as
land-based ones. That fee was originally designed to charge
land-based phone companies for the use of public rights of way
to install and maintain phone lines.
In 2001, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling
that the statute as it pertained to wireless phone customers was
unconstitutional. The wireless companies as a result do not have
to pay to use municipal rights of way because cell phone signals
travel through the air as radio waves and do not require lines
connected to poles.
"These municipalities stopped collecting [the fee] at that
point," John Simley, spokesman for U.S. Cellular, the name the
company now goes by, told the Tribune. "We don't have wires
strung from every house and handset. It's not like we're
interfering with any operation of public resources. So on that
basis we say, why should you be collecting the tax at all?"
Mr. Simley said that the City of Chicago settled with the
wireless provider, and its customers were refunded about $15
each. Mr. Siegel countered that Chicago and other
municipalities remain in litigation regarding landline
providers. He also adds, "At this point in time, no municipality
has paid a nickel except for Chicago, which settled."
Last month McGann ordered the municipalities that did not settle
with PrimeCo to pay a portion of the $1.3 million, based on the
amounts paid to each municipality. The amounts range from 25
cents owed by Rapids City to approximately $45,600 to be paid by
Rock Falls, both in northwest Illinois. Dozens of other
municipalities are named in the judgment, including Evanston,
which owes $38,300 Lombard, $19,800, Mundelein, $11,700, North
Chicago, $17,600 and Skokie, $36,500.
If the municipalities were ordered to reimburse land-based
companies for the collected fee, the costs would run much higher
perhaps up to a total of $500 million, Mr. Siegel said. "With
the kind of dollars involved, I doubt [litigation] will stop on
either side," he told The Tribune.
PULITZER INC.: Two Shareholders Sue To Spoil Planned Buy-Out
------------------------------------------------------------
Seeking to derail its planned buyout by Lee Enterprises Inc. on
claims that the $1.46 billion deal is unfair to Pulitzer Inc.
stockholders, two shareholders have initiated lawsuits against
the St. Louis-based publishing company, the Associated Press
reports.
Pulitzer, the publisher of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the
Arizona Daily Star, disclosed the Delaware lawsuits in a filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, just three days
after announcement of the deal that was unanimously approved by
the boards of both companies.
According to Davenport, Iowa-based Lee Enterprises, it will pay
$64 per share in cash for Pulitzer, which also owns 12 other
dailies and more than 100 weekly newspapers, shoppers, and niche
publications, including the Suburban Journals of Greater St.
Louis. Lee along with Pulitzer jointly stated that they expect
to complete the deal, which also includes Lee assuming $306
million of Pulitzer debt, this spring.
Pulitzer's SEC filing stated that both lawsuits one filed in
January 31 by Todd Veeck, the other two days later by James
Fern, purport to be class-action cases and ask a judge to
permanently bar the sale, which the plaintiffs both represented
by attorney Carmella Keener of Wilmington, Delaware, argue does
not maximize shareholder value. Both names Pulitzer and its
board as the defendants and is seeking unspecified damages.
SOUTH CAROLINA: Court Penalizes Defendants in SEC Fraud Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission reports that the
Honorable Margaret B. Seymour, U.S. District Judge for the
District of South Carolina entered an Order Imposing
Disgorgement, Prejudgment Interest and Civil Penalties Against
Mohamad Elzein (M. Elzein) and Hussein Hassan El Zein (H. El
Zein) on Jan. 28, 2005.
The order directed that M. Elzein and H. El Zein jointly and
severally pay disgorgement in the amount of $35,000, and
prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $5,457.80. The
court ordered disgorgement in the amount, which was not
reimbursed by the defendants to the investors, after the
offering ceased. The order also directed that M. Elzein pay a
civil penalty of $10,000 and that H. El Zein pay a civil penalty
of $2,500. The order directed payment within 30 days from the
entry of the final judgment. The court entered final judgment
against the two defendants on Feb. 2, 2005. The court previously
enjoined M. Elzein and H. El Zein from further violations of
Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder, on Oct. 30, 2003, and Feb. 19, 2004,
respectively. In the earlier injunctions, M. Elzein and H. El
Zein stipulated that, for purposes of the resolution of
disgorgement, prejudgment interest and civil penalties, the
allegations of the Commission's complaint were deemed to be
true.
The Commission's complaint alleged that M. Elzein, H. El Zein,
and Darin Knee (Knee), from approximately July through October
2001, raised approximately $541,000 from investors in a
fraudulent, unregistered offering of securities in the form of
investment contracts. The defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and omissions in connection with the
offers and sales of the investment contracts including, among
other things, false historical returns, and promised returns
without a reasonable basis therefore. The complaint further
alleged that Knee promoted Focus Mentors on his MoneyJoe.com
website and in his related electronic newsletter called
"Insiders Club" in which he described Focus Mentors as a "secure
opportunity" with "107% plus principal guaranteed" even though
Knee had no reasonable basis for such statements. The action is
titled, SEC v. Mohamad Wael Ibrahim Elzein, individually and
d/b/a Focus Mentors Elzein Management; Hussein Hassan El Zein;
and Darin Raymond Knee, Civil Action File No. 3:03-2843-24,
D.S.C.] (LR-19061).
TENNESSEE: To Participate in $27M Nationwide SUV Safety Campaign
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee is participating in a $27 million year-long national
education program to help alert people how to safely handle
Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs), state Attorney General Paul G.
Summers announced in a statement.
"Our primary goal is to reduce deadly rollover accidents,"
Attorney General Summers said. "Although many people feel safer
in an SUV, national studies show crashes involving SUVs account
for one-third of all accident fatalities. It is extremely
important for Tennesseans to realize these powerful vehicles are
not invincible and require special care to safely maneuver
them."
All 50 states and three jurisdictions reached a $51.5 million
agreement with the Ford Motor Company in 2002 to resolve
allegations of deceptive trade practices related to the
sales and advertising of Ford Sport Utility Vehicles. As part of
the agreement, Ford agreed to fund $27 million for consumer
education on SUV safety.
The campaign was launched with Attorneys General and other
dignitaries at New York City's Central Park Zoo. New York City
officially proclaimed January 31, as SUV Safety Day.
Part of the education effort includes the "ESUVEE," a newly
discovered "beast" that will be the mascot of the campaign. The
ESUVEE, which is 10 feet tall, 11 feet wide, 16 feet long and
covered in synthetic fur with a moveable head and body, is
designed to capture the attention of those who drive SUVs.
The education program runs through the remainder of 2005 and
will include television and radio ads, print ads, a web site
(www.ESUVEE.com), and ESUVEE visits nationwide, including the
Memphis in May festivities in Tennessee.
Studies by the National Highway Traffic Safety Association
(NHTSA) and Consumers Union show more than four in 10 Americans
consider SUVs safer than regular sedans. Those studies also show
men between ages 18 and 34 are the most vulnerable and likely to
feel the least sense of risk while driving an SUV. Although SUV
rollover accidents account for only three percent of all motor
vehicle accidents in the U.S., an SUV occupant is three times
more likely to die as a result of rollover than in a passenger
car.
TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: CA Court Orders Stock Lawsuits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California ordered consolidated the securities class actions
filed against Tripath Technology, Inc. and certain of its
current or former officers and/or directors:
(1) Adya S. Tripathi,
(2) David P. Eichler and
(3) Graham K. Wright
Beginning on November 4, 2004, Navtej S. Bhandari, Marc
Cherbonnier, Abraham Goldberg and Frank Oravec filed four
separate complaints purporting to be class actions, alleging
that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs purport to
represent a putative class of stockholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities between January 29,
2004 and October 22, 2004.
The complaints contain various allegations, including that the
Company made materially false and misleading statements with
respect to its financial results and with respect to its
business, prospects and operations in the Company's filings with
the SEC, press releases and other disclosures. The complaints
seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, expert
witness fees, costs and such other relief as may be awarded by
the Court.
On December 22, 2004, the Court entered a stipulation and order
consolidating all of these complaints. On January 4, 2005
plaintiffs filed motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff
and on January 28, 2005 the Court entered an Order adjudicating
these motions and appointing Robert Poteet as the sole lead
plaintiff. Under the current schedule, the plaintiff must file
a consolidated complaint on or before March 29, 2005 and
defendants must respond to this complaint on or before May 13,
2005.
The suits are pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, under Judge Saundra Brown
Armstrong. They are styled:
(1) Cherbonnier v. Tripath Technology, Inc., et al., case
no. 3:04-cv-04936-SBA
(2) Oravec v. Tripath Technology, Inc., et al, case no.
3:04-cv-04976-SBA
(3) Goldberg v. Tripath Technology, Inc., et al, case no.
4:04-cv-04681-SBA
(4) Bhandari v. Tripath Technology, Inc., et al., case no.
4:04-cv-04969-SBA
UNIFI INC.: NC Court Junks Consolidated Cotton Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina, Greensboro Division dismissed the consolidated
class action filed against Unifi, Inc. and certain of its
officers and directors, styled "In Re Cotton Yarn Antitrust
Litigation." The suit is related to its transactions with
Parkdale America, LLC, a producer of cotton and synthetic yarns
for sale to the textile and apparel industries primarily within
North America.
On January 14, 2005 with the consent of the plaintiffs, the
Judge in the case signed a "Notice and Order of Dismissal
Without Prejudice and Stipulation for Tolling of Statute of
Limitations and Tolling Agreement." The Dismissal provides,
among other things, that:
(1) the claims against the Company in the litigation are
dismissed without prejudice;
(2) the applicable statute of limitations with respect to
the claims of the plaintiffs shall be tolled during the
pendency of the litigation;
(3) if the plaintiffs' counsel elect to rename the Company
as a defendant in the litigation, for purposes of the
statute of limitations, the refiling shall relate back
to the date of the filing of the initial complaint in
the litigation; and
(4) the Company agrees to provide discovery in the
litigation as though it was a party to the litigation,
including responding to interrogatories, requests for
production of documents, and notices of deposition.
The suit is styled "In re Cotton Yarn Antitrust, Litigation,
MDL-1622," filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina, Greensboro Division, under
Judge James A. Beaty, Jr.
UNITED KINGDOM: Law Firms Prepare For European Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Law firms in the United Kingdom are preparing for a potential
surge of work, if the floodgates to class actions across
Continental Europe are opened, The Lawyer reports.
Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany and France have all listed
proposals that in the next few weeks are likely to lead to a new
culture of class actions on the Continent. Russia and Ukraine
are also getting their first taste of multi-party disputes.
If the program proposed by Ministers of Justice across Europe is
implemented, claimants will be able to reach settlements binding
the whole group rather than just an individual. The ministers
are also considering making it easier for a single litigant to
involve others by publicizing their claim.
This is when U.K. lawyers will be able to take advantage of the
changes by advancing claims on the Continent. To date they have
largely been unable to do so because of the absence of a class
action culture.
Some observers are already saying that there are already signs
of this happening. One such sign is Michael Hausfeld, a veteran
class action partner at US firm Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll,
which last year teamed up with Irwin Mitchell to bring class
actions against companies fined by the EU, who has said that he
is preparing to launch class actions across Europe once the rule
changes are passed. He told the Lawyer, "We're preparing to
bring them in the areas of cartels, securities and in the
product liabilities field. Jurisdictions we're looking at are
Germany, Italy and Poland." Mr. Hausfeld added that, as a
result of the changes, "the future in Europe for both law and
society is good".
Irwin Mitchell has also instituted claims in Spain. Litigation
partner John Pickering told the Lawyer "We've already dealt with
certain cases in Spain that have the potential for a class
action tort." Mr. Pickering himself is also considering
whether breast implant cases in Spain could be pursued in other
Continental countries.
Several U.K. law firms are investigating the potential for
pursuing claims in Europe against Merck, the manufacturer of
rheumatoid arthritis drug Vioxx, which was recalled because of
possible links with heart disease in the United States. Merck
faces 14 class actions in the U.S. from shareholders accusing
the company of presenting misleading information.
Changes on the Continent also include the possibility of
contingency fees, throwing up uncertainty about the future of
funding class actions. The European Community is debating
whether in principle they should be introduced. Next month is
also the deadline for the Netherland's Minister of Justice to
decide whether this controversial funding scheme in which
lawyers get a large cut from claimants' damages should be
implemented. If the changes do take place, it is expected that
a number of boutique claimant litigation practices will spring
up all across Europe.
UNITED STATES: Senate Begins Debate On Class Action Reform Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Senate began debate on a measure that would revise rules on
class-action lawsuits, a longtime goal of President Bush and his
business supporters as consumer groups franticly tried to gather
support for amendments that they say would make an objectionable
bill somewhat more palatable, the Washington Post reports.
Though acknowledging that the bill is on a fast track for
passage, opponents of the bill said that they are lobbying for
amendments to help ensure that federal judges do not dismiss
class-action cases.
Though the bill has garnered the attention of powerful
interests, with potentially large consequences for business and
consumers, the debate is turning on somewhat arcane provisions
of law.
Supporters, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have long
maintained that class-action lawsuits are waged on a patchwork
of state laws. The result, according to them, is an irrational
system in which lawyers shop for sympathetic local venues,
regardless of whether that is the most logical place for a case
to be heard, and in which there is little consistency in awards.
The bill would, the supporters argue will seek to send cases
with plaintiffs in multiple states into the federal system.
The problem though, opponents counter, is that federal courts
are overburdened, and often disinclined to hear such cases. They
further stated that frequently, when presented with a case in
which laws from different states might apply and in some cases
contradict one another, judges would refuse to "certify" that a
valid class-action claim exists and the case is thrown out.
A planned amendment by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M) would address
this by requiring federal judges to hear the case by selecting
one state's law and applying it to the case. The amendment,
according to backers, would test whether the real point of
changing the rules is to hear more cases in federal court, or to
guarantee that far fewer cases are ever heard. According to
Senate aides, Sen. Bingaman was working with Sen. Dianne
Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has been a backer of the bill, on a
possible compromise aimed at ensuring that federal courts do
hear class-action cases, rather than dismissed them. Sen.
Feinstein is also concerned that federal courts might apply
state laws from states other than California, which has strong
consumer protections.
The fate of the Bingaman amendment though may prove pivotal to
the bill's fate, since the House in recent years has backed a
stronger version of the legislation that would tighten rules on
class-action lawsuits even more than the Senate.
However, just recently the House GOP leadership said that in the
interest of speedy passage it would accept the Senate version of
the bill provided it passes with no amendments.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) told the Post he
supports the bill, but also the amendment to ensure that federal
courts actually hear the cases. The committee's ranking
Democrat, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), is opposed to the bill in
general.
Consumer groups, plaintiffs' lawyers, and many state attorneys
general have said that they would prefer to defeat the Class
Action Fairness Act, which would send many class-action cases
out of state courts and into the federal system, which
historically is less sympathetic to the claims.
VIXEL CORPORATION: Gateway Partners Appeal Stock Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gateway Partners filed an appeal with the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, to stop the
distribution of the settlement of the consolidated securities
class action filed against Vixel Corporation and certain of its
officers and directors.
Beginning on February 20, 2001, the Company and certain of its
officers and directors were named as defendants in a number of
securities class action lawsuits, filed on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock during various periods ranging
from January 18, 2001, through February 9, 2001. The complaints
alleged that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors made misrepresentations and omissions in violation of
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended. The complaints generally seek compensatory damages,
costs and attorney's fees in an unspecified amount.
In addition, the Company has received inquiries about events
giving rise to the lawsuits from the SEC and the Nasdaq Stock
Market. On April 22, 2003, the Company entered into two
Memoranda of Understanding agreeing to terms of settlement for
both the class action and derivative litigation. The settlement
was approved and $39.5 million held in escrow was paid by the
Company into the settlement fund during the six months ended
December 28, 2003.
Gateway Partners filed a challenge to the allocation of
settlement funds among the plaintiffs and adequacy of the
settlement notice, and the district court ruled against such
challenge on November 23, 2004. On December 13, 2004, Gateway
Partners filed an appeal and a motion to stop distribution from
the settlement fund; both of which were filed with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Index No. 04-
57123). On January 12, 2005, attorneys for Gateway Partners
sent a letter to the appeals court stating that a stipulation
would be filed confirming that no proceeds of the settlement
fund would be distributed until the appeal is resolved, and that
Gateway Partners would not have to post a bond.
VIXEL CORPORATION: Receives $300T Reimbursement For Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vixel Corporation received a $300,000 reimbursement from one of
its insurers over the settlement of the class action filed
against it, each of its directors and certain unnamed
individuals in the King County Superior Court of the State of
Washington, entitled "Russell Fink v. Vixel Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 03-2-37226-9SEA."
The complaint made general allegations that, among other things,
Vixel's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Vixel
stockholders in connection with the approval of the merger with
Emulex and sought to enjoin the tender offer and have the merger
agreement declared unlawful, among other forms of relief.
On November 7, 2003, the Vixel Parties entered into a memorandum
of understanding for a $0.7 million settlement with the
plaintiff in the class action suit pursuant to which the parties
have agreed to settle the action, subject to court approval.
The $0.7 million was recorded as general and administrative
expense during the three months ended December 28, 2003. Formal
settlement documents were signed on May 5, 2004 and the
plaintiff has completed discovery as agreed to by the parties.
In August 2004, final court approval was obtained for the
settlement of the Fink v. Vixel litigation, and the Company paid
the $0.7 million settlement.
WASHINGTON: Utilities to Issue $10 Mil In Refunds To Customers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Checks totaling over $10 million have been distributed to
electric utilities in Washington that raised rates during the
western states' energy crisis of 2000-2001. Those utilities
will in turn issue bill credits or refunds to their commercial
and industrial customers in the near future.
The checks result from multi-state antitrust settlements with
the Williams Companies, El Paso Corporation and Duke Energy
Corporation.
"While we cannot undo the harm our businesses suffered as a
result of the soaring rates they paid during the energy crisis,
this refund will help," Attorney General Rob McKenna said.
A blue-ribbon panel of business, legislative, and energy
industry experts provided guidance on how best to benefit
commercial and industrial customers; they recommended the
Attorney General return this money directly to consumers. The
blue ribbon panel on that committee includes: Bill Gillis,
Chair, Washington State University Center to Bridge the Digital
Divide; Janet Benish, Costco; Carolyn Logue, National Federation
of Independent Business; Steve Johnson, Washington PUD
Association; Ken Canon, Industrial Customers of Northwest
Utilities; Sen. Bob Morton, Ranking Minority Member, Water,
Energy and Environment Committee; Rep. Jeff Morris, Chair,
Technology, Energy and Communications Committee.
Attorneys general of several western states, including
Washington, Oregon and California investigated the companies for
manipulating the wholesale electricity market and overcharging
customers during the 2000-2001 energy crisis -- when retail
electricity rates skyrocketed for Washington consumers.
The states' investigation focused on various practices used by
the energy companies to manipulate markets thereby artificially
inflating energy prices. All of these companies bought and sold
power into the Washington electricity markets during this period
or engaged in activities that impacted the prices of electricity
in Washington.
Eligible electric utilities in Washington will receive checks
ranging from $1,000 to $2.4 million, based on electricity sales
and rates that each utility reported to the U.S. Department of
Energy's Energy Information Administration. The money will then
be passed onto the utilities' commercial and industrial
customers who qualify. Utilities are returning the money to
customers in different ways to meet their local needs, but most
companies are giving customers a one-time credit on their bills.
Each utility will distribute its portion of the reimbursement
money to its eligible customers within 60 days of the date the
utility receives the money.
Duke settled with Washington for $3.25 million; the Williams
Companies agreed to pay Washington $15 million over three years
and El Paso Corp., agreed to pay $21.3 million.
The Washington Consumer Energy Fund was established at the
Seattle Foundation to distribute residential customers' portion
of the settlement. Approximately $13 million has already been
distributed to programs benefiting residential customers.
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
February 10-11, 2005
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
February 10-11, 2005
CLINICAL TRIALS
American Conferences
New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
February 14-15, 2005
REINSURANCE 101 CONFERENCE: LITIGATION & ARBITRATION
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Pentagon City, Washington, DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
February 14-15, 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Pentagon City, Washington, DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
February 17-19, 2005
INSURANCE COVERAGE LITIGATION COMMITTEE MEETING
American Bar Association
Phoenix, AZ
Contact: 800-285-2221; abasvcctr@abanet.org
February 22-23, 2005
INSURANCE COVERAGE 2005: CLAIM TRENDS & LITIGATION
New York, NY
Practising Law Institute
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu
February 28, 2005
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS WALL STREET FORUM: ASBESTOS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Battery Park, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
February 28 - March 1, 2005
REINSURANCE ARBITRATIONS
American Conferences
New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
February 28 - March 1, 2005
INSURANCE LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 1, 2005
INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION EXPOSURES
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Battery Park, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 3-4, 2005
TRANSPORTATION MEGACONFERENCE VII
American Bar Association
New Orleans, LA
Contact: 800-285-2221; abasvcctr@abanet.org
March 3-4 , 2005
LITIGATING DISABILITY INSURANCE CLAIMS
American Conferences
Coral Gables
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
March 3-5, 2005
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
March 7-8, 2005
INSURANCE LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
Hotel Crescent Court, Dallas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 7-8, 2005
CLASS ACTIONS
American Conferences
San Francisco
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
March 9-11, 2005
CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS
ALI-ABA
Maui, Hawaii
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
March 14-15, 2005
WELDING ROD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton Phoenix, Phoenix AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 17-18, 2005
Mass Torts Made Perfect
The Plaza New York, New York
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-436-6094
March 18, 2005
CONFERENCE ON INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION
American Bar Association
New York
Contact: 800-285-2221; abasvcctr@abanet.org
March 21, 2005
FAMILY LAW CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Wyndham Franklin Plaza Hotel, PA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 21, 2005
MOTOR VEHICHLE LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Wyndham Franklin Plaza Hotel, PA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 21-22, 2005
AIRLINE RESTRUCTURING
American Conferences
New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
March 31-April 1, 2005
THE 4TH INTERNATIONAL ADVANCED FORUM ON RUN-OFF AND COMMUTATIONS
American Conferences
The Warwick New York Hotel, New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
April 4-5, 2005
MANAGED CARE LIABILITY
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
April 7-8, 2005
THE 4TH NATIONAL ADVANCED GUIDE TO CONSUMER FINANCE LITIGATION
AND CLASS
ACTIONS
American Conferences
Le Meridien , Chicago, IL
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
April 11-12, 2005
BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
American Conferences
San Francisco
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
April 13-16, 2005
INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
April 18-19, 2005
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Houston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 2005
INTERNATIONAL ASBESTOS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 11, 2005
BROKER AND INSURANCE COMPANY PRACTICES AND LIABILITIES
CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 12-13, 2005
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 12-13, 2005
OPINION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
ALI-ABA
Boston Tuition
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
May 16-17, 2005
RUN-OFFS SEMINAR
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 16-17, 2005
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 19-20, 2005
DIGITAL DISCOVERY AND ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
June 9-10, 2005
NURSING HOME LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Amelia Island
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 9-10, 2005
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 13-14, 2005
PPA & EPHEDRA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 13-14, 2005
DRUG LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 13-14, 2005
MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Marina Del-Ray, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 27-28, 2005
LITIGATING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION & SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS
2005
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu
JulY 28 - 29, 2005
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PROSECUTION & DEFENSE STRATEGIES 2005
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu
August 18-19, 2005
PRODUCTS LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
San Francisco
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
September 8-9, 2005
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PROSECUTION & DEFENSE STRATEGIES 2005
Practising Law Institute
Chicago, IL
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu
September 26-27, 2005
REINSURANCE SUMMIT
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
September 27, 2005
ARBITRATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 2005
INTERNATIONAL ASBESTOS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 6-7, 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
November 3-4, 2005
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS
ALI-ABA
Washington DC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
TBA
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
TBA
AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
TBA
FASTFOOD INDUSTRY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
February 01-28, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
February 01-28, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
February 01-28, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
February 01-28, 2005
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
February 01-28, 2005
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
June 27-28, 2005
LITIGATING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION & SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS
2005
Practising Law Institute
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu
TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR
CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINAITON
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND
ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org
________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to
carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
New Securities Fraud Cases
51JOB INC.: Bull & Lifshitz Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bull & Lifshitz, LLP initiated securities class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
securities 51job, Inc. ("51job" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:JOBS)
between November 4, 2004 and January 14, 2005, inclusive, (the
"Class Period") seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants made highly positive statements concerning its
business and reported to the market that its business would
continue to accelerate, issuing highly positive earnings and
revenue projections. Such statements were allegedly false and
misleading when made for the following reasons:
(1) the Company improperly recognized advertising revenue,
such that its real revenues in the third fiscal quarter
were materially less than the RMB135.0 million (US$16.3
million) in total revenues and RMB128.1 million
(US$15.5 million) that the Company reported in its
press release;
(2) defendants failed to disclose that the Company's
business was experiencing a material downturn in
advertising revenue;
(3) the Company failed to adjust its aggressively positive
earnings announcements even in light of the sharp
downturn in business, which was well known to
defendants;
(4) as a result of the foregoing, 51job's Class Period
statements about the Company's historical results and
expected growth were lacking in any basis and deceived
investors.
The truth began to be revealed on January 18, 2005. On that
date, before the market opened, 51job issued a press release
announcing that sales declined in December 2004 and lowered its
guidance for the fourth quarter of 2004. In addition, defendants
announced that 51job would revise its third quarter online
recruitment advertising revenue, reducing it by RMB2 million to
RMB3 million.
For more details, contact Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. of Bull &
Lifshitz, LLP by Phone: (212) 213-6222 by Fax: (212) 213-9405 or
by E-mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com.
51JOB INC.: Chitwood & Harley Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Chitwood & Harley LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of 51job, Inc. ("51job" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: JOBS) between
November 4, 2004 and January 14, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class
Period") seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The action is pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Defendants 51job, Rick Yan, Kathleen Chien and
Donald L. Lucas.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants reported to the market
that its business would continue to accelerate, issuing highly
positive earnings and revenue projections. The Complaint alleges
that these statements were false and misleading when made
because
(1) the Company improperly recognized recruitment
advertising revenue in the third quarter of 2004;
(2) the Company, a purported expert in Chinese labor
markets, failed to realize that the drop in late-
December advertising suggested that many Chinese firms
had adopted a more Western schedule for hiring; and
(3) that as result of this market shift, the Company was
forced to sharply lower its profit outlook. As a
consequence of the foregoing, Defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about
the Company's growth and progress.
The truth was revealed on January 18, 2005 when 51job issued a
press release announcing that sales declined in December 2004
and lowered its guidance for the fourth quarter of 2004. In
addition, Defendants announced that 51job would revise its third
quarter online recruitment advertising revenue, reducing it by
RMB2 million to RMB3 million. In response to these disclosures,
the price of 51job shares plummeted, falling from $43.82 per
share on January 15, 2005 to $28.32 per share on January 18,
2005, the next trading day, a one-day drop of 35%, on unusually
heavy trading volume of 7.4 million shares.
Any member of the class who desires to be appointed lead
plaintiff in the class action must file a motion with the Court
no later than March 22, 2005 on their own or through counsel of
their own choice. Class members must meet certain legal
requirements to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may also choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
For more details, contact Nichole Browning Adams by Phone: 1-
888-873-3999, ext. 4873 or visit their Web site:
http://www.classlaw.com/.
51JOB INC.: Emerson Poynter Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Emerson Poynter LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of 51job, Inc.
("51job" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:JOBS) between November 4,
2004 and January 14, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period")
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants made highly positive statements concerning its
business and reported to the market that its business would
continue to accelerate, issuing highly positive earnings and
revenue projections. Such statements were allegedly false and
misleading when made for the following reasons:
(1) the Company improperly recognized advertising revenue,
such that its real revenues in the third fiscal quarter
were materially less than the RMB135.0 million (US$16.3
million) in total revenues and RMB128.1 million
(US$15.5 million) that the Company reported in its
press release;
(2) defendants failed to disclose that the Company's
business was experiencing a material downturn in
advertising revenue;
(3) the Company failed to adjust its aggressively positive
earnings announcements even in light of the sharp
downturn in business, which was well known to
defendants;
(4) as a result of the foregoing, 51job's Class Period
statements about the Company's historical results and
expected growth were lacking in any basis and deceived
investors.
The truth began to be revealed on January 18, 2005. On that
date, before the market opened, 51job issued a press release
announcing that sales declined in December 2004 and lowered its
guidance for the fourth quarter of 2004. In addition, defendants
announced that 51job would revise its third quarter online
recruitment advertising revenue, reducing it by RMB2 million to
RMB3 million.
In response to these disclosures, the price of 51job shares
plummeted, falling from $43.82 per share on January 15, 2005 to
$28.32 per share on January 18, 2005, the next trading day, a
one-day drop of 35%, on unusually heavy trading volume of 7.4
million shares.
For more details, contact Charles Gastineau, Tanya Autry or
Michelle Raggio of EMERSON POYNTER LLP by Phone: (800) 663-9817
or (501) 907-2555 by Fax: (501) 907-2556 or by E-mail:
epllp@emersonpoynter.com.
51JOB INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the American Depository Receipts
("ADRs") of 51job, Inc. ("51job" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:JOBS)
between November 4, 2004 and January 14, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").
The complaint charges 51job and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. 51job describes itself as the "leading provider of
integrated human resource services in China with a strong focus
on recruitment related services."
The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
reported the Company's operating results for the third quarter
of 2004 and made positive statements regarding its outlook for
the fourth quarter of 2004. In truth and in fact, however,
51job's financial statements for the third quarter of 2004 were
artificially inflated as a result of the Company's premature
recognition of revenue in its online services segment, which
also violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and its
own revenue recognition policies. In addition, defendants
knowingly or recklessly made positive statements, which were
lacking in any reasonable basis, about the Company's outlook for
the fourth quarter of 2004. Specifically, the Company estimated
that total revenues for the fourth quarter of 2004 would be in
the range of RMB140 million to RMB145 million and diluted
earnings per share would be between RMB0.42 and RMB0.44. On
January 18, 2005, the Company drastically cut its estimates for
its revenues and earnings per share by approximately 17% and
40%, respectively. The Company now expects to earn total
revenues of RMB117 and RMB121 million and earnings per common
share of between RMB0.24 and RMB0.27.
Upon this news, shares of the Company's ADRs fell more than 35%,
or $15.50 per share, to close at $28.32 per share, on extremely
high trading volume.
For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron Patton of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com.
51JOB INC.: Stull & Brody Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly
traded securities of 51job, Inc. ("51job") (NASDAQ:JOBS) between
November 4, 2004 and January 14, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
The Complaint alleges that 51job violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that 51job failed to
disclose the fact that it improperly recognized recruitment
advertising revenue in 3Q04. Moreover, the Complaint alleges
51job failed to disclose the fact that the drop in late-December
advertising suggested that many Chinese firms have adopted a
more Western schedule for hiring and, as a result of this market
shift, 51job was forced to sharply lower its profit outlook. On
January 18, 2005, 51job announced softness in sales for the
latter part of the month of December 2004, the exit of the
peripheral stationery and office supplies business and updated
guidance for the fourth quarter of 2004. It disclosed that
fourth quarter total revenues are now expected to be between
RMB117 and RMB121 million, compared with RMB140 million, the
low-end of its previous forecasted range. On this news, shares
of 51job fell from a close of $43.82 per share on January 14,
2005, to close at $28.32 per share on January 18, 2005, the next
trading day.
For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 by Fax: 212/490-2022 or by E-
mail: SSBNY@aol.com.
CHINA AVAITION: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of China Aviation
Oil Singapore Corporation ("China Aviation" or the "Company")
(Pink Sheets:CAOLF) between March 27, 2003 and November 30,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and prospects. As a result of the defendants' false
statements, China Aviation shares traded at inflated levels
during the Class Period, whereby the Company's top officers and
directors assisted the Company's parent company/controlling
shareholder in the sale of $120 million worth of its own shares.
More specifically, the complaint alleges the following facts,
which were known by each of the defendants but concealed from
the investing public during the Class Period:
(1) that contrary to the Company's prospectus, the Company
did not have the necessary risk management controls in
place for hedging and trading;
(2) that contrary to the private placement offering
documents, the funds raised were not to fund an
acquisition of the controlling shareholders but rather
to meet margin calls for the massive derivative losses
in the Company; and
(3) that the Company's financial statements were grossly
overstated or the Company was hiding liabilities
totaling in excess of $550 million in derivative
trading losses.
On November 30, 2004, Bloomberg published an article entitled
"China Aviation Seeks Court Protection After $550 Million Oil
Loss," which stated in part: China Aviation Oil (Singapore)
Corp., supplier of a third of China's jet fuel, will ask
Singapore's High Court for protection from creditors after
losing about $550 million from bad bets on oil prices.
Also on November 30, 2004, Bloomberg published an article
entitled "Singapore Shareholder Group 'Shocked' by China
Aviation Loss," which stated in part: The Securities Investors
Association Singapore, a group representing retail investors in
the city-state, said it's "shocked" by China Aviation Oil
(Singapore) Corp.'s $550 million loss from bad debts on the
price of oil.
"To the shareholders, it's a corporate earthquake..." David
Gerald, president of the group, said in an interview. "Is this
another Barings? They're asking."
China Aviation is not currently trading on any securities
exchange.
For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron Patton of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com.
SIERRA WIRELESS: Weiss & Lurie Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Weiss & Lurie initiated a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, entitled Goodman v. Sierra
Wireless, Inc., et al., on behalf of persons who acquired the
common stock of Sierra Wireless, Inc., (Nasdaq: SWIR; TSX: SW)
("Sierra" or "Company") between January 28, 2004 and January 26,
2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that Sierra and certain of its officers
and directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's financial results and business condition while failing
to disclose material adverse facts, including that Sierra's
revenues from its PC card products would decrease because
channel partners and customers held excess inventory; that
excess inventory of PC cards held by the Company's channel
partners and customers would lead to reduced orders and sales in
future quarters; that Sierra's dependence on revenue from sales
of its embedded module products to palmOne for its Treo PDA
product was greater than had been disclosed; that Sierra faced
increased competition in the PC card market; and that Sierra's
recent introduction of its new Voq professional phone product
added little revenue while it damaged the Company's relationship
with a prime customer, palmOne, because the Voq product would
compete with palmOne's Treo.
On January 27, 2005, Sierra's stock plummeted 38% to $8.97, one
day after the Company issued a press release announcing that its
revenue and earnings per share for the fourth quarter of 2004
were below previous guidance, and that the Company expected a
steep decline in revenue, and a net loss, in the first quarter
of 2005. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the
class and is represented by Weiss & Lurie. The firm, with
offices in New York and Los Angeles, has extensive experience in
complex litigation, particularly securities class actions, and
has been appointed lead class counsel in numerous consolidated
and multi-district cases.
For more details, contact Zev B. Zysman, Esq. of Weiss & Lurie
by Phone: (800) 437-7918 by E-mail: info@wllawca.com or
http://www.wllawca.com.
TOWER AUTOMOTIVE: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initaited a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Tower
Automotive, Inc. (NYSE:TWR) between February 14, 2003 and
January 21, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against one or more of Tower
Automotive's officers and/or directors. The action charges that
defendants violated 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. No class has yet been certified in the above action.
For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Phone: (410) 986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
TOWER AUTOMOTIVE: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Tower Automotive, Inc. (OTC: TWRAQ.PK) ("Tower" or
the "Company") between February 14, 2003, and January 21, 2005
inclusive (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges Dugald K. Campbell, Kathleen Ligocki,
Ernie Thomas, and James A. Mallak with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:
(1) that due to escalating raw material costs, increased
pricing pressures, and the end of the program for early
payment of receivables from the domestic manufacturers,
the Company liquidity position was constrained;
(2) that the Company's liquidity problems were further
exacerbated by longer than expected holiday production
shutdowns by domestic customers;
(3) that the Company's warnings about raw material costs,
increased pricing pressures, and alike were general in
nature and did not fully advise investors of the
increased risks and uncertainties faced by the Company;
(4) that the Company's liquidity problems severely
undermined the Company's financial stability,
eventually forcing Tower to file for bankruptcy
protection;
(5) and that as a consequence of the foregoing, defendants
lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements
about the Company's financial condition.
On January 20, 2005, Tower announced that its ongoing
initiatives to improve liquidity were adversely impacted by the
length of customer shutdowns over the holiday season.
Cumulatively, these shutdowns would adversely impact liquidity
by approximately $40 million during the first quarter of 2005.
In addition, initiatives were taken to address the elimination
of early payment programs from the Company's customers. For
January, those changes in payment terms would adversely impact
liquidity by approximately $17 million. The news shocked the
market. Shares of Tower fell $0.64 per share, or 27.12 percent,
on January 20, 2005, to close at $1.72 per share. On January 21,
2005, Standard & Poor ("S&P"), citing the Company's need to
restructure its debt, slashed the Tower's credit rating from
level "B" to, below investment grade, level "CCC". On this news,
shares of Tower fell an additional $0.97 per share, or 56.40
percent, on January 21, 2005, to close at $.075 per share.
For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.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 researches,
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 Se¤orin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.
Copyright 2005. 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 * * *