/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/050525.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, May 25, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 102
Headlines
AAIPHARMA INC.: Plaintiffs File Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
AAIPHARMA INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended NC ERISA Violations Suit
AETNA INC.: FL Court Approves Managed Care Lawsuit Settlement
AETNA INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
AMAZON.COM: Reaches Settlement For Securities Lawsuit in W.D. WA
AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls 14,967 Element Vehicles For Crash Hazard
APPLE COMPUTER: Recalls 128T Laptop Batteries Due To Fire Hazard
BLUE CROSS: Certification Discovery Nears End in FL Fraud Suit
BOEING CO.: Faces 9 Employment Bias Lawsuits in Various Courts
CALIFORNIA: Court Rules That Dealers Are Exempt from Overtime
CANADA: Ontario Court To Asses Damages For 1999 Veterans Lawsuit
CARTER BROTHERS: Recalls 9,000 Go-Karts Due To Roll-Over Hazard
COLLEGE ASSURANCE: Disgruntled Planholders Launch Fraud Lawsuit
COUNTERFEIT DRUG: FDA Announces Significant Progress in Campaign
DEXTROMETHORPAN: FDA Warns Against Abuse of OTC Cough, Cold Drug
EBAY INC.: CA Court Partially Dismisses Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
EBAY INC.: Consumers Launch Fraud Suit Against "Shill Bidding"
EBAY INC.: Consumer Suit V. Protection Policy Moved To E.D. NY
ERIE FAMILY: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Amended Suit Settlement
ESTEE LAUDER: CA Court Approves Cosmetics Antitrust Settlement
ESTEE LAUDER: Subsidiaries Face False Advertising Lawsuit in CA
FEDERATED DEPARTMENT: Experienced Vendor Joins Chargebacks Suit
FLORIDA: Judge Hears Legal Arguments in Canker Tree Cutting Case
FORD MOTOR: FL Law Firms Launch Suit Over Expedition SUV Fires
IPAYMENT INC.: Shareholders Launch Suits Over Firm's Sale To CEO
JUNIPER NETWORKS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Arguments on Suit Dismissal Appeal To Be Set
LAFAYETTE UTILITIES: Customers' Lawsuit Moved to Federal Court
LANDAMERICA FINANCIAL: Subsidiaries Settle Fee Suits For $10.3M
LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: ADA Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 2005
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: MO Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit
PIPER JAFFRAY: Class Discovery Ends in NY Fee Antitrust Lawsuit
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Working To Resolve Customer Suits V. Memberships
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Court Hears Motion To Vacate, New Trial in Suit
SEYFERT'S FOODS: Recalls Chips Due to Undeclared Ingredients
SUMMIT MARKETING: Recalls 2M Folding Chairs Due To Injury Hazard
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 4,855 Avalon Vehicles Due To Crash Hazard
VIA NET.WORKS: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
WALONG MARKETING: Recalls Potato-Strips For Undeclared Sulfites
ZIYAD BROTHERS: Recalls Halva Due to Salmonella Contamination
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Featured Conference
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
New Securities Fraud Cases
ABLE LABORATORIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in NJ
ABLE LABORATORIES: Schoengold Sporn Files Stock Fraud Suit in NJ
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in CA
CORN PRODUCTS: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Lawsuit in IL
CORN PRODUCTS: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in N.D. IL
CORN PRODUCTS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
FRIEDMAN BILLINGS: Stull Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Lawsuit in TX
HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC.: Federman & Sherwood Files Fraud Suit in DE
MOLSON COORS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in DE
WILLBROS GROUP: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TX
WILLBROS GROUP: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in TX
WILLBROS GROUP: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in TX
XYBERNAUT CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Lawsuit in DE
XYBERNAUT CORPORATION: Landskroner Grieco Files Stock Suit in DE
*********
AAIPHARMA INC.: Plaintiffs File Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended securities class action
against aaiPharma, Inc., certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and its independent registered public
accountants in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina.
Several suits were initially filed, alleging violations of
federal securities laws. By order dated April 16, 2004, the
district court consolidated the securities lawsuits into one
consolidated action, and on February 11, 2005, the plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint.
The amended securities complaint asserts claims arising under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on behalf of a class of purchasers of
the Company's common stock during the period from April 24, 2002
through and including June 15, 2004. The securities complaints
allege generally that the defendants knowingly or recklessly
made false or misleading statements during the Class Period
concerning the Company's financial condition and that its
financial statements did not present its true financial
condition and were not prepared in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles. The amended securities
complaint seeks certification as a class action, unspecified
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
relief.
AAIPHARMA INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended NC ERISA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against aaiPharma, Inc.
and certain of its current and former directors, officers and
employees in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, on behalf of a class of all persons
who are or were participants in or beneficiaries of the
aaiPharma Inc. Retirement and Savings Plan during the period
from April 24, 2002 to June 15, 2004.
An amended complaint was filed on March 14, 2005 which alleges
generally that the defendants breached fiduciary duties owed
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) with
respect to the prudence and lack of diversification of
investment of Plan assets in the Company's common stock, by
misleading participants and beneficiaries of the Plan regarding
our earnings, prospects and business condition, by failing to
act in the sole interest of Plan participants, and by failing to
monitor the actions of other Plan fiduciaries. The complaint
seeks certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other equitable relief.
AETNA INC.: FL Court Approves Managed Care Lawsuit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted final approval to the settlement proposed by
Aetna, Inc. in relation to the health care provider class action
filed against it.
Since 1999, the Company has been involved in purported class
action lawsuits that are part of a wave of similar actions
targeting the health care payor industry and, in particular, the
conduct of business by managed care companies. The Judicial
Panel on Multi-district Litigation transferred all of the
federal actions, including several actions originally filed in
state courts, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida for consolidated pretrial
proceedings. The court created a separate track for all cases
brought on behalf of health care providers (the "Provider
Cases").
Thirteen Provider Cases were presided over by the Florida
Federal Court, and a similar action is pending in Louisiana
state court, on behalf of purported classes of physicians.
These Provider Cases alleged generally that the Company and each
of the other defendant managed care organizations employed
coercive economic power to force physicians to enter into
economically unfavorable contracts, imposed unnecessary
administrative burdens on providers and improperly denied claims
in whole or in part, and that the defendants did not pay claims
timely or did not pay claims at proper rates. These Provider
Cases further charged that the Company and the other defendant
managed care organizations conspired and aided and abetted one
another in the alleged wrongdoing. These actions alleged
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA), state unfair trade statutes, state consumer fraud
statutes, state laws regarding the timely payment of claims, and
various common law doctrines and sought various forms of relief,
including unspecified damages, treble damages, punitive damages
and injunctive relief.
Effective May 21, 2003, the Company and representatives of over
900,000 physicians, state and other medical societies entered
into an agreement (the "Physician Settlement Agreement")
settling the lead physician Provider Case pending in the Florida
Federal Court. Judicial approval of the Physician Settlement
Agreement became final on January 18, 2005. The Company believes
that the Physician Settlement Agreement resolves all pending
Provider Cases filed on behalf of physicians that did not opt
out of the settlement, including the Louisiana state court
action.
A Provider Case brought on behalf of the American Dental
Association made similar allegations on behalf of a purported
class of dentists. Effective August 22, 2003, the Company and
representatives of approximately 150,000 dentists entered into
an agreement (the "Dentist Settlement Agreement") settling the
dentist action. The Dentist Settlement Agreement was approved by
the Florida Federal Court on July 20, 2004. The approval of the
Dentist Settlement Agreement concludes this Provider Case.
Several Provider Cases filed in 2003 on behalf of purported
classes of chiropractors and/or all non-physician health care
providers also make factual and legal allegations similar to
those contained in the other Provider Cases. These Provider
Cases have been transferred to the Florida Federal Court for
consolidated pretrial proceedings. The Company intends to defend
each of these new Provider Cases vigorously.
The suit is styled "In Re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litigation,
MDL 1334," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, under Judge
Federico Moreno. The suit names as defendants Humana, Inc.,
Aetna, Inc., Aetna-USHC, Inc., Cigna, Health Net, Inc., Human
Health Plan, Inc., Pacificare Health Systems, Inc., Prudential
Insurance Company of America, United Health Group, United Health
Care and Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. Cigna and Aetna have
entered settlements with the plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiffs'
Attorneys are Barry Meadow of Podhurst, Orseck, et al., Harley
Tropin of Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton and Archie Lamb.
AETNA INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated amended
class action filed against it in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
Laborers Tri-County Pension Fund, Goldplate Investment Partners
Ltd. and Sheila Shafran filed the suit, alleging that the
Company and two of its current or former officers and directors,
William H. Donaldson and John W. Rowe, M.D., violated federal
securities laws. Plaintiffs allege misrepresentations and
omissions regarding, among other things, the Company's ability
to manage and control medical costs and the appropriate reserve
for medical costs as of December 31, 2000, for which they seek
unspecified damages, among other remedies.
On October 15, 2002, the court heard argument on defendants'
motion to dismiss the Securities Complaint. Effective February
2005, the parties agreed to dismiss Mr. Donaldson and Dr. Rowe
from the action, and the Company and class representatives
entered into an agreement to settle the Securities Complaint.
The Securities Settlement Agreement is subject to court
approval. The settlement amount is not material to the Company.
AMAZON.COM: Reaches Settlement For Securities Lawsuit in W.D. WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amazon.com, Inc. reached a settlement for the claims in the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, its
directors and certain of its senior officers in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
A number of purported class action complaints were filed by
holders of the Company's equity and debt securities, alleging
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. On August 1, 2003, plaintiffs in the 1934
Act cases filed a second consolidated amended complaint alleging
that the Company, together with certain of its officers and
directors, made false or misleading statements during the period
from October 29, 1998 through October 23, 2001 concerning its
business, financial condition and results, inventories, future
prospects, and strategic alliance transactions. The 1933
Act complaint alleges that the defendants made false or
misleading statements in connection with our February 2000
offering of the 6.875% PEACS. The complaints seek damages and
injunctive relief against all defendants.
In March 2005, the Company signed a Stipulation of Settlement
with counsel representing the plaintiff class with respect to
the 1934 Act claims. In April 2005, the Company agreed in
principle to settle the 1933 Act claims with counsel
representing the plaintiff class asserting those claims. If
finalized and approved by the Court, these settlements would
dispose of all claims asserted in these lawsuits in exchange for
payments totaling $47.5 million, substantially all of which the
Company expect to be funded by its insurers.
AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls 14,967 Element Vehicles For Crash Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Honda Motor Co. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling
14,967 Honda Element vehicles, model 2005, with the Honda
Trailer Harness Kit accessory.
The wire harness of these accessory kits P/N 08L91-SCV-102,
which were manufactured between November 24 and December 18,2004
and sold for use on My 2005 Honda Element vehicles manufactured
between December 20,2004 and April 29,2005 have an incorrectly
wired connector. As a result the trailer brake lamps and turn
signal lamps could operate incorrectly, or a fuse could blow,
causing the sudden loss of brake and turn signal lamp function.
Improper signaling or a loss of trailer warning lamp function
without warning could cause a vehicle crash, possibly resulting
in injuries.
The Company will notify its customers and instruct them to bring
their vehicle to a Honda dealer. The dealer will correct the
connector wiring free of charge. The recall is expected to
begin on May 2005. Owners who do not receive the free remedy
within a reasonable time should contact the Company by Phone:
310-783-2000 or contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-
327-4236.
APPLE COMPUTER: Recalls 128T Laptop Batteries Due To Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Apple Computer Inc., of Cupertino, California and LG
Chem Ltd., of South Korea is voluntarily recalling about About
128,000 units (in the United States) Rechargeable batteries for
iBook G4 and PowerBook G4 computers.
An internal short can cause the battery cells to overheat,
posing a fire hazard to consumers. Apple has received six
reports worldwide of batteries overheating, including two
reports in the United States.
The recalled lithium ion batteries are used with the following
computers: 12-inch iBook G4, 12-inch PowerBook G4 and 15-inch
PowerBook G4. The recalled batteries include those with model
numbers A1061, A1078 and A1079 and serial numbers that begin
with HQ441 through HQ507 or 3X446 through 3X510. Consumers
should remove the battery from the computer to view the model
and serial numbers labeled on the bottom of the unit. No other
PowerBook or iBook batteries are involved in this recall. The
computers are:
(1) 12-inch iBook G4, with battery model A1061, serial
numbers HQ441 - HQ507
(2) 12-inch PowerBook G4, with battery model A1079, serial
numbers 3X446 - 3X510
(3) 15-inch PowerBook G4, with battery model A1078, serial
numbers 3X446 - 3X509
Manufactured in Taiwan and China the batteries were sold at all
national and regional resellers, catalogers, and Apple's online
and retail stores sold the computers with the batteries from
October 2004 through May 2005 for between $900 to $2300. The
batteries also were sold separately for about $130.
Consumers should stop using the recalled batteries immediately
and contact Apple to arrange for a replacement battery, free of
charge. After removing the recalled battery from their iBook or
PowerBook, consumers should plug in the AC adapter to power the
computer until a replacement battery arrives. Contact Apple at
(800) 275-2273 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. CT Monday through
Sunday or log on to Apple's web site:
http://www.apple.com/support/batteryexchangeto check your
battery's serial number and apply for a replacement battery.
BLUE CROSS: Certification Discovery Nears End in FL Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification discovery is winding down in the lawsuit
filed against the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Empire
HealthChoice, Inc. (EHC) and substantially all of the other Blue
plans in the United States in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, styled
"Thomas, et al. v. Empire, et al."
In May 2003, this putative class action was commenced on behalf
of similarly situated physicians and seek damages and injunctive
relief to redress their claim of economic losses which they
allege is the result of defendants, on their own and as part of
a common scheme, systemically denying, delaying and diminishing
claim payments. More specifically, plaintiffs allege that the
defendants deny payment based upon cost or actuarial criteria
rather than medical necessity or coverage, improperly downcode
and bundle claims, refuse to recognize modifiers, intentionally
delay payment by pending otherwise payable claims and through
calculated understaffing, use explanation of benefits, or EOBs,
that fraudulently conceal the true nature of what was processed
and paid and, finally, by use of capitation agreements which
they allege are structured to frustrate a provider's ability to
maximize reimbursement under the capitated agreement.
The plaintiffs allege that the co-conspirators include not only
the named defendants but also other insurance companies, trade
associations and related entities such as Milliman and Robertson
(actuarial firm), McKesson (claims processing software company),
National Committee for Quality Assurance, Health Insurance
Association of America, the American Association of Health Plans
and the Coalition for Quality Healthcare. In addition to
asserting a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief to
prevent future damages, plaintiffs assert several causes of
action based upon civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) and mail fraud.
The plaintiffs have subsequently amended their complaint, adding
several medical societies as additional plaintiffs a cause of
action based upon an assignment of benefits, adding several
additional defendants including WellChoice, Inc. and two of its
other subsidiaries, WellChoice Insurance of New Jersey, Inc. and
Empire HealthChoice HMO, Inc. and dropping their direct RICO
claim, but instead base their RICO claim solely on a conspiracy
theory.
In October 2003, the action was transferred to District Court
Judge Federico Moreno, who also presides over "Shane v. Humana,
et al.," a class-action lawsuit brought against other insurers
and HMOs on behalf of health care providers nationwide. The
"Thomas" case involves allegations similar to those made in the
"Shane" action. In the "Shane" case, the 11th Circuit Court of
Appeals, on September 1, 2004, upheld class certification as to
RICO related claims but decertified a class as to state law
claims. On October 15, 2004, the "Shane" defendants filed a
petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking U.S. Supreme Court
review of the 11th Circuit decision.
On June 14, 2004, the court ordered the commencement of
discovery. The defendants filed motions to dismiss on October 4,
2004, which are still pending before the court. Meanwhile, class
certification discovery is winding down. Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification was served on December 31, 2004 and the
Company's response was served on March 15, 2005.
In November 2003, another putative class action was commenced in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Miami Division against the Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association, EHC and substantially all other Blue plans in
the country. This case is similar to "Thomas, et al. v. Empire,
et al," except that this case is brought on behalf of certain
ancillary providers, such as podiatrists, psychologists,
chiropractors and physical therapists. Like the "Thomas"
plaintiffs, the "Solomon" plaintiffs allege that the defendants,
on their own and as part of a common scheme, systematically
deny, delay and diminish payments to these providers. The
plaintiffs' allegations are similar to those set forth in
"Thomas" but also include an allegation that defendants have
subjected plaintiffs claims for reimbursement to stricter
scrutiny than claims submitted by medical doctors and doctors of
osteopathy. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and monetary
damages and injunctive relief.
The complaint was subsequently amended to add several new
parties, including WellChoice and two of its other subsidiaries,
WellChoice Insurance of New Jersey, Inc. and Empire HealthChoice
HMO, Inc. By an Order dated January 7, 2004, the case was
transferred to Judge Moreno, but not consolidated with the other
pending actions. The Court, on its own initiative, deemed this
action a "tag along" action to the "Shane" litigation.
On June 14, 2004, the court ordered the commencement of
discovery. The defendants filed motions to dismiss on August
27, 2004, which are pending before the court. Meanwhile, class
certification discovery is winding down. Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification was served on January 17, 2005 and the
Company's response was served on April 5, 2005.
BOEING CO.: Faces 9 Employment Bias Lawsuits in Various Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing Co. is a defendant in nine employment discrimination
matters filed during the period of June 1998 through January
2005, in which class certification is sought or has been
granted. The lawsuits seek various forms of relief including
front and back pay, overtime, injunctive relief and punitive
damages.
Three suits were filed in the Federal Court for the Western
District of Washington in Seattle, one in the Federal Court for
the Central District of California in Los Angeles, one in State
Court in California, one in the Federal Court in St. Louis,
Missouri, one in the Federal Court in Tulsa, Oklahoma, one in
the Federal Court in Wichita, Kansas; and the final case was
filed in the Federal Court in Chicago.
The lawsuits are in varying stages of litigation. One case in
Seattle alleging discrimination based on national origin
resulted in a verdict for the company following trial and is now
on appeal. One case in Seattle alleging discrimination based on
gender has been settled. Three cases - one in Los Angeles, one
in Missouri, and one in Kansas, all alleging gender
discrimination - have resulted in denials of class
certification; each of those decisions is being challenged. The
case in Oklahoma, also alleging gender discrimination, resulted
in the granting of class action status, and is scheduled for
trial in November 2005. The second case alleging discrimination
based on gender in California, this one in state court, has been
stayed pending the outcome of the appeal of the denial of class
certification in the companion federal court case in Los
Angeles. The court certified a limited class in the race
discrimination case filed in federal court in Seattle
(consisting of heritage Boeing salaried employees only) and set
a December 2005 trial date. The final case, also alleging race
discrimination and filed in Chicago, seeks a class of all
individuals excluded from the limited class in the Seattle case.
CALIFORNIA: Court Rules That Dealers Are Exempt from Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision that
establishes that automobile dealer finance and insurance
managers are exempt from overtime under Section 7(i) of the
federal wage and hour law (Fair Labor Standards Act). Rob
Bekken, partner in the labor & employment practice of leading
California law firm Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP, represented
the appeal for Haselwood Buick Pontiac Co. in Bremerton,
Washington.
According to the National Automobile Dealers Association, there
are 19,700 new car and truck dealerships representing over
43,000 separate franchises in the United States. If the decision
had not been reversed, dealerships across the country would have
been faced with multi-million dollar class-action lawsuits
seeking back wages for finance and insurance managers.
Since dealers first became subject to the federal wage and hour
law, dealers had relied on the Section 7(i) exemption from
overtime. Section 7(i) provides that if more than one-half of
the employee's earnings are from commission and the employee
earns one and one-half times the minimum wage for all hours
worked, the employee is exempt from overtime.
The validity of the Section 7(i) exemption was never questioned
until three courts in the Northwest issued decisions holding
that auto dealership finance and insurance managers were not
selling retail products -- and, therefore, not entitled to the
exemption.
"The district court failed to understand the reality of
automobile dealership operations," explained Mr. Bekken.
"Unfortunately, the district courts were misled by previous
federal regulations that had been withdrawn by the Department of
Labor. This is a tremendous victory for dealers across the
country."
On appeal, Mr. Bekken was joined by the United States Department
of Labor, which stated that the decisions of the district courts
were absolutely contrary to the federal wage and hour law.
According to Mr. Bekken, "The National Automobile Dealers
Association (NADA) deserves the credit for soliciting the
Department of Labor to become involved in this case."
R. Joseph De Briyn, Managing Partner of Musick, Peeler &
Garrett, hailed the decision as a landmark one for dealers. "If
the decision of the district courts had been upheld, thousands
of class action lawsuits would have been filed against dealers
across the country, representing millions of dollars in overtime
liability. We are proud of the key role that our firm and Rob in
particular played in this important case."
CANADA: Ontario Court To Asses Damages For 1999 Veterans Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing set to begin today in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice will determine the damages owing by the federal
government in a class action lawsuit brought against it by
thousands of disabled veterans in 1999. The veterans' lawyers
estimate that the damages could be as high as $5.8B.
The basis for this Motion includes studies prepared by former
federal government economist Michael Charette, now a professor
at the University of Windsor. The studies undertook a historical
review of various rates of return as applied to a variety of
investment instruments. They did so in the context of standard
trustee practice over the last 85 years, the period covered by
the lawsuit.
The class action lawsuit, brought against the Federal Government
on behalf of thousands of veterans, seeks redress from the
federal government for years of failure to properly administer
the funds of mentally and physically disabled veterans who had
been deemed incapable of managing their money because of
injuries incurred during wartime service. The Auditor General of
Canada noted in 1986 that the government had failed in its duty
to manage these funds, and in court appearances the government
has admitted that it breached its duties as trustee for the
veterans.
In the six years since the lawsuit was commenced, there have
been several key developments including a ruling by the Supreme
Court of Canada in July 2003 upholding the supremacy of
Parliament and its power to unilaterally limit its indebtedness
to the disabled veterans. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice
ruled in December 2003 that, despite the Supreme Court's ruling,
the case had not been brought to an end and could continue with
the next vital step -- determining the extent of the
government's legal liability.
Also in that ruling, the case management judge, Justice John H.
Brockenshire ruled that the government's liability -- because of
its failure to properly act as a trustee of the veterans' funds
over an 85 year period - appeared likely to exceed, "and very
substantially exceed" $1 billion.
In September 2004, the lawyers for the veterans and the
government met in court to argue the method of calculating the
veterans' damages. In his December 2004 ruling, Justice
Brockenshire decided that the damages hearing should proceed on
the basis of the veterans' preferred approach - as opposed to
the government's - applying the full benefit of hindsight to all
calculations.
"Applying the full benefit of hindsight means that the veterans'
award should be maximized," said David Greenaway, a Windsor,
Ontario lawyer for Raphael Partners and a member of the
veterans' legal team. The other lawyers representing the
veterans are: Raymond Colautti also at Windsor's Raphael
Partners and Peter Sengbusch of London, Ontario.
"The December 2004 ruling was key for the veterans," Mr.
Greenaway noted. "Having a ruling that the damages will be
assessed based on our approach, and allowing for the full
benefit of hindsight means that the veterans will realize the
investment returns that they could have gotten had the proper
prudent trustee approach been used by the government. The $5.8 B
assessment is based on those calculations," he added.
"Today's hearing will deal with specific questions put to Dr.
Charette by Justice Brockenshire in December 2004, and ought to
provide answers vital to his final ruling on the damages," added
Mr. Greenaway.
This hearing also represents the veterans' opportunity to
finally put to rest the assessment of damages. "On several
occasions the federal government has tried to delay the part of
the lawsuit where its debt to the veterans is calculated. This
included a failed attempt to force the judge off the case
alleging he had "anti-government" bias. The government's day of
reckoning has now arrived. The veterans, their widows and the
Canadian people, will soon know the full extent of the federal
government's debt to these veterans," said Mr. Greenaway.
For more details, contact Public Relations, Raphael Partners by
Phone: (519) 966-1300 Ext. 560 OR David Greenaway, Partner,
Raphael Partners by Phone: (519) 966-1300 Ext. 422.
CARTER BROTHERS: Recalls 9,000 Go-Karts Due To Roll-Over Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Carter Brothers Manufacturing Co. Inc., of Brundidge,
Alabama is voluntarily recalling about 9,000 Carter Brothers
Fun-Kart (Go-Kart). The wheel could separate from the go-kart,
posing a roll-over hazard.
The recall includes one-seater models 1136-3020, 1136-3021,
1136-3420, 1136-3421, 1205-3020 and two-seater models 2336-3021,
2336-3022, 2336-5019, 2575-3020, 2575-3420, 2605-3416, 2605-
3515, 2606-3016, 2606-3017, 2606-3416, 2606-3417, 2636-3016,
2636-3017, 2906-3015, 2906-3016, 2906-3017, 2906-4015, 2906-
4016, 2906-4017, 2909-3015, 2909-3415, 2909-4015, 2910-3015,
2910-3016, 2910-3415, 2910-4015, 2910-4016, 2910-4415, 2911-
4015, 2911-4016, 2946-3015, and 2946-3016. The model number and
serial number is located under the seat (on the driver's side if
two-seater). The Fun-Karts were produced in several colors to
include red, black, blue, purple and green.
Manufactured in the United States, the go-karts were sold at all
Carter Brothers dealers nationwide from April 2003 through March
2005 for between $900 and $2,900. Consumers should stop using
the recalled Fun-Karts immediately. Registered owners of the
vehicles will be notified directly by Carter Brothers about the
recall. Consumers can call or visit their local Carter Brothers
Dealer to schedule a free repair. For more information, contact
Carter Brothers at (800) 523-5278 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT,
or visit their Web site: http://www.carterbro.com.
COLLEGE ASSURANCE: Disgruntled Planholders Launch Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of disgruntled planholders filed a class action against
besieged pre-need firm College Assurance Plans Philippines Inc.
(CAP), its directors and affiliate firms, The Philippine Daily
Inquirer reports, according to the Troubled Company Reporter -
Asia Pacific (April 29,2005).
The 19 planholders, represented by legal counsel Maricel
Pascual-Lopez, lodged the complaint with the Makati Regional
Trial Court (RTC). The legal action urges the court to appoint a
receiver to immediately take over the management and control of
CAP.
The planholders requested that a management committee be
created. They also pleaded that the court order CAP and its
directors and related firms to nullify all pre-need policies and
return the money of its planholders. They also urged the court
to nullify and cancel all contracts and transfers made with
other defendants and affiliated companies, and disgorge all
profits obtained from the allegedly fraudulent misuse of plan
holders' funds.
Aside from CAP and its directors, the other defendants in the
suit include Fil-Estate Corp., Fil-Estate Development Corp.,
Camp John Hay Golf Club, Fil-Estate Properties Inc., Fil-Estate
Management Inc., Fil-Estate Land Inc., Fil Estate Golf And
Development Inc., Fil-Estate Sports Corp., Fil-Estate
Infrastructure Inc., Cap General Insurance, CAP Realty, Metro
Rail Transit Corp., Manila Southwoods, Southwoods Ecocentrum,
Sherwood Hills Golf & Country Club/Golden Dear International
Inc., and Global Building Systems Inc. The class suit came as
CAP said it had paid out almost Php424 million in tuition to
plan holders nationwide despite non-renewal by the SEC of its
dealer's license.
For more details, contact College Assurance Plans Philippines
Inc., CAP I Building, 126 Amorsolo cor. Herrera Streets, Legazpi
Ville, Makati City, Philippines, by Phone: 817-6586, 759-2000 or
by Fax: (0632) 818-0560.
COUNTERFEIT DRUG: FDA Announces Significant Progress in Campaign
----------------------------------------------------------------
Working in collaboration with the private sector and with other
government agencies over the past year, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is announcing significant progress in the
battle against counterfeit prescription drugs. In its annual
update to the "Combating Counterfeit Drugs" Report, the FDA
reports it is pursuing several initiatives to further protect
the safety and integrity of the U.S. drug supply.
"We believe the United States' prescription drug supply is as
safe as any in the world, and the FDA is committed to ensuring
that this continues," said Randall Lutter, Acting Associate
Commissioner for Policy and Planning in a statement.
In 2004, FDA's office of Criminal Investigations (OCI) initiated
58 counterfeit drug investigations involving hundreds of
thousands of fake dosage units. These cases represent a dramatic
increase from the previous year when 30 such cases were
initiated. This increase is partially due to heightened
vigilance and awareness by all parties in the drug distribution
system as a result of the FDA's issuance of its original report
in 2004. More effective coordination with other state, federal,
and foreign law enforcement agencies and improved communication
with drug manufacturers also contributed in large part to the
increase in investigations.
"This year's Report illustrates how our Special Agents within
FDA's Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI) are showing
criminals that if you counterfeit drugs, the FDA will catch
you," said Margaret O'K. Glavin, FDA's Associate Commissioner
for Regulatory Affairs.
In the last year, there also has been tremendous progress toward
the development and implementation of a standard electronic
track and trace system using radio-frequency identification
(RFID) for widespread use in the drug distribution system.
Significant advancements are also being made in developing an
electronic pedigree (chain of custody) for drug products. FDA is
optimistic that this progress will continue at a rapid pace and
will achieve widespread use in the drug supply chain. These
changes will make it more difficult for counterfeit drugs to
enter the distribution system.
Additionally, drug manufacturers are increasing their use of
anti-counterfeiting technologies such as holograms, color
shifting inks, and covert markings on drug products and
packaging. Also, several states are beginning to adopt stricter
laws regarding the movement of drugs through the supply chain.
FDA is strengthening ties with foreign law enforcement agencies
and international organizations, as well. And, a new FDA
consumer education program is informing the public about the
risks of counterfeit drugs. In addition, the National Consumers
League (NCL) developed a highly informative website containing
useful consumer information about counterfeit drugs
(http://fraud.org/fakedrugs/).These initiatives are all
contributing to a safer drug supply.
The complete FDA "Combating Counterfeit Drugs Annual Update,"
and the original "Combating Counterfeit Drugs Report," are
available at:
"Combating Counterfeit Drugs Annual Update," May 2005:
http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/counterfeit/update2005.html
"Combating Counterfeit Drugs Report," February 2004:
http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/counterfeit/report02_04.html
DEXTROMETHORPAN: FDA Warns Against Abuse of OTC Cough, Cold Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expressed concerns about
the abuse of dextromethorphan (DXM), a synthetically produced
ingredient found in many over-the-counter (OTC) cough and cold
remedies in a talk paper published on its website on May
20,2005.
The FDA said it is working with other health and law enforcement
authorities to address this serious issue and warn the public of
potential harm, after five recently reported deaths of teenagers
that may be associated with the consumption of powdered DXM sold
in capsules. However, it said that DXM, when formulated properly
and used in small amounts, can be safely used in cough
suppressant medicines, abuse of the drug can cause death as well
as other serious adverse events such as brain damage, seizure,
loss of consciousness, and irregular heart beat.
DXM abuse, though not a new phenomenon, has developed into a
disturbing new trend, involving the sale of pure DXM in powdered
form. This pure DXM is often encapsulated by the "dealer" and
offered for street use. DXM has gradually replaced codeine as
the most widely used cough suppressant in the United States. It
is available OTC in capsule, liquid, liquid gelatin capsule,
lozenge, and tablet forms. When ingested at recommended dosage
levels, DXM is generally a safe and effective cough suppressant.
Additional information about the dangers of Dextromethorphan use
and abuse can be found at the following SAMHSA National
Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information links:
http://store.health.org/catalog/mediaDetails.aspx?ID=371,
http://www.family.samhsa.gov/get/otcdrugs.aspx.
EBAY INC.: CA Court Partially Dismisses Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara dismissed in part the consumer class action filed against
eBay, Inc., but allowed plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint.
In July 2004, two eBay users filed a purported class action
lawsuit, alleging that the Company engaged in improper billing
practices as the result of problems with the rollout of a new
billing software system in the second and third quarters of
2004. The lawsuit sought damages and injunctive relief.
An amended complaint was filed in January 2005, dropping one
plaintiff, changing the capacity of the other plaintiff to that
of representative plaintiff, and adding seven additional eBay
users as plaintiffs. The amended complaint expanded its claim to
include numerous alleged improper billing practices from
September 2003 until the present. In February 2005, eBay filed a
motion to strike and a demurrer seeking to dismiss the
complaint. On April 1, 2005, the court sustained portions of
the demurrer, but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint.
The suit is styled "Cerreta v. Ebay, Inc., case no. 1-04-CV-
022708," filed in the Santa Clara County Superior Court in
California. Representing the plaintiffs is Jeffrey L. Fazio,
Fazio & Micheletti LLP, 1900 South Norfolk Street, Suite 350,
San Mateo, CA 94403. Representing the Company are Grant P.
Fondo, Michael G. Rhodes, Melina K. Patterson, and Arron P.
Arnzen of Cooley Godward LLP , Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El
Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155.
EBAY INC.: Consumers Launch Fraud Suit Against "Shill Bidding"
--------------------------------------------------------------
eBay, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Santa Clara, alleging that
certain bidding features of the Company's site constitute "shill
bidding" for the purpose of artificially inflating bids placed
by buyers on the site.
The complaint alleges violations of California's Auction Act,
California's Consumer Remedies Act, and unfair competition. The
complaint seeks injunctive relief, damages, and a constructive
trust.
EBAY INC.: Consumer Suit V. Protection Policy Moved To E.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
eBay, Inc. removed the consumer class action filed against it to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York. The suit also names PayPal, Inc. and an eBay seller as
defendants.
In March 2005, eBay, PayPal, and an eBay seller were sued in
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings
in a purported class action alleging that certain disclosures
regarding PayPal's Buyer Protection Policy, users' chargeback
rights, and the effects of users' choice of funding mechanism
are deceptive and/or misleading. The complaint alleges
misrepresentation on the part of eBay and PayPal, breach of
contract and deceptive trade practices by PayPal, and that
PayPal and eBay have jointly violated the civil Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute (18 U.S.C.
Section 1961(4)). The complaint seeks injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, and punitive damages.
The suit is styled "Steele et al v. Paypal, Inc. et al., case
no. 1:05-cv-01720-ILG-VVP," filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge I. Leo
Glasser. Representing the plaintiffs is Marina Trubitsky,
Marina Trubitsky & Associates, PLLC, 11 Broadway, Ste. 861, New
York, NY 10004 Phone: 212-732-7707 E-mail:
dtcassociates@yahoo.com. Representing the Company are Benjamin
Chapman, Angela Dunning, Laura C. Pierri; Lori R.E. Ploeger and
Michael G. Rhodes of Cooley Godward LLP, 4401 Eastgate Mall San
Diego, CA 92121-1909 Phone: 858-550-6000, and Amy W. Schulman of
DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP, 1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020-1104 Phone: (212) 835-6108 Fax: 212-835-6001
E-mail: amy.schulman@piperrudnick.com.
ERIE FAMILY: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Amended Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County, Pennsylvania to approve the amended and restated
settlement for the civil class action lawsuit filed against Erie
Family Life Insurance Company.
The Company issued a life insurance policy to the plaintiff. The
class action alleges that the Company charged and collected
annual premium for the first year, but did not provide 365 days
of insurance coverage. The complaint alleges that the policy
forms and applications used by the Company do not disclose "that
a portion of the first premium will cover a period of time
during which the Company does not provide insurance coverage."
The Complaint contains four counts. In Count I, Plaintiff
alleges that the conduct of the Company violated the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
Count II of the Complaint alleges a cause of action for breach
of contract. Count III alleges that the Company breached its
duty of good faith and fair dealing. In Count IV of the
Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a cause of action for unjust
enrichment and/or restitution. The Company answered the
Complaint and denied liability on all counts.
In early 2004, the parties reached an agreement to settle this
lawsuit. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company agreed to
provide supplemental life insurance coverage to qualifying class
members in an amount equal to 4.62% of the face value of the
underlying policy for a period of 180 days. On April 30, 2004,
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement
Agreement. After the filing of the Motion for Preliminary
Approval, Plaintiff and the Company agreed the Company would pay
attorneys' fees in an amount up to $150,000, and to reimburse
certain litigation costs and expenses in an amount up to
$15,000.
The Court preliminarily reviewed the proposed settlement. As a
result of conferences with the Court, the parties engaged in
further settlement negotiations. The parties entered into an
Amended and Re-Stated Class Action Settlement Agreement. On
March 11, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the Amended and Re-Stated Class Action Settlement
Agreement.
The Settlement Agreement provides qualifying class members the
option of choosing the supplemental life insurance coverage,
discussed above, or a cash payment. Qualifying class members
who select the cash payment option shall receive a maximum of
one cash payment of $10.67 for each policy, irrespective of
number of purchasers and/or owners of the policy. If a
qualifying class member does not submit a cash payment selection
form within the timeframe set forth in the Settlement Agreement,
the qualifying class member shall automatically receive the
supplemental life insurance coverage. The Company agrees to pay
attorneys' fees in an amount up to $150,000, and will reimburse
administrative costs and expenses in an amount up to $14,000.
ESTEE LAUDER: CA Court Approves Cosmetics Antitrust Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted final approval to the settlement of a class
action filed against Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., and other
cosmetic manufacturers and retailers.
The suit was initially filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California in Marin County on behalf of all U.S. residents
who purchased prestige cosmetics products at retail for personal
use from eight department stores groups that sold such products
in the United States (the "Department Store Defendants"). The
suit alleged that the Department Store Defendants, the Company
and eight other manufacturers of cosmetics (the "Manufacturer
Defendants") conspired to fix and maintain retail prices and to
limit the supply of prestige cosmetics products sold by the
Department Store Defendants in violation of state and Federal
laws. The plaintiffs sought, among other things, treble
damages, equitable relief, attorneys' fees, interest and costs.
The suit was later removed to federal court.
On March 30, 2005, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California entered a Final Judgment
approving the settlement agreement the Company entered into in
July 2003 with the plaintiffs, the other Manufacturer Defendants
and the Department Store Defendants. The time to appeal that
judgment has not yet expired. Assuming no appeal, the Final
Judgment will result in the plaintiffs' claims being dismissed,
with prejudice, in their entirety in both the Federal and
California actions. There was no finding or admission of any
wrongdoing by the Company or any other defendant in this
lawsuit. The Company entered into the settlement agreement
solely to avoid protracted and costly litigation.
In connection with the settlement agreement, the defendants,
including the Company, will provide consumers with certain free
products and pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.
ESTEE LAUDER: Subsidiaries Face False Advertising Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two of Estee Lauder Companies, Inc.'s subsidiaries face a
nationwide class action filed in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Diego. The complaint names
other defendants, including manufacturers and retailers.
The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, restitution, and
general, special and punitive damages for alleged violations of
the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False
Advertising Law, and for negligent and intentional
misrepresentation. The purported class includes individuals "who
have purchased skin care products from defendants that have been
falsely advertised to have an 'anti-aging' or youth inducing
benefit or effect."
FEDERATED DEPARTMENT: Experienced Vendor Joins Chargebacks Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joining a growing chorus of critics of the retail industry's
chargeback and discount practices, a vendor with nearly 30
years' experience in the retail industry is seeking to join a
pending class action lawsuit against Federated Department
Stores, Inc. This vendor, Nick DeLeo, was the CEO of a company
that went bankrupt in part due to the practices challenged in
the lawsuit, according to attorneys from Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Tousley Brain Stephens P.L.L.C.,
Rodney T. Harmon, P.S., and Ezra, Brutzkus, Grubner LLP, who
represent Mr. DeLeo and are counsel in a proposed class action
case against the retail divisions of Federated Department
Stores, Inc., including Macy's divisions and Bloomingdales,
Inc., pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York.
The current plaintiff in the proposed class action, a
Liquidating Trust that owns the claims of other bankrupt
vendors, filed the original class action complaint on December
10, 2003. Mr. DeLeo is seeking to joint the Trust in
representing a nationwide class of current and former vendors
who sold goods to the Federated divisions. The lawsuit alleges
that Federated assessed improper offsets (known as
"chargebacks") based on alleged problems with goods that vendors
shipped to Federated, while failing to provide proper
notification to vendors. The lawsuit also alleges that
Federated took improper discounts. The lawsuit alleges
violations of New York's Uniform Commercial Code.
Previously, Federated moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that
that the contracts between the parties allowed them to take the
challenged discounts, and that the vendors could not complain
after-the-fact. In a December 13, 2004 Order upholding the
chargebacks claim (and denying Federated's motion on that
claim), Justice Bernard J. Fried held that "the purpose of the
notification . is to afford a seller an opportunity to cure, or
to permit it to minimize losses." He added that "notification
also serves to defeat commercial bad faith." Justice Fried
also allowed plaintiff's claim to go forward that Federated took
improper discounts even after the expiration of payment terms.
Justice Fried dismissed certain other claims alleged by the
plaintiff.
Mr. DeLeo explained that he wanted to participate in the lawsuit
because "I do not believe that large retailers can just take
whatever offsets and discounts they want, regardless of when
they pay the vendors, and regardless of whether vendors can
inspect the goods."
Jonathan D. Selbin, a partner in the New York office of Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, explained, "Our case seeks
to hold retailers accountable for their chargeback practices and
restore the proper balance between vendors and retailers."
"There are rules of the game to make the retail business
efficient, but there are also rules to make it fair, and we
allege that Federated has violated those rules," stated Mark
Brutzkus, a partner with Ezra, Brutzkus, Gubner LLP, who has
long-time experience in the retail industry. Added Rod Harmon
"Justice Fried's ruling clarified that we have the right to
present evidence to support our allegations of Federated's
improper practices. Having Nick DeLeo on board assists us in
telling vendors' stories from a first-hand perspective."
According to Kim Stephens, of Tousley Brain Stephens, P.L.L.C.
of Seattle, the next step is for Mr. DeLeo to get formal
approval to join the lawsuit. The vendors will then ask the
Court to certify the case as a class action on behalf of a class
of current and former vendors who sold to Federated from 1999
and forward.
Further Information
Current and former vendors who sell to Federated's retail
divisions who wish to report their experiences and learn more
about this lawsuit may call Lieff Cabraser attorney Daniel Seltz
at 212-355-9500, or can visit the webpage:
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/chargebacks.htmto learn more or
contact plaintiffs' counsel.
About Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is a 60-plus attorney
law firm with offices in San Francisco, New York, Washington,
D.C., Beverly Hills and Nashville. Since 1972, Lieff Cabraser
has successfully represented plaintiffs in a wide range of class
action cases, including antitrust, securities, employment
discrimination, wage and hour, defective products, and mass tort
litigation. Since 1992, Lieff Cabraser has litigated 23 separate
cases in which $100 million or more in jury verdicts were
rendered or settlements were reached, including 11 cases valued
at $1 billion or more each. To learn more about Lieff Cabraser,
please visit www.lieffcabraser.com.
About Tousley Brain Stephens, P.L.L.C.
Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC was founded in 1978 with a focus on
complex business transactions and litigation. Over the past ten
years, the firm's practice has expanded to include prosecuting
and defending commercial, financial, securities, consumer and
class action litigation. We have managed litigation and
transactions across the nation where we have obtained favorable
outcomes for our clients while litigating and negotiating
against much larger firms. To learn more about Tousley Brain
Stephens, please visit <http://www.tousley.com/>www.tousley.com.
About Rodney T. Harmon, P.S.
Rod Harmon is a solo practice trial attorney with 25 years
experience in both federal and state courts. He practices near
Seattle, Washington, and represents clients throughout the
United States. He has represented both vendors and retailers in
court and has written and spoken on the subject of legal
remedies for chargeback abuse.
About Ezra, Brutzkus, Gubner LLP
Ezra|Brutzkus|Gubner LLP is a boutique business law firm based
in Encino, California. For the past 30 years, Ezra | Brutzkus |
Gubner LLP has earned a reputation for being among the leading
lawyers for apparel and textile manufacturers. To learn more
about Ezra | Brutzkus | Gubner LLP please visit the Website:
http://www.ebg-law.htmor http://www.ebg-law.com.
For more details, contact Rachel Geman, LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN
& BERNSTEIN, LLP, 780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor, New York, NY
10017, by Phone: (212) 355-9500 by E-mail: rgeman@lchb.com.
FLORIDA: Judge Hears Legal Arguments in Canker Tree Cutting Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Lee County, Florida judge heard legal arguments in a
protracted case that could eventually hand more cash to people
who lost their trees to the state's canker program, The News-
Press reports.
Attorneys for the tree owners and the state agriculture
department came before Circuit Judge William McIver in Florida
to know the decision regarding the 2-year-old lawsuit, which
seeks to become a class-action suit. If it does become class
action, approximately 8,000 Cape Coral, Pine Island and North
Fort Myers residents could stand to get more money for their
chopped trees.
According to Miami attorney Robert Gilbert, who wants the
Florida Department of Agriculture to pay an average of $750-
$1,000 for each tree it has chopped to stop the spread of citrus
canker, told the News-Press "It happens automatically, unless
they choose to exclude themselves. They don't have to do
anything."
Mr. Gilbert represents nine Cape Coral residents who lost their
citrus trees in the state's first wave of tree cuttings almost
three years ago. He is handling similar, ongoing compensation
cases in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties.
Ray Dellaselva of Mikado Court lost his lime tree in April 2003,
and he says his Wal-Mart voucher wasn't enough compensation. He
told the News-Press he's not after a big paycheck, but he
doesn't want the government taking his belongings without
adequate compensation. He adds, "It's the principle involved.
And maybe this way, we can help other folks, too."
Tree owners now get a $100 Wal-Mart voucher for their first tree
chopped, and a $55 check for each additional tree. The voucher
can be used for items in the Wal-Mart garden center.
Mark Fagan, a spokesman for the state agriculture department,
told the News-Press that a ruling in favor of the tree owners
could put a major dent in the department's budget. And,
ultimately, the state legislature would have to authorize those
funds.
In previous cases, the state has argued the trees have no
intrinsic value. However, in an April ruling by the Florida
Supreme Court decided otherwise and has thus opened the door for
potentially higher compensation amounts. Specifically, the high
court ruled that those chopped trees are worth something and
maybe more than the amount the state now gives homeowners.
State workers already have chopped down more than 19,000 canker-
infected and canker-exposed citrus trees in Cape Coral, North
Fort Myers and Pine Island.
If Judge McIver doesn't certify the case as a class action, it
opens the door to potentially thousands of lawsuits, Mr. Gilbert
said. He explains that each individual tree owner could file a
separate suit, instead of one big class-action suit. But he
added that if the case gets certified, the case could come to
court within a year or more.
FORD MOTOR: FL Law Firms Launch Suit Over Expedition SUV Fires
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Peacock Law Firm and the law firm of Dale R. Sisco, P.A.,
both of Tampa, Florida, filed a class action lawsuit against the
Ford Motor Company and a local Ford dealership. The lawsuit
alleges that a fire that destroyed a 2001 Ford Expedition was
caused by a defect in the cruise control switch. This vehicle
was not part of a related recall by Ford on January 27, 2005.
These law firms filed a similar case on May 13, 2005 related to
vehicles that were the subject of the recall. This lawsuit is on
behalf of the class of car owners not included in the recall.
The vehicle in this case was destroyed by a fire on April 20,
2005. Several days before the fire, the plaintiffs had their
vehicle serviced at Bill Currie Ford. The vehicle had been
presented for service as a result of the vehicle not being able
to be removed from park. This condition has now been recognized
as one of the warning signs of the defect. The fire began while
their vehicle was parked, with the ignition off, in front of the
Plaintiff's residence in Tampa, Florida. The fire also caused
damage to their home.
Although Ford was aware of the risk of fire as indicated by the
recall, they failed to correct the problem even when the vehicle
was presented for service. According to attorney Emily Peacock:
"The true measure of the ethics of a person or a corporation is
not what they did but what they did next. In this instance, and
many others, Ford knew there was a problem but they tried to
limit their responsibility." Attorney Dale Sisco added: "It is
time for Ford to take full responsibility for the defect, before
other damage occurs."
The lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court in Tampa,
Hillsborough County, Florida. The lawsuit seeks damages in
excess of $15,000 and equitable relief. The lawsuit was filed as
case number 05-4503-A on behalf of the plaintiffs and all other
persons and entities who purchased model years 1995 through
2002, Ford F-150 pick-up trucks; and model years 1997 through
2002 Ford Expeditions and Lincoln Navigators.
For more details, contact Mike Peacock by Phone: 813-769-2409 or
813-833-6049 by E-mail: mpeacock@peacocklawfirm.com OR Dale R.
Sisco by Phone: 813-224-0555 or 813-508-1342 by E-mail:
dsisco@sisco-law.com.
IPAYMENT INC.: Shareholders Launch Suits Over Firm's Sale To CEO
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a bid to block the Nashville-based iPayment Inc. from selling
the business to its chairman and chief executive officer, two
shareholders of the credit card processor filed lawsuits, The
Nashville City Paper reports.
The civil actions, which were filed in Davidson County Chancery
Court last week and seeks class-action status for all public
shareholders of the company, contend that Gregory Daily's offer
to buy the company for $38 a share, without a public auction
process, undercuts the stock's fair value and puts shareholders
at a disadvantage in getting the maximum return on their
investment.
According to one of the suits, one of the suits states, "Mr.
Daily, through his controlling ownership of iPayment and
influence over the board, has access to information regarding
the future prospects for iPayment that is not available to
public shareholders of iPayment. The offer has the effect of
capping the market for iPayment stock to facilitate Daily's plan
to obtain the public interest in iPayment as cheaply as
possible."
iPayment officials though have said the offer is only in the
beginning stages and that it is being evaluated by a committee
of independent directors, the Nashville City Paper states.
Additionally, the suits, which were filed by the Nashville law
firms of Branstetter, Kilgore, Stranch & Jennings, and Barrett,
Johnston & Parsley, claim that Mr. Daily, who controls 12
percent of the stock, has timed the proposal to benefit himself
as the company's future improves.
JUNIPER NETWORKS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Juniper
Networks, Inc., certain of its officers and:
(1) Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,
(2) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,
(3) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,
(4) Royal Bank of Canada (Dain Rauscher Wessels),
(5) SG Cowen Securities Corporation,
(6) UBS Warburg LLC (Warburg Dillon Read LLC),
(7) Chase (Hambrecht & Quist LLC),
(8) J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.,
(9) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,
(10) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,
(11) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated
This action was brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock in the Company's initial public offering in June
1999 and its secondary offering in September 1999.
Specifically, among other things, this complaint alleged that
the prospectus pursuant to which shares of common stock were
sold in the Company's initial public offering and its subsequent
secondary offering contained certain false and misleading
statements or omissions regarding the practices of the
Underwriters with respect to their allocation of shares of
common stock in these offerings and their receipt of commissions
from customers related to such allocations.
Various plaintiffs have filed actions asserting similar
allegations concerning the initial public offerings of
approximately 300 other issuers. These various cases pending in
the Southern District of New York have been coordinated for
pretrial proceedings as "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92."
In April 2002, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
in the action against the Company, alleging violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Defendants in the coordinated proceeding filed motions to
dismiss. In October 2002, the Company's officers were dismissed
from the case without prejudice pursuant to a stipulation. On
February 19, 2003, the court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss, but declined to dismiss the claims
against the Company.
In June 2004, a stipulation for the settlement and release of
claims against the issuers, including the Company, was submitted
to the Court for approval. The terms of the settlement, if
approved, would dismiss and release all claims against
participating defendants (including the Company). In exchange
for this dismissal, Directors and Officers insurance carriers
would agree to guarantee a recovery by the plaintiffs from the
underwriter defendants of at least $1 billion, and the issuer
defendants would agree to an assignment or surrender to the
plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer defendants may have
against the underwriters. The settlement is subject to a number
of conditions, including court approval.
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Arguments on Suit Dismissal Appeal To Be Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals has yet to schedule oral
arguments on the appeal of the dismissal of a consolidated
securities class action filed against Juniper Networks, Inc. and
certain of its current and former officers.
During the quarter ended March 31, 2002, a number of essentially
identical shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and certain of its officers and
former officers purportedly on behalf of those stockholders who
purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between April
12, 2001 and June 7, 2001.
In April 2002, the court granted the defendants' motion to
consolidate all of these actions into one; in May 2002, the
court appointed the lead plaintiffs and approved their selection
of lead counsel and a consolidated complaint was filed in August
2002. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false and
misleading statements, assert claims for violations of the
federal securities laws and seek unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.
In September 2002, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. In March 2003, the court granted
defendants motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The plaintiffs
filed their amended complaint in April 2003 and the defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint in May 2003. The hearing
on defendants' motion to dismiss was held in September 2003. In
March 2004, the court granted defendants motion to dismiss,
without leave to amend. In April 2004, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal. The appeal has been fully briefed by the
parties.
LAFAYETTE UTILITIES: Customers' Lawsuit Moved to Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit accusing Lafayette Utilities System of overcharging
customers for fuel rates was moved from state District Court
into federal court, the 2theadvocate.com reports.
Filed in April in state District Court in Lafayette, the suit
was brought on behalf of all LUS customers by Lafayette
residents Elizabeth Naquin and Matthew Eastin and names the
Lafayette City-Parish government as the defendant. It alleges
LUS has overcharged on the fuel adjustment, bringing in more
revenue than what it actually costs the utility. In the past 10
years, LUS has collected $1.6 million more than it should have,
the suit further alleges.
In its motion to move the suit, LUS argues that the only
"specific facts" alleged in the suit deal with actions by LUS to
relieve transmission load on the electric systems of Cleco and
Entergy, actions the suit alleges resulted in overcharging LUS
customers. LUS further argues in it motion that those actions to
relieve the transmission grid were taken pursuant to agreements
approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. "As a
result, (the) defendant's actions in complying with federal law
mandates are the same actions plaintiffs are seeking the court
to find unlawful," the motion says. The motion also pointed out
that the involvement of a federal regulatory body means the suit
should be heard in federal court.
LUS Director Terry Huval told 2theadvocate.com that those
numbers alleged by the plaintiffs are incorrect and adds that
LUS has actually under-charged its customers for fuel costs each
year. LUS, according to Mr. Huval has to estimate the fuel-cost
charge each year and has more often underestimated that charge.
He also adds that the suit was "without merit."
Meanwhile, Stan Baudin, the attorney who filed the class action
suit, has declined to talk about it, 2theadvocate.com reports.
Mr. Huval told theadvocate.com that the LUS rates are
competitive with other utilities throughout the state. While
some cooperatives in Louisiana are able to charge lower rates --
such as SLEMCO -- LUS customers pay less for their electricity
than 85 percent of state residents, Mr. Huval said. He said that
is because large, private companies such as Entergy and Cleco,
whose rates are higher, serve most of the state.
LANDAMERICA FINANCIAL: Subsidiaries Settle Fee Suits For $10.3M
---------------------------------------------------------------
LandAmerica Financial Group Inc. reports that two of its
subsidiaries, Transnation Title Insurance Co. and Lawyers Title
Insurance Corporation agreed to pay $10.3 million to settle two
consolidated class action lawsuits alleging illegal fee
practices, The Associated Press reports.
According to the Richmond-based LandAmerica Financial's filng
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the two
subsidiaries have signed a binding term sheet to settle the
lawsuits filed by Romeo Jergess and Elaine Miller and will pay
the money into a settlement fund for eligible class members if
the court approves the agreement. Additionally, the insurance
holding firm stated that it does not admit liability in the
settlement.
In 2000, Mr. Jergess filed a putative class-action suit against
Transnation Title in a U.S. district court in Michigan alleging
an illegal kickback for referral and an illegal splitting of
fees. On the other hand, Ms. Miller filed a similar suit against
Lawyers Title the following year, which eventually led to it
being consolidated with Mr. Jergess' suit in 2002.
LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: ADA Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee set fairness hearing for the settlement of litigation
against seven of Lifepoint Hospitals, Inc.'s facilities on June
13,2005.
On January 12, 2001, Access Now, Inc., a disability rights
organization, filed a class action lawsuit against each of the
Company's hospitals alleging non-compliance with the
accessibility guidelines under the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA). The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief requiring
facility modification, where necessary, to meet the ADA
guidelines, along with attorneys fees and costs.
In January 2002, the District Court certified the class action
and issued a scheduling order that requires the parties to
complete discovery and inspection for approximately six
facilities per year. As of March 31, 2005, the plaintiffs have
conducted inspections at 22 of the Company’s hospitals.
On July 19, 2004, the court approved the settlement agreements
between the parties relating to two of the Company's facilities.
These facilities have completed the litigation process and now
will move forward in implementing facility modifications in
accordance with the terms of the settlement and the Company
currently anticipates that the costs associated with modifying
these two facilities will be approximately $1.0 million. The
District Court has scheduled a fairness hearing on June 13, 2005
to approve settlement agreements relating to seven of the
Company's facilities.
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: MO Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court denied NovaStar Financial's motion to dismiss
the class action lawsuit against the company.
The lawsuit alleges that between October 29, 2003 and April 8,
2004, NovaStar and certain of its senior executives violated the
federal securities laws. Specifically, the complaint alleges
that the company repeatedly emphasized the advantages and
importance of its branch network as a "strategic cornerstone" in
originating the sub-prime mortgages on which NovaStar's
profitability depended. The complain further alleges that during
the class period, NovaStar failed to disclose to the market that
it was in violation of federal and state regulations as a result
of its effort to expand its branch network at all costs.
"The Court's decision did not rule on the facts of the lawsuit,
but only allowed the case to move forward," said Jeffery D.
Ayers, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate
Secretary for NovaStar. "The company continues to believe these
claims are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend
against them."
In its May 12, 2005 decision, the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri determined that based upon
Novastar's alleged failure to inform investors about government
investigations and fines in two states resulting from its
regulatory violations, combined with filings by the company
stressing the importance of complying with state regulations and
noting the possible effect such compliance may have on its
operations and profitability, Novastar's omissions were not
immaterial as a matter of law. The Court additionally held that
"upon review of the allegedly false or misleading statements
made by Defendants, the allegedly illegal behavior in which
Defendants engaged, and the benefits allegedly reaped by
Defendants, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently
plead scienter."
Plaintiffs (NovaStar Investors) are represented by Entwistle &
Cappucci, LLP and Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP.
PIPER JAFFRAY: Class Discovery Ends in NY Fee Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class discovery has concluded in the class action filed against
Piper Jaffray Companies, Inc. and other leading securities
firms, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, styled "In re Public Offering Fee Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 98 CV 7890 (LMM)."
The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, treble damages and injunctive relief. The
consolidated amended complaint was filed on behalf of purchasers
of shares issued in certain initial public offerings for U.S.
companies and alleges that defendants conspired in offerings of
an amount between $20 million and $80 million to fix the
underwriters' discount at 7.0 percent of the offering amount in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
The court dismissed this consolidated action with prejudice and
denied plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint and include an
issuer plaintiff. The court stated that its decision did not
affect any class actions filed on behalf of issuer plaintiffs.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district
court's decision on December 13, 2002 and remanded the action to
the district court. A motion to dismiss was filed with the
district court on March 26, 2003 seeking dismissal of this
action and the issuer plaintiff action described below in their
entirety, based upon the argument that the determination of
underwriting fees is implicitly immune from the antitrust laws
because of the extensive federal regulation of the securities
markets. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to
dismiss on April 25, 2003. The underwriter defendants filed a
motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum of law in
further support of their motion to dismiss on June 10, 2003. The
court denied the motion to dismiss based upon implied immunity
in its memorandum and order dated June 26, 2003. A supplemental
memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss, applicable only
to this action because the purported class consists of indirect
purchasers, was filed on June 24, 2003 and seeks dismissal based
upon the argument that the proposed class members cannot state
claims upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs filed a
supplemental memorandum in opposition to defendants' motion to
dismiss on July 9, 2003.
Defendants filed a reply in further support of the motion to
dismiss on July 25, 2003. The court entered its memorandum and
order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss
on February 24, 2004. Plaintiffs' damage claims were dismissed
because they were indirect purchasers. The motion to dismiss was
denied with respect to plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief.
The Company filed its answer to the consolidated amended
complaint on April 22, 2004. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and supporting memorandum of law on September 16,
2004. Class discovery concluded on April 11, 2005. Defendants
are required to file their brief in opposition to plaintiffs'
motion for class certification on or before May 11, 2005.
The suit is styled "In re Public Offering Fee Antitrust
Litigation, case no. 1:98-cv-07890-LMM-DFE," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Lawrence M. McKenna. Representing the plaintiffs is
Randall Keith Berger, Kirby, McInerney & Squire, L.L.P., 830
Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 371-6600.
Representing the Company is Bryan B. House and Jay N. Varon of
Foley & Lardner, 3000 K. Street, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC
20007-5109 Phone: 202-672-5300.
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Working To Resolve Customer Suits V. Memberships
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-paid Legal Services, Inc. is working to resolve multiple
lawsuits filed against it, certain of its officers, employees,
sales associates and other defendants in various Alabama and
Mississippi state courts by current or former members seeking
actual and punitive damages for alleged breach of contract,
fraud and various other claims in connection with the sale of
memberships.
During 2004, there were at one time as many as 30 separate
lawsuits involving approximately 285 plaintiffs in Alabama. As
of April 22, 2005, as a result of dismissals, summary judgments,
or settlements for nominal amounts, the Company is aware of
approximately 8 separate lawsuits involving approximately 11
plaintiffs that have been filed in multiple counties in Alabama.
As of April 22, 2005, the Company is aware of 16 separate
lawsuits involving approximately 426 plaintiffs in multiple
counties in Mississippi. Certain of the Mississippi lawsuits
also name the Company's former provider attorney in Mississippi
as a defendant. At least three complaints have been filed by
the law firm representing plaintiffs in eleven of the cases on
behalf of certain of the Mississippi plaintiffs and others with
the Attorney General of Mississippi in March 2002, December 2002
and August 2003. The Company has responded to the Attorney
General's requests for information with respect to these
complaints, and as of April 22, 2005, is not aware of any
further actions being taken by the Attorney General.
In Mississippi, the Company filed lawsuits in the United States
District Court for the Southern and Northern Districts of
Mississippi in which it seeks to compel arbitration of the
various Mississippi claims under the Federal Arbitration Act and
the terms of the Company's Membership agreements. One of the
federal courts has ordered arbitration of a case involving 8
plaintiffs.
These cases are all in various stages of litigation, including
trial settings in Alabama in June 2005, and in Mississippi in
May 2005, and seek varying amounts of actual and punitive
damages. The first trial in Mississippi on these cases resulted
in a unanimous jury verdict in the Company's favor, including
other named defendants, on all claims on October 19, 2004, while
the second trial in Mississippi resulted in an insubstantial
plaintiffs' verdict on February 15, 2005.
Although the amount of Membership fees paid by the plaintiffs in
the Mississippi cases is $500,000 or less, certain of the cases
seek damages of $90 million. Additional suits of a similar
nature have been threatened. The ultimate outcome of any
particular case is not determinable.
On April 19, 2002, counsel in certain of the above-referenced
Alabama suits also filed a similar suit against the Company and
certain officers in the District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma
on behalf of Jeff and Jana Weller individually and doing
business as Hi-Tech Auto making similar allegations relating to
the Company's Memberships and seeking unspecified damages on
behalf of a "nationwide" class.
The Pre-Paid defendants' preliminary motions in this case were
denied, and on June 17, 2003, the Oklahoma Court of Civil
Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of the Pre-Paid
defendants' motion to compel arbitration, finding that the trial
court erred when it denied Pre-Paid's motion to compel
arbitration pursuant to the terms of the valid Membership
contracts, and remanded the case to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with that opinion. On December 3, 2004,
the District Court ordered the plaintiffs to proceed with the
arbitration. The ultimate outcome of this case is not
determinable.
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Court Hears Motion To Vacate, New Trial in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma heard a motion
to vacate or have a new trial for the salesperson lawsuit filed
against Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc.
This action was originally a putative class action brought by
Gina Kotwitz, later adding, George Kotwitz, Rick Coker, Richard
Starke, Jeff Turnipseed and Aaron Bouren, on behalf of the
Company's sales associates. The amended petition seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief, with such other damages as
the court deems appropriate, for alleged violations of the
Oklahoma Uniform Consumer Credit Code in connection with the
Company's commission advances, and seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief regarding the enforcement of certain contract
provisions with sales associates, including a request stated in
June 2003 for the imposition of a constructive trust as to
earned commissions applied to the reduction of debit balances
and disgorgement of all earned renewal commissions applied to
the reduction of debit balances.
On September 23, 2003 the court entered an order dismissing the
class action allegations upon the motion of the plaintiffs. The
order provides that the action will proceed only on an
individual basis, and that the hearing on plaintiffs' motion for
class certification previously set for February 2004 was
cancelled. On December 17, 2004 the District Court granted the
Company's motion for summary judgment.
On January 27, 2005 three of the five plaintiffs filed a motion
to vacate and/or for new trial. This motion was heard on April
25, 2005. The claims of the remaining two plaintiffs have been
dismissed with prejudice.
SEYFERT'S FOODS: Recalls Chips Due to Undeclared Ingredients
------------------------------------------------------------
Troyer Potato Products, Inc. d/b/a: Seyfert's Foods of
Waterford, PA is recalling Seyfert's Original Kettle Cooked
Potato Chips with the Lot # 0720B15 because they may contain
undeclared ingredients: milk, whey, or yellow dye # 5 in them.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk, whey,
or yellow dye #5 run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.
The chips were distributed in the retail food stores in the
South Bend and Elkhart, Indiana market area.
The product can be found in the Seyfert's brand Original Kettle
Cooked Potato Chips, Lot # 720B15 ONLY. No illnesses have been
reported to date.
The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product
containing the above mentioned allergens was distributed in
packaging that did not reveal the presence of milk, whey, or
yellow dye #5. Only 257 cases were manufactured with the
possibility of the above allergens being included in the potato
chip packaging. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem
was caused by a temporary breakdown in the company's production
and packaging processes.
If you find you have this purchased this product with the above
Lot #, please return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund. If you have any questions concerning this recall, you
may call the company at 1-800-458-0485.
SUMMIT MARKETING: Recalls 2M Folding Chairs Due To Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Summit Marketing International LLC, of Dublin, Ohio is
voluntarily recalling about 2,000,000 units Children's Folding
Chairs.
The chair's safety lock can fail, allowing the chair to collapse
or fold unexpectedly. Children's fingers can become caught or
entrapped in the hinge and slot areas of the chair, posing a
pinch or cut hazard. This can cause severe lacerations and
fingertip amputations to children's fingers.
The firm has received seven reports of the chairs collapsing,
resulting in four finger tip amputations, one laceration, and
bruises to children's fingers.
The recalled children's folding chairs are made of metal tubing
with a padded seat. They were sold in red, blue, yellow and
green colors either individually or as part of a set consisting
of a table and two, four, or six chairs. Each chair is about 22-
inches high, 10-inches wide, and about 11-inches deep.
"MANUFACTURED BY ZHANGZHOU STEEL TUBE FURNITURE FACTORY" is
written on a label underneath the seat of the chairs.
Manufactured in China the chairs were sold at all hardware,
discount department, toy, grocery and drug stores nationwide
from September 2002 through May 2005 for about $10 individually
and for about $45 for a set.
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the chairs immediately, and
contact Summit for instructions on how to receive a repair kit
to replace the locking pin.
Consumer Contact: Consumers should call Summit toll-free at
(866) 270-6275 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday.
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 4,855 Avalon Vehicles Due To Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor North America, Inc. is cooperating with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by
voluntarily recalling 4,855 Toyota Avalon passenger vehicles,
model 2005.
On certain passenger vehicles, the steering yoke was not welded
to the steering shaft. If the vehicle is operated in this
condition, there is a possibility that the yoke may come off
from the shaft and could result in a loss of vehicle steering
control. Loss of control of the vehicle could result in a
crash.
Dealers will inspect the steering yoke and shaft weld condition
and replace the steering column assembly. The recall is
expected to begin during June 2005. For more details, contact
the Company by Phone: 1-800-331-4331 or contact the NHTSA's auto
safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.
VIA NET.WORKS: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against VIA
NET.WORKS, Inc., certain of the underwriters who supported its
initial public offering (IPO) and certain of our officers,
styled "O'Leary v. Via Net.works [sic] et al [01-CV-9720]."
An amended complaint was filed in April 2002. The Complaint
alleges that the prospectus the Company filed with its
registration statement in connection with its IPO was materially
false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other
things, that:
(1) the named underwriters had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
investors in exchange for the right to purchase large
blocks of VIA IPO shares; and
(2) the named Underwriters had entered into agreements with
certain of their customers to allocate VIA IPO shares
in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
additional VIA shares in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices, thereby artificially inflating the
Company's stock price.
The Complaint further alleges violations of Sections 11, 12
(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder arising out of the alleged failure to disclose and
the alleged materially misleading disclosures made with respect
to the commissions and the Tie-in Arrangements in the
prospectus. The plaintiffs in this action seek monetary damages
in an unspecified amount.
Approximately 300 other issuers and their underwriters have had
similar suits filed against them, all of which are included in a
single coordinated proceeding in the Southern District of New
York (the "IPO Litigation"). On June 30, 2003, the special
litigation committee of the board of directors of the Company
conditionally approved the global settlement between all
plaintiffs and issuers in the IPO Litigations. The special
litigation committee agreed to approve the settlement subject to
a number of conditions, including the participation of a
substantial number of other defendants in the proposed
settlement, the consent of the Company's insurers to the
settlement, and the completion of acceptable final settlement
documentation. The settlement would provide, among other
things, a release of the Company and of the individual
defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful
by the plaintiffs.
Under the proposed settlement, the Company would agree to
undertake other responsibilities under the partial settlement,
including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release
certain potential claims the Company may have against its
underwriters. In June 2004, a motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement was filed with the Court. The underwriters
filed a memorandum with the Court opposing preliminary approval
of the settlement. The court granted the preliminary approval
on February 15, 2005, subject to certain modifications. If the
parties are able to agree upon the required modifications, and
such modifications are acceptable to the court, notice will be
given to all class members of the settlement, a fairness hearing
will be held and if the Court determines that the settlement is
fair to the class members, the settlement will be approved.
The suit is styled ""O'Leary v. Via Net.works [sic] et al [01-
CV-9720] (SAS)," filed in relation to "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC
OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS),"
both pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(i) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
(ii) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300
(iii) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala
Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax:
610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(iv) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com
(v) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
(vi) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
WALONG MARKETING: Recalls Potato-Strips For Undeclared Sulfites
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walong Marketing Inc. of Buena Park, California is recalling
"Asian Taste Dried Sweet Potato-strips," because it may contain
undeclared sulfites. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.
"Asian Taste Dried Sweet Potato-strips," were distributed
nationwide via retail stores. The product comes in an uncoded,
7-ounce, clear plastic bag with red borders. It is a product of
China. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection
with this product.
The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors, and
subsequent analysis by the department's food laboratory
personnel revealed the presence of sulfites in product packages
which did not declare sulfites on the label.
Consumers who have purchased "Asian Taste Sweet Potato-strips"
are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at
1-877-675-8899.
ZIYAD BROTHERS: Recalls Halva Due to Salmonella Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ziyad Brothers Importing is voluntarily recalling Ghandour
Halva, all lots and flavors of both regular and sugar free
halva, due to possible contamination with Salmonella sp. The
possible contamination was noted after testing by the Food and
Drug Administration found lot number 233401 of Sugar Free Plain
Halva, lot 233402 of Sugar Free Pistachio Halva and lots 233404
and 233406 of Extra Pistachio Halva contaminated with Salmonella
sp. Salmonella sp. is an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons
infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea,
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting
into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e. infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with the
Ghandour Halva. The product is distributed nationwide and is
sold in 16 and 32 ounce plastic container. The Company has
discontinued importing this item from Ghandour until the problem
is resolved.
Consumers who have purchased Ghandour Halva should dispose of it
or return it to the store of purchase. Consumers with questions
may contact the firm's Recall Coordinator, Sonia Ziad, at
info@ziyad.com or at 708-222-8330.
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Featured Conference
------------------------
Don't miss NorthStar Conferences' "The Class Action Litigation
Summit," which will take place June 8-9, 2005 in New York City.
In this time of increased corporate scrutiny, businesses are
more susceptible than ever to the threat of a national class
action. You will get up-to-the-minute information and strategic
advice directly from seasoned practitioners. Inside and outside
counsel will share a variety of perspectives on how to
anticipate, prevent, contain, and prepare for litigation.
For more information; call 1-866-265-1975 or visit
http://www.northstarconferences.com/conferences.asp?code=56LAW01
&pcode=CAR1.
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
June 2005
INTERNATIONAL ASBESTOS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 3-5, 2005
United States v. Philip Morris: Jumpstarting Private Tobacco
Litigation
22nd Conference of the Tobacco Products Liability Project
Boston, MA
Contact: conference@tplp.org
June 4, 2005
2005 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Continuing Education of the Bar
Wilshire Grand Hotel & Centre, Los Angeles, CA
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
June 4, 2005
2005 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Continuing Education of the Bar
Red Lion Hotel, Sierra Room, Sacramento, CA
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
June 8, 2005
ASBESTOS INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The University of Chicago Gleacher Center, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 8-9, 2005
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION SUMMIT
Northstar Conferences
New York City
Contact: http://www.northstarconferences.com/
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
PHARMACEUTICAL LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 16-17, 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 20-21, 2005
THE 2ND NATIONAL FORUM ON WELDING ROD LITIGATION
American Conferences
Omni Chicago Hotel, Chicago, IL, United States
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
June 22, 2005
THE 2ND NATIONAL FORUM ON WELDING ROD LITIGATION: POST-
CONFERENCE WORKSHOP
American Conferences
Omni Chicago Hotel, Chicago, IL, United States
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
June 22-23, 2005
VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Intercontinental, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 20-21, 2005
REACT 2005
American Conferences
Hyatt Regency Newport, Newport, Rhode Island
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
July 21-22, 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION 101 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
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: PHARMACEUTICAL AND MEDICAL DEVICE ISSUES
ALI-ABA
San Francisco
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
August 25-26, 2005
CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2005 AND OTHER EMERGING CLASS
ACTION ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Chicago
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
ASBESTOS LIABILITY FORUM
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 2005
LAW CLIENT DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
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
November 17-18, 2005
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact: 800-320-2227; 850-436-6094 (fax)
February 16-17, 2006
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Coral Gables, Miami, Florida
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
September 28-30, 2006
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Boston
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
------------------------
May 01-31, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 01-31, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 01-31, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 01-31, 2005
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 01-31, 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 15, 2005
IT AND NETWORKING SECURITY TELECONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.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
ABLE LABORATORIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of all securities purchasers of
Able Laboratories, Inc. (Nasdaq: ABRX) ("Able" or the "Company")
between October 31, 2002 and May 18, 2005 inclusive (the "Class
Period").
The complaint charges Able, Dhananjay G. Wadekar, Robert J.
Mauro, Nitin V. Kotak, and Robert Weinstein 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 the Company's laboratory testing practices
significantly deviated from standard operating
procedures employed in the industry;
(2) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company
suspended shipment of all of its products and had to
withdraw seven of its approved Abbreviated New Drug
Applications filed with the FDA; and
(3) that this disruption of business would have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business and results of
operations.
On May 19, 2005, Able announced that it had identified apparent
departures from standard operating procedures with respect to
certain laboratory testing practices. On the same day, Able also
announced that defendant Wadekar, the Company's Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, would be resigning from those
positions. The news shocked the market. Shares of Able fell
$18.37 per share, or 74.59 percent, on May 19, 2005, to close at
$6.25 per share.
For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Mail: 280 King of
Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-
610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.sbclasslaw.com.
ABLE LABORATORIES: Schoengold Sporn Files Stock Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C. filed a
class action lawsuit against Able Laboratories, Inc. ("Able" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: ABRX) and certain key officers and/or
directors in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey, Newark Division. This action has been brought on
behalf of all purchasers of Able securities during the period
between June 25, 2003 and May 23, 2005 (the "Class Period").
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects to artificially inflate the
value of Able stock. It is alleged that throughout the Class
Period, the defendants represented to the Class that the Company
had numerous Abbreviated New Drug Applications ("ANDAs") that
were approved or were pending with the United States Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA"). These statements were false and
misleading when made because the defendants failed to disclose
or indicate that the testing of Able's products did not adhere
to standard operating procedures and good manufacturing
practices ("GMP").
The Company shocked the investing public when, on May 19, 2005,
it announced that it was suspending shipments of its products
until it could determine whether its products were manufactured
and tested in compliance with standard operating procedures and
current GMP. Further, later that day, the Company announced the
resignation of Dhananjay G. ("Jay") Wadekar, its Chief Executive
Officer and the Chairman of the Company's Board of Directors.
The market reacted severely to these announcements. Able's
common stock price plummeted from $24.63 per share on May 18,
2005 to $6.26 per share on May 19, 2005 on volume of 31,346,100
-- almost 30 times the previous day's volume.
However, investors were shocked once again when, on Monday, May
23, 2005, the Company announced that it had suspended
manufacture and distribution of its products; initiated a recall
of all its products; and withdrawn seven of its approved ANDAs
because those applications were based on data upon which the
Company was no longer willing to rely. The Company's stock price
dropped further, to $5.05 per share.
For more details, contact Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti by
Phone: 866-348-7700 by E-mail: shareholderrelations@spornlaw.com
or visit their Web site: http://www.spornlaw.com.
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Brocade
Communication Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: BRCD) between February 21,
2001, and May 15, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against defendant Brocade and
one or more of its 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: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202 by Phone: 410/986-0036
by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
CORN PRODUCTS: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Lawsuit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Corn
Products International, Inc. (NYSE: CPO) securities between
January 25, 2005 and April 4, 2005, inclusive (the Class
Period).
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, against the company and certain
key officers and directors.
The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.
For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046 by
Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com.
CORN PRODUCTS: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Corn
Products International, Inc. (NYSE: CPO) between January 25,
2005 and April 4, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against defendant Corn Products
and one or more of its 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: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202 by Phone: 410/986-0036
by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
CORN PRODUCTS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all purchasers of
publicly traded securities of Corn Products International, Inc.
(NYSE: CPO) ("Corn Products International") between January 25,
2005 and April 4, 2005 (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that Corn Products International violated
federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading public
statements. These allegations arise out of the April 5, 2005,
announcement that Corn Products International expected first
quarter earnings to decline by 35 to 40 percent from the first
quarter of 2004. The Complaint alleges that prior to this
announcement, Corn Products International had issued improper
statements concerning its future prospects. Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that those statements were improper because,
at the time they were made, Corn Products International knew
that it was experiencing manufacturing problems at certain of
its facilities, causing expenses to rise dramatically above
internally forecasted levels, and causing certain processing
facilities to close and/or slowdown production. The Complaint
also alleges that Corn Products International had contracted for
corn in Canada in the late Fall of 2004 at prices higher than
present prevailing prices, thereby forcing the it to purchase
corn at above-market prices. In reaction to the April 5, 2005
announcement, the price of Corn Products International stock
fell from a close of $25.86 per share on April 4, 2005, to close
at $20.98 per share on April 5, 2005.
For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy Kulesa of
Schatz & Nobel, P.C. by Phone: (800) 797-5499 or by E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com or visit their Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.
FRIEDMAN BILLINGS: Stull Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, against Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group,
Inc. ("FBR" or the "Company") (NYSE: FBR) on behalf of
purchasers of the publicly traded securities Friedman, Billings,
Ramsey Group, Inc. between January 29, 2003 and April 25, 2005
(the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that FBR violated federal securities laws
by issuing false or misleading public statements. Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that FBR did not properly disclose the
adverse effect of an SEC and NASD investigation into FBR's 2001
role as a placement agent for an issuer in a PIPE (private
investment in public equity) transaction. On November 9, 2004,
FBR filed its third quarter 2004 Form 10-Q in which it disclosed
this SEC and NASD investigation. On this news, FBR's stock
dropped to $16.93 per share. On April 4, 2005, Emanual J.
Friedman, DBR's CEO, resigned. Then, on April 25, 2005, FBR
announced disappointing preliminary results for the first
quarter 2005, including a charge for its liability in the PIPE
transaction. On this news, FBR' s stock dropped to $12.52 on
volume of 7.5 million shares.
For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 or by Fax: 212/490-2022 by E-
mail: SSBNY@aol.com or visit their Web site:
http://http://www.ssbny.com.
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Lawsuit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Harley-
Davidson, Inc. (NYSE: HDI) between January 21, 2004, and April
14, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Wisconsin against defendants Harley-Davidson,
Jeffrey L. Bleustein and James L. Zeimer. 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: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202 by Phone: 410/986-0036
by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC.: Federman & Sherwood Files Fraud Suit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Wisconsin against Harley-Davidson, Inc.
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, including
allegations that the defendants issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of Harley-Davidson,
Inc.'s common stock. The class period is from January 21, 2004
through April 14, 2005.
For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood by Mail: 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK
73102 by Phone: (405) 235-1560 by Fax: (405) 239-2112 by E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.federmanlaw.com.
MOLSON COORS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of former shareholders of Molson
Inc. ("Molson") who received shares of Molson Coors Brewing
Company ("Molson Coors" or the Company) (NYSE: TAP) as a result
of the February 9, 2005 merger of Molson by and into the Adolph
Coors Company ("Coors"), open market purchasers of the common
stock of Coors from July 22, 2004 to February 9, 2005, inclusive
and open market purchasers of the common stock of the Company,
following completion of the merger between Molson and Coors on
or about February 9, 2005 to April 27, 2005, inclusive, (the
"Class Period") seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The complaint charges Molson Coors, Molson Coors Brewing
Company, Peter H. Coors, W. Leo Kiely III, Charles M. Herington,
Franklin W. Hobbs, Randall Oliphant, Pamela Patsley, Wayne
Sanders, Albert C. Yates, Timothy V. Wolf, Peter Swinburn, David
G. Barnes and Peter M.R. Kendall, 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 at the time of the merger (on or about February 9,
2005), Molson Coors was experiencing material adverse
changes to its business;
(2) that at the time of the merger, Coors's business was,
and would continue to be, adversely impacted by the
conditions which materially impacted the Company's
performance so that Coors was operating well below plan
and well below consensus estimates;
(3) that demand for the Company's products had dramatically
slowed; and
(4) that Coors, and as a result of the merger, Molson Coors
suffered from fundamental erosion of its business in
all four of its core markets.
On April 28, 2005, only weeks after the merger closed, before
the open of trading, Molson Coors announced disappointing
results for the Company's first quarter of 2005. On news of
this, shares of the Company fell $14.89 per share, or 18.5
percent, to close at $63.00 per share on unusually heavy trading
volume. That same day, defendant O'Neill resigned from his post
as Chair of Office of Synergies and Integration, taking with him
$4.8 million as a severance payment.
For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Mail: 280 King of
Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or
1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.sbclasslaw.com.
WILLBROS GROUP: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Willbros
Group, Inc. (NYSE: WG) between May 6, 2002, and May 16, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas against defendants Willbros, Michael
F. Curran, Warren L. Williams, Larry J. Bump and James K.
Tillery. 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: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202 by Phone: 410/986-0036
by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
WILLBROS GROUP: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against Willbros Group, Inc.
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, including
allegations that the defendants issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of Willbros Group,
Inc.'s stock. The class period is from May 6, 2002 through May
16, 2005.
For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood by Mail: 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK
73102 by Phone: (405) 235-1560 by Fax: (405) 239-2112 by E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.federmanlaw.com.
WILLBROS GROUP: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Willbros Group Inc. (NYSE: WG) ("Willbros" or the
"Company") between May 6, 2002 and May 16, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").
The complaint charges Willbros, Michael F. Curran, Larry J.
Bump, Warren L. Williams, and J. Ken Tillery 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, which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:
(1) that the Company, in violation of the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act, engaged in illegal activities including
the execution of related party transactions and the
bribery of government officials in Bolivia, Nigeria and
Ecuador;
(2) that the Company filed false tax returns, failed to
file required tax returns, and failed to pay certain
taxes in locations outside the United States;
(3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and
(4) that as a result of the above, Company's reported
financial results were materially overstated at all
relevant times and were in violation of US GAAP.
On May 16, 2005, Willbros announced that, as a result of the
previously disclosed tax assessment related to a completed
project in Bolivia and its ongoing internal investigation into
the facts and circumstances surrounding this tax assessment and
other illegal activities, the Company will restate its
previously issued financial statements for the 2002 and 2003
fiscal years and the first three quarters of 2004. News of this
shocked the market. Shares of Willbros fell $4.92 per share or
30.9% to close at $11.00 per share.
For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Mail: 280 King of
Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or
1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.sbclasslaw.com.
XYBERNAUT CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Lawsuit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware against Xybernaut Corporation.
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, including
allegations that defendants issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of Xybernaut
Corporation's stock. The class period is from March 27, 2003
through April 8, 2005.
For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood by Mail: 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK
73102 by Phone: (405) 235-1560 by Fax: (405) 239-2112 by E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.federmanlaw.com.
XYBERNAUT CORPORATION: Landskroner Grieco Files Stock Suit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Landskroner Grieco Madden, Ltd. initiated a
lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of all
persons (the "Class") who purchased the securities of Xybernaut
Corporation (Pink Sheets:XYBR) ("Xybernaut" or the "Company")
during the period May 10, 2002 and April 8, 2005 (the "Class
Period"). A copy of the Complaint may be obtained from the
Court, or you can call our offices toll free at 866-522-9500 to
speak with an attorney regarding this matter and we will send
you a copy of the Complaint.
The Complaint charges Xybernaut, Edward G. Newman, Steven A.
Newman, M.D., Thomas D. Davis, John F. Moynahan, and Grant
Thornton LLP with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b 5 promulgated
thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company omitted or misrepresented material facts about its
financial condition, business prospects, revenue expectations
and internal controls during the Class Period.
On March 14, 2005, Xybernaut announced that it was seeking an
extension of time within which to file its annual report with
the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). On March 31,
2005, after the close of trading, Xybernaut belatedly revealed
that it was in dire financial and regulatory straits. The
Company issued a press release that day, which stated, in part:
"Xybernaut Corporation (Nasdaq:XYBR) announced today that the
filing of its Form 10-K and other related reports for the year
ended December 31, 2004, anticipated to occur today, will be
further delayed, pending completion of an internal investigation
undertaken by its Audit Committee." The press release stated
that independent counsel had been engaged to assist in an
internal investigation of, "among other things, concerns brought
to the Audit Committee's attention relating to the internal
control environment of the Company, the propriety of certain
expenditures and the documentation of certain expenses of the
Chairman and CEO of the Company, the Company's transparency and
public disclosure process, the accuracy of certain public
disclosures, management's conduct in response to the
investigation, and the propriety of certain major transactions."
The press release further stated that the Company had received a
subpoena from the Northeast Regional Office of the SEC seeking
"documents and other information relating to the sale of Company
securities by any person identified as a selling shareholder in
any Company registration statement or other public filing."
On this news, the Company's share price, which at one time had
traded as high as $2.23 per share due to the Company's positive
press releases and false and misleading representations during
the Class Period, closed at $0.42 per share on March 31, 2005,
and then dropped further by almost fifty percent (50%), to close
at $0.24 per share on April 1, 2005.
On April 8, 2005, after the close of trading, Xybernaut
announced in a press release that "investors and others should
refrain from relying upon the Company's historical financial
statements . . . for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2003,
and interim quarterly reports for the quarters ended March 31,
2003, June 30, 2003, September 30, 2003, March 31, 2004, June
30, 2004 and September 30, 2004." On the heels of this shocking
news, trading was again heavy and the Company's price per share
fell to $0.13 per share.
On April 19, 2005, the Company announced that, among other
things, Grant Thornton had resigned as the Company's auditor and
repeated that "no reliance should be placed upon certain of the
Company's historical financial statements, together with the
related audit reports the Company received from its outside
auditors."
For more details, contact Jack Landskroner or Paul Grieco of
Landskroner Grieco Madden, Ltd. by Mail: 1360 West Ninth Street,
Suite 200, Cleveland, Ohio 44113 by Phone: 1-866-522-9500 or
216-522-9000 by E-mail: jack@landskronerlaw.com or
paul@landskronerlaw.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 Senorin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.
Copyright 2004. 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 * * *