/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/050601.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, June 1, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 107 Headlines BRUSH WELLMAN: Employees Launch Beryllium Injury Suit in E.D. PA BRUSH WELLMAN: Plaintiffs Appeal MI Beryllium Lawsuit Dismissal BRUSH WELLMAN: Plaintiffs File Amended CA Beryllium Injury Suit BRUSH WELLMAN: GA Court Orders Beryllium Injury Suit Amendment CANADA: Norske Skog Launches Peroxide Price-Fixing Suit V. Firms CLEVERLINK TECHNOLOGIES: FTC Halts "Lonely Wife" Spam Operation CMS ENERGY: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For Securities Lawsuit CMS ENERGY: Trial in MI ERISA Violations Suit Expected Mid-2006 DEL SOL: AR Attorney General Launches Suit V. Telemarketing Scam DUN & BRADSTREET: Opposes Amendment of CT ERISA Violations Suit EI DUPONT: WV Court Approves PFOA Contamination Suit Settlement ELI LILLY: Faces Zyprexa Product Liability Suits in US Courts ENTERPRISES SOLUTIONS: NY Court Issues Distribution Plan Order FIFTH THIRD: Reaches $17M Settlement For OH Securities Lawsuit FLUOR CORPORATION: Reaches $18M Settlement For CA Stock Lawsuit FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs To Hold Press Conference After Hearing FRANCE: Attorneys Establish New Website For Class Action Suits HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: New Lawsuit Launched Over Price-Fixing HINO MOTOR SALES: Recalls 2005-06 Vehicles Due to Brake Defect HO HO MARKET: Undeclared Sulfites Found on Dried Polygonatum HOMETOWN BUFFET: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in N.D. CA HOOVER'S INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement HUMANA INC.: Seeks Summary Judgment For FL Managed Care Lawsuit INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls 2006 Vehicles Due to Brake Defect KIA MOTORS: Recalls 2003-05 Sedona Vehicles Due to Wheel Defects NATIONWIDE LIFE: MI Court Refuses To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit NATIONWIDE LIFE: Appeals Court Mulls Consumer Lawsuit Dismissal NEVADA: Green Welling Investigates Vegas Grand Over Condo Prices NEWS CORPORATION: Working To Settle NY, DE Securities Lawsuits NORVERGENCE INC.: AZ Attorney General Forges Fraud Settlements OREGON: Judge Favors Switching To Class Action For Church Case PACCAR INC.: Recalls 2005 Vehicles Due to Rear Suspension Defect PARADIGM MEDICAL: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set August 25, 2005 PREMCOR INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Blue Island Refinery Suits PROSPERITY RESOURCES: Recalls Potatoes For Undeclared Sulfites PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Reaches Settlement For FL RICO, ERISA Suit RELIANT ENERGY: Faces Consolidated CA Natural Gas Antitrust Suit SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: PA Judge Slashes Legal Fees in Paxil Case SNELLING TRAVEL: Jury Rules in Favor of Defendants in SEC Case ST. JUDE: Continues To Face Litigation Due To Silzone Devices ST. JUDE: Consumers File Litigation Over Symmetry Heart Devices VEMAR HELMETS: Recalls Helmets Due to FMVSS No. 218 Violation Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Featured Conference * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases ABLE LABORATORIES: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Marc S. Henzel Files Stock Lawsuit in CA GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NY ********* BRUSH WELLMAN: Employees Launch Beryllium Injury Suit in E.D. PA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brush Wellman, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, styled "Gary Anthony v. Brush Wellman Inc., et al., case no. 05- CV-1202." The suit was initially filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania and removed to federal court on March 14,2005. The only named plaintiff is Gary Anthony. The defendants are Brush Wellman Inc., Gary Kowalski, and Dickinson Associates Manufacturers Representatives. The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a class of current and former employees of the U.S. Gauge facility in Sellersville, Pennsylvania who have ever been exposed to beryllium for a period of at least one month while employed at U.S. Gauge. The plaintiff has brought claims for negligence. Plaintiff seeks the establishment of a medical monitoring trust fund, cost of publication of approved guidelines and procedures for medical screening and monitoring of the class, attorneys' fees and expenses. The suit is styled "ANTHONY v. GARY KOWALSKI DICKINSON & ASSOCIATES MANUFACTURERS' REPRESENTATIVES et al, case no. 2:05- cv-01202-JKG," filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under Judge James Knoll Gardner. Representing the plaintiffs is Ruben Honik of GOLOMB & HONIK, PC, 121 South Broad Street, 9th Floor, Philadelphia PA 19107, Phone: 215-985-9177, E-mail: rhonik@golombhonik.com. Representing the plaintiffs are Morton F. Daller of DALLER GREENBERG & DIETRICH LLP, Eight Tower Bridge, 161 Washington Street, Suite 900, Conshohocken, PA 19428-2060, Phone: 215-836-1882, Fax: 215-836-2845, E-mail: mdaller@dallergreenberg.com; and Robert S. Faxon and Jeffery D. Ubersax of JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE, 901 Lakeside Avenue, North Point, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, Phone: 216-586-3939. BRUSH WELLMAN: Plaintiffs Appeal MI Beryllium Lawsuit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi's dismissal of the class action filed against Brush Wellman, Inc., styled "George Paz, et al. v. Brush Engineered Materials Inc., et al., case number 1:04CV597." The named plaintiffs are George Paz, Barbara Faciane, Joe Lewis, Donald Jones, Ernest Bryan, Gregory Condiff, Karla Condiff, Odie Ladner, Henry Polk, Roy Tootle, William Stewart, Margaret Ann Harris, Judith Lemon, Theresa Ladner and Yolanda Paz. The defendants are Brush Wellman, Inc., and: (1) Brush Engineered Materials Inc.; (2) Wess-Del, Inc.; and (3) the Boeing Company Plaintiffs seek the establishment of a medical monitoring trust fund as a result of their alleged exposure to products containing beryllium, attorneys' fees and expenses, and general and equitable relief. The plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of a class of present or former Defense Contract Management Administration (DCMA) employees who conducted quality assurance work at Stennis Space Center and the Boeing Company at its facility in Canoga Park, California; present and former employees of Boeing at Stennis; and spouses and children of those individuals. Mr. Paz and Mr. Lewis and Ms. Faciane represent current and former DCMA employees at Stennis. Mr. Jones represents DCMA employees at Canoga Park. Mr. Bryan, Mr. Condiff, Mr. Ladner, Mr. Park, Mr. Polk, Mr. Tootle and Mr. Stewart and Ms. Condiff represent Boeing employees at Stennis. Ms. Harris, Ms. Lemon, Ms. Ladner and Ms. Paz are family members. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 28, 2004, which was granted and judgment was entered on January 11, 2005; however, the plaintiffs have filed an appeal. The suit is styled "Paz, et al v. Brush Engineered, et al, case no. 1:04-cv-00597-LG-RHW," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, under Judge Louis Guirola Jr. Representing the Company are Paul H. Stephenson, III of WATKINS & EAGER, P. O. Box 650 Jackson, MS 39205-0650, Phone: (601) 948-6470, E-mail: pstephenson@watkinseager.com; and Jeffery D. Ubersax - PHV, of JONES DAY, North Point 901 Lakeside Ave., Cleveland, OH 44114-1190, Phone: 216/586-3939, E-mail: jdubersax@jonesday.com. Representing the plaintiffs are: (i) Ruben Honik - PHV, GOLOMB & HONIK, 121 South Broad St., Ninth Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: 215/985- 9177, E-mail: rhonik@golombhonik.com; (ii) Robert C. Latham, TRULY, SMITH, LATHAM & KUEHNLE, P. O. Box 1307, Natchez, MS 39121-1307, Phone: (601) 442- 6495, E-mail: rclatham@bellsouth.net; (iii) Randall Allan Smith - PHV, SMITH & FAWER, 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702, New Orleans, LA 70170 Phone: 504/525-2200, E-mail: rasmith3@bellsouth.net BRUSH WELLMAN: Plaintiffs File Amended CA Beryllium Injury Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed a second amended class action against Brush Wellman, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, styled "Manuel Marin, et al. v. Brush Wellman Inc., case number BC299055." The named plaintiffs are Manuel Marin, Lisa Marin, Garfield Perry and Susan Perry. The defendants are Brush Wellman, Appanaitis Enterprises, Inc. and Doe Defendants 1 through 100. The amended suit added five additional plaintiffs, namely Robert Thomas, Darnell White, Leonard Joffrion, James Jones and John Kesselring. The plaintiffs allege that they have been sensitized to beryllium while employed at the Boeing Company. The plaintiffs' wives claim loss of consortium. The plaintiffs purport to represent two classes of approximately 250 members each, one consisting of workers who worked at Boeing or its predecessors and are beryllium sensitized and the other consisting of their spouses. They have brought claims for negligence, strict liability - design defect, strict liability - failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranties, and unfair business practices. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, medical monitoring, medical and health care provider reimbursement, attorneys' fees and costs, revocation of business license, and compensatory and punitive damages. Mr. Marin, Mr. Perry, Mr. Thomas, Mr. White, Mr. Joffrion, Mr. Jones and Mr. Kesselring represent current and past employees of Boeing in California; and Ms. Marin and Ms. Perry are spouses. BRUSH WELLMAN: GA Court Orders Beryllium Injury Suit Amendment -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia asked plaintiffs to amend their class action filed against Brush Wellman, Inc., styled "Neal Parker, et al. v. Brush Wellman Inc., case number 04-CV-606." The suit was originally filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia. The named plaintiffs are Neal Parker, Wilbert Carlton, Stephen King, Ray Burns, Deborah Watkins, Leonard Ponder, Barbara King and Patricia Burns. The defendants are the Company and: (1) Schmiede Machine and Tool Corporation; (2) Thyssenkrupp Materials NA Inc., d/b/a Copper and Brass Sales; (3) Axsys Technologies, Inc.; (4) Alcoa, Inc.; (5) McCann Aerospace Machining Corporation; (6) Cobb Tool, Inc.; and (7) Lockheed Martin Corporation Mr. Parker, Mr. Carlton, Mr. King, Mr. Burns and Ms. Watkins are current employees of Lockheed. Mr. Ponder is a retired employee, and Ms. King and Ms. Burns are family members. The plaintiffs have brought claims for negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy and punitive damages. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring the defendants to fund a court-supervised medical monitoring program, attorneys' fees and punitive damages. On March 29, 2005, the Court entered an order directing plaintiffs to amend their pleading to segregate out those plaintiffs who have endured only subclinical, cellular, and subcellular effects from those who have sustained actionable tort injuries, and that following such amendment, the Court will enter an order dismissing the claims asserted by the former subset of claimants; dismissing Count I of the complaint, which sought the creation of a medical monitoring fund; and dismissing the claims against defendant Axsys Technologies Inc. The suit is styled "Parker, et al v. Brush Wellman, Inc., et al., case no. 1:04-cv-00606-RWS," filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, under Judge Richard W. Story. Representing the Company are J. Kevin Buster, Barry Goheen, Richard Anthony Schneider and Carmen R. Toledo of King & Spalding, 191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30303- 1763, Phone: 404-572-4600, E-mail: kbuster@kslaw.com, bgoheen@kslaw.com, dschneider@kslaw.com, ctoledo@kslaw.com; and James Royce Johnson, Robin A. Schmahl and Jeffrey D. Ubersax of Jones Day, 1420 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 800 Atlanta, GA 30309-3053 Phone: 404-521-3939, E-mail: jrjohnson@JonesDay.com, raschmahl@jonesday.com, or jdubersax@jonesday.com. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) William Grady Hasty, Jr. of Hasty Pope & Ball, P.O. Box 1818, 211 East Main Street, Canton, GA 30114-1818 Phone: 770-479-0366 (2) Robert E. Shields, Doffermyre Shields Canfield Knowles & Devine, 1355 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1600, Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-881-8900, E-mail: rshields@dsckd.com (3) James Hugh Webb, Jr., Webb Lindsey & Wade, 400 Westpark Court, Suite 220, Peachtree City, GA 30269, Phone: 770- 631-1811 E-mail: dstrube@webb-firm.com CANADA: Norske Skog Launches Peroxide Price-Fixing Suit V. Firms ---------------------------------------------------------------- British Columbia pulp producer Norske Skog is leading a bid to file a class action lawsuit in B.C. Supreme Court against almost two-dozen chemical companies alleging a price-fixing conspiracy for hydrogen peroxide, a bleaching agent used to make paper white, The Canadian Press reports. Norske's lawsuit alleges the companies' executives met secretly to illegally fix the price of the chemical and suppress any competition. Court documents give no indication as to how much the defendant estimates it may have lost over the alleged price- fixing period, which is alleged to go back to 1994. One of the companies listed as defendants in the in the suit is The Solvay group of companies, the world's leading producer of hydrogen peroxide, selling about $258 million worth of the agent every year. CLEVERLINK TECHNOLOGIES: FTC Halts "Lonely Wife" Spam Operation --------------------------------------------------------------- An operation that spammed millions of consumers with graphic sexual descriptions to drive traffic to their Web sites to "date lonely housewives" has been halted by the court at the request of the Federal Trade Commission. U.S. District Court Judge Amy St. Eve has ordered a temporary halt to the spamming and has frozen the assets of the outfit, pending a hearing on the FTC's request for a preliminary and permanent injunction for violations of federal law. The FTC complaint names Cleverlink Trading Limited, Real World Media, LLC and their principles, Brian D. Muir, Jesse Goldberg, and Caleb Wolf Wickman. The defendants are based in California. The FTC complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Chicago. The FTC alleges that the "date lonely wife" spam typically contains short messages or a picture and a hyperlink promoting the "lonely wives" service. The agency charges that the spam violates nearly every provision of the CAN-SPAM Act. It contains misleading headers and deceptive subject lines. It does not contain a link to allow consumers to opt out of receiving future spam, does not contain a valid postal address, and does not contain the disclosure, required by law, that it is sexually explicit. It also includes sexual materials in the initially viewable area of the e-mail, in violation of the FTC's Adult Labeling Rule. The FTC has asked the court to permanently bar the illegal spam and to order the operation to give up its ill- gotten gains. In papers filed with the court, the FTC alleges that the operators control more than 180 Web sites that claim to be registered to people around the world. The defendants use an offshore payment processor on the island of St. Kitts in the Caribbean, have foreign bank accounts to collect spam proceeds, and use a Cyprus-based company name and address to front the operation. According to the FTC, they route their spam messages through other people's computers, falsify contact e-mail addresses, and obscure tools that would allow a recipient to stop or complain about the spam. The FTC alleges that the operation is actually U.S.-based and that the defendants are trying to conceal their identities from U.S. law enforcers. This case was brought with the valuable assistance of the Microsoft Corporation. Copies of the complaint are available from the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For more details, contact Claudia Bourne Farrell, Office of Public Affairs, Phone: 202-326-2181 or Steven Wernikoff or Jason Bowler, FTC Midwest Region, Phone: 312-960-5634, or visit the Website: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/05/housewives.htm. CMS ENERGY: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to grant class certification for the securities lawsuit filed against CMS Energy Corporation, Consumers Energy Corporation, certain of the Company's officers and directors and its affiliates, including but not limited to Consumers Energy which, while established, operated and regulated as a separate legal entity and publicly traded company, shares a parallel Board of Directors with CMS Energy. The complaints were filed as purported class actions shareholders who allege that they purchased the Company's securities during a purported class period running from May 2000 through March 2003. The cases were consolidated into a single lawsuit. The consolidated lawsuit generally seeks unspecified damages based on allegations that the defendants violated United States securities laws and regulations by making allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company's business and financial condition, particularly with respect to revenues and expenses recorded in connection with round-trip trading by CMS Energy Resource Management Company. In January 2005, a motion was granted, dismissing Consumers and three of the individual defendants, but the court denied the motions to dismiss for the Company and the 13 remaining individual defendants. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on April 15, 2005. CMS ENERGY: Trial in MI ERISA Violations Suit Expected Mid-2006 --------------------------------------------------------------- Trial in the consolidated class action filed against CMS Energy Corporation is expected to begin in mid-2006 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The suit also names as defendants Consumers Energy Corporation, CMS Energy Resource Management Company, and certain named and unnamed officers and directors. Two lawsuits were initially filed on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the CMS Employees' Savings and Incentive Plan (the Plan). The two cases were later consolidated by the court. Plaintiffs allege breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and seek restitution on behalf of the Plan with respect to a decline in value of the shares of CMS Energy Common Stock held in the Plan. Plaintiffs also seek other equitable relief and legal fees. In March 2004, the judge granted in part, but denied in part, the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. The Company, Consumers and a number of individual defendants remain parties. The judge has conditionally granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A trial date has not been set, but is expected to be no earlier than mid 2006. DEL SOL: AR Attorney General Launches Suit V. Telemarketing Scam ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arkansas Attorney General Mike Beebe filed suit against Del Sol LLC, a California company doing business in Arkansas as Del Sol Educational Telephone, and its two owners for running a telemarketing scam aimed at Latino residents in Arkansas. Beebe is seeking restitution for the victims and an injunction halting Del Sol's Arkansas operation until it stops its deceptive practices and complies with state and federal "Do Not Call" laws. In addition, Attorney General Beebe is asking the court for civil penalties against Del Sol under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The victims in this case were contacted by phone and offered a promotional prize package at a cost of about $230. For that money, the victims were told they would receive a Dell laptop computer, designer perfumes and colognes, compact discs of their favorite selected artists and designer watches. In reality, each received a WebTV keyboard, oftentimes without the connections required to operate it, and knockoff-brand merchandise instead of the promised designer brands. Consumers who sought refunds were unable to speak with Del Sol representatives. The state alleges that the defendants specifically targeted Spanish-speaking consumers who had a limited understanding of English. Most, if not all, of the calls were made in Spanish. The telemarketing calls violated state and federal "Do Not Call" laws, as the defendants did not have written authorization or the prior business relationships required to contact these consumers. "Just like legitimate businesses, scam artists target growing populations," Attorney General Beebe said. "As Arkansas' Latino population grows, we can expect to see more scams surface like this one. I want all Arkansans to know that the Consumer Protection Division of my office is available and ready to fight these scam artists." Under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, each violation by Del Sol could be punishable by a $10,000 civil penalty. The two owners of Del Sol named in the lawsuit are Fernando T. Gonzalez and Ana Maria Gonzalez. This lawsuit comes as part of a joint effort coordinated by the Federal Trade Commission to curb fraud against Spanish-speaking consumers. Law-enforcement agencies in Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, New York, North Carolina and Texas are taking part in the effort. For questions, contact the Attorney General's Office at 200 Catlett-Prien Tower Building, 323 Center Street, Little Rock, AR 72201. The office can be reached by calling (501) 682-2341 or 1-(800) 482-8982. Spanish-speaking consumers can also call (501) 683-3130. TDD service is available for the hearing- impaired 682-6073. DUN & BRADSTREET: Opposes Amendment of CT ERISA Violations Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Dun & Bradstreet Company objected to the amendment of the consolidated class action filed against it in the United States District Court in Connecticut, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act (ERISA). In March 2003, a lawsuit seeking class action status was filed against the Company on behalf of 46 specified former employees relating to our retirement plans. During the fourth quarter of 2004 most of the counts in the complaint were dismissed. The complaint, as amended in July 2003, sets forth the following putative class: (1) current D&B employees who are participants in The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account and were previously participants in its predecessor plan, The Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan; (2) current employees of Receivable Management Services Corporation (RMSC) who are participants in The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account and were previously participants in its predecessor plan, The Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan; (3) former employees of D&B or D&B's Receivable Management Services (RMS) operations who received a deferred vested retirement benefit under either The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account or The Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan; and (4) former employees of D&B's RMS operations whose employment with D&B terminated after the sale of the RMS operations but who are not employees of RMSC and who, during their employment with D&B, were "Eligible Employees" for purposes of The Dun & Bradstreet Career Transition Plan The Amended Complaint estimates that the proposed class covers over 5,000 individuals. There are four counts in the Amended Complaint. Count 1 claims that the Company violated ERISA by not paying severance benefits to plaintiffs under its Career Transition Plan. Count 2 claims a violation of ERISA in that the Company's sale of the RMS business to RMSC and the resulting termination of its employees constituted a prohibited discharge of the plaintiffs and/or discrimination against the plaintiffs for the "intentional purpose of interfering with their employment and/or attainment of employee benefit rights which they might otherwise have attained." Count 3 claims that the plaintiffs were materially harmed by the Company's alleged violation of ERISA's requirements that a summary plan description reasonably apprise participants and beneficiaries of their rights and obligations under the plans and that, therefore, undisclosed plan provisions (in this case, the actuarial deduction beneficiaries incur when they leave D&B before age 55 and elect to retire early) cannot be enforced against them. Count 4 claims that the 6.60% interest rate (the rate is actually 6.75%) used to actuarially reduce early retirement benefits is unreasonable and, therefore, results in a prohibited forfeiture of benefits under ERISA. In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs sought payment of severance benefits; equitable relief in the form of either reinstatement of employment with D&B or restoration of employee benefits (including stock options); invalidation of the actuarial reductions applied to deferred vested early retirement benefits, including invalidation of the plan rate of 6.60% (the actual rate is 6.75%) used to actuarially reduce former employees' early retirement benefits; attorneys' fees and such other relief as the court may deem just. In September 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Counts 1, 3 and 4 of the Amended Complaint on the ground that plaintiffs cannot prevail on those claims under any set of facts, and in February 2004, the Court heard oral argument on the Company's motion. With respect to Count 4, the Court requested that the parties conduct limited expert discovery and submit further briefing. In November 2004, after completion of expert discovery on Count 4, the Company moved for summary judgment on Count 4 on the ground that an interest rate of 6.75% is reasonable as a matter of law. Briefing on that motion has now been completed. Meanwhile, on November 30, 2004 the Court issued a ruling granting the Company's motion to dismiss Counts 1 and 3. Shortly after that ruling, plaintiffs' counsel stipulated to dismiss Count 2 (which challenged the sale of the RMS business as an intentional interference with employee benefit rights, but which the motion to dismiss did not address). Plaintiffs' counsel also stipulated to a dismissal of Count 1, the severance pay claim, agreeing to forego any appeal of the Court's dismissal of that claim. Plaintiffs' counsel did file a motion to join party plaintiffs and to amend the amended complaint to add a new count challenging the adequacy of the retirement plan's mortality tables. The court granted the motion and the Company filed its objections. EI DUPONT: WV Court Approves PFOA Contamination Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Wood County Circuit Court in West Virginia approved the settlement of a class action filed against EI Dupont de Nemours & Co. and the Lubeck Public Service District. The complaint alleged that residents living near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health effects from exposure to perflourooctanoic acid (PFOA) in drinking water. The relief sought included damages for medical monitoring, diminution of property values, and punitive damages plus injunctive relief to stop releases of PFOA. The settlement agreement reached by the Company and the attorneys for the class in 2004 was approved by the Wood County Circuit Court on February 28, 2005 after a fairness hearing. The settlement binds a class of approximately 80,000 residents. As defined by the court, the class includes those individuals who have consumed, for at least one year, water containing 0.05 parts per billion or greater of PFOA from any of six designated public water sources or from sole source private wells. The settlement calls for expenditures valued at $85 million, plus attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million. As part of the initial payment, the Company has agreed to a cash payment of $70 million, the majority of which class counsel has designated to fund a community health project. The Company has also offered to make available to six area water districts state-of- the art water treatment systems (estimated to cost approximately $10 million) designed to reduce the level of PFOA in the water. The other key component to the settlement is the creation of an independent panel of experts to evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists between exposure to PFOA and human disease. This independent panel will design and conduct a health study in the communities exposed to PFOA. The Company will fund this study at an estimated cost of $5 million. The settlement results in the dismissal of all claims asserted in the lawsuit except for personal injury claims. If the independent panel concludes that no probable link exists between exposure to PFOA and any diseases, then the settlement would also resolve personal injury claims. If the independent panel concludes that a probable link does exist between exposure to PFOA and any diseases, then the Company would also fund a medical monitoring program (capped at $235 million) to pay for such medical testing. In this event, plaintiffs would retain their right to pursue personal injury claims. All other claims in the lawsuit would remain dismissed by the settlement. ELI LILLY: Faces Zyprexa Product Liability Suits in US Courts ------------------------------------------------------------- Eli Lilly continues to face approximately 190 product liability cases in the United States involving approximately 540 claimants alleging a variety of injuries from the use of its schizophrenia drug Zyprexa. Most of the cases allege that the product caused or contributed to diabetes or high blood-glucose levels. The lawsuits seek substantial compensatory and punitive damages and typically accuse the Company of inadequately testing for and warning about side effects of Zyprexa. Many of the lawsuits also allege that the Company improperly promoted the drug. Virtually all the federal cases, involving approximately 450 claimants, have been or will be transferred to The Honorable Jack Weinstein in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York for consolidated and coordinated pretrial proceedings. Two cases requesting certification of nationwide class actions on behalf of those who allegedly suffered injuries from the administration of Zyprexa were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on April 16, 2004, and May 19, 2004, respectively. The cases seek damages for alleged personal injuries and also seek compensation for medical monitoring of individuals who have taken Zyprexa. A lawsuit was also filed that requests a class action on behalf of Iowa residents who took Zyprexa, and that case has been transferred to the federal court in New York. In addition, the Company has entered into agreements with various plaintiffs' counsel halting the running of the statutes of limitation (tolling agreements) with respect to more than 3,800 individuals who do not have lawsuits on file and may or may not eventually file suits. This provides counsel additional time to evaluate the potential claims. In exchange, the individuals have agreed not to file suits in state courts, and the Plaintiffs Steering Committee agreed to dismiss the personal injury claims in the two pending nationwide class actions. The class action claims seeking medical monitoring for Zyprexa patients are not affected by this agreement. In December 2004, the Company was served with two lawsuits brought in state court in Louisiana on behalf of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, alleging that Zyprexa caused or contributed to diabetes or high blood-glucose levels and that the Company improperly promoted the drug. In these actions, which the Company has removed to federal court, the Department of Health and Hospitals seeks to recover the costs it paid for Zyprexa through Medicaid and other drug benefit programs and the costs the department alleges it has incurred and will incur to treat Zyprexa-related illnesses. In early 2005, the Company was served with five lawsuits seeking class action status in Canada on behalf of patients who took Zyprexa. The allegations in these suits are similar to those in the litigation pending in the United States. ENTERPRISES SOLUTIONS: NY Court Issues Distribution Plan Order --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is notifying all interested claimants against the Enterprises Solutions, Inc. (ESI) Settlement Fund that United States District Court Judge Miriam Goldman has issued an "Order Approving Plan of Distribution and Providing for Implementation Thereof," establishing a Distribution Plan for a $1.1 million Settlement Fund. The order in the case, Securities and Exchange Commission V. ESI, Case No. 00 Civ 2685 (MGC), established a "Claims Bar Date" of August 23, 2005 and a "Objections Bar Date" of June 24, 2005. For more details, contact Philip S. Stenger, c/o Stenger & Stenger, P.C. by Mail: 4095 Embassy Drive SE, Suite A, Grand Rapids, MI 49546 by Phone: (616) 940-1190 by Fax: (616) 940-1192 by E-mail: phil@stengerlaw.com or visit their Web site: http://www.enterprisessolutions.com/. FIFTH THIRD: Reaches $17M Settlement For OH Securities Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp reached a settlement for the consolidated securities class action filed against it and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging violations of federal securities laws. The suit relates to disclosures made by the Company regarding its integration of Old Kent Financial Corporation and its effect on the Company's infrastructure, including internal controls, prospects and related matters. The complaint sought unquantified damages on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased the Company's common stock, attorneys' fees and other expenses. On March 31, 2005 the Registrant announced that it had settled this suit. The settlement is subject to court approval. Under the proposal, a settlement fund of $17 million plus interest, but minus lawyers' fees and expenses would be established. The proposal further said that the settlement would be divided among investors who bought Fifth Third Bancorp stock between September 21, 2001 and January 31, 2003. Lawyers' fees would be limited to a maximum of 28 percent of the fund plus about $300,000 for expenses, according to a proposed order submitted for court approval, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (April 4,2005) reports. The amount to which any investor would be entitled would depend on how many investors sign up for the settlement, the number of Fifth Third shares they bought and how much they paid for those shares. The plaintiffs' lawyers estimated that 116 million shares were traded during the class period and that the average amount recovered per share would be 14.6 cents. Individual investors could reject the settlement and pursue actions on their own, the lawyers added. Under terms of the proposed settlement, the Company and the other defendants don't admit to the validity of any claims made by the plaintiffs. FLUOR CORPORATION: Reaches $18M Settlement For CA Stock Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Fluor Corporation reached an agreement to settle the consolidated securities class action filed against its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District, Southern Division, California for $18 million. Several suits were initially filed, alleging that certain Company officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by providing false or misleading statements about the Company's business and prospects. These complaints purported to be class action complaints brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock during the period from May 22, 1996 through February 18, 1997. The company's initial motion to dismiss the action was granted by the court with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed their amended complaint and the company moved the court to dismiss the new amended complaint. The Court granted the company's motion and dismissed plaintiff's action without leave to amend on July 10, 2002. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the motion to the trial court with instructions to allow plaintiff an additional chance to plead additional claims. During the first quarter of 2005 the company, its insurer and the plaintiffs reached an agreement to settle this proceeding for $18 million without any admission of company liability, of which $16 million was paid by the Company's insurers. The remaining $2 million had been previously provided, and therefore, did not affect operating results for the first quarter of 2005. A hearing to confirm the settlement has been scheduled for June 27, 2005. The suit is styled "In re Fluor Corporation Securities Litigation, case no. 97-CV-734," filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, under Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler. Representing the Company is Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Rd Palo Alto, CA 94304- 1050 USA, Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-493-6811. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (New York, NY), 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.687.1980, Fax: 212.687.7714, E-mail: info@kaplanfox.com (2) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, E-mail: support@milberg.com (3) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP (S.F., CA), 100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA, 94111, Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534, (4) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com (5) Soltan & Associates, 660 Newport Center Driver Suite 320, Newport Beach, CA, 92660, Phone: 949.729.3100, Fax: 949.729.1527 FORD MOTOR: Plaintiffs To Hold Press Conference After Hearing ------------------------------------------------------------- Following the final hearing in a landmark class action employment discrimination case against Ford Motor Company (Robinson v. Ford Motor Company), plaintiffs and attorneys will hold a press conference on June 1, 2005 at 4:30 p.m. to discuss the historic implications of the settlement, The Comtex Global News reports. The press conference will be followed by a reception at the same site, the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center, Discovery Room, 3rd Floor, 50 East Freedom Way, Cincinnati, Ohio. The settlement is groundbreaking since it is most likely the first class action involving apprenticeship selection that benefits African American nationwide and provides the largest number of African American employees who have a realistic chance to become apprentices in skilled trades. Mehri & Skalet and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") each filed a lawsuit challenging Ford's procedures for selecting apprentices nationwide. These suits alleged that, since 1997, Ford has discriminated against African-Americans on the basis of race in selecting apprentices. The two cases were consolidated in front of Senior Judge S. Arthur Spiegel. After extensive negotiations, the parties arrived at a settlement. The proposed settlement resolves all claims in both lawsuits. We believe that the settlement is in the public interest and confers substantial benefits on the Settlement Class. The settlement provides monetary and non-monetary benefits to the class, as well as providing substantial systemic relief. Some key aspects of the Settlement Agreement include: (1) Ford will immediately cease the use of the current ATSS for selection of apprentices at Ford facilities in the U.S. (2) The parties will agree upon an independent industrial psychologist to serve as an expert to devise new apprenticeship selection procedures. (3) Ford will select 276 members of the Settlement Class and three Charging Parties and offer them places on a Ford apprenticeship program eligibility list. This aspect of the Settlement Agreement is designed to remedy claims for lost job opportunities. (4) To remedy compensation damages claims for the class, the Settlement Agreement also provides $2400 to Settlement Class members who submit a properly executed claim and release and do not opt-out of the Settlement Agreement. The suit is styled, Robinson v. Ford Motor Company, filed before the Honorable S. Arthur Spiegel. Representing the Plaintiffs are Nathaniel R. Jones of Blank Rome, LLP, Cyrus Mehri of Mehri & Skalet, PLLC and Jeff A. Stern of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). FRANCE: Attorneys Establish New Website For Class Action Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- A new French website, http://classaction.fr/,has been set up to offer the French public the possibility of bringing a class action or collective suit for damages, The Financial Times Ltd. Reports. According to the lawyer in charge of the venture, Jean-Marc Goldnadel, the website will be featuring suits against pharmaceutical companies over the alleged side effects of their drugs or against the French carmaker Renault over its speed- regulators as just two of the issues, which potential clients have raised so far. Other suits, he says, want to take action against Internet or telecoms operators or to challenge what they regard as an unfair parking ticket. The website, which believes that many such disputes are ended with a financial settlement, charges each complainant a fee of between 12 and 60 euros. Its lawyers also receive around 40 per cent of any damages awarded. HILLENBRAND INDUSTRIES: New Lawsuit Launched Over Price-Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- Hillenbrand Industries Inc. along with other funeral industry companies are the targets of another lawsuit similar to a class- action suit that was filed in California earlier this month against the Batesville, Indiana casket maker, The Indianapolis Star reports. Ralph Lee Fancher recently filed an antitrust suit seeking certification of two classes of consumers based on state laws. It alleges that the companies conspired with funeral home owners to ban casket sales to discount chains, independent stores and Internet retailers. Previously, a Vermont nonprofit organization, Funeral Consumers Alliance Inc., sued Hillenbrand Industries, its Batesville Casket Co. subsidiary, and three other funeral industry companies, claiming that they bar consumers from buying discount caskets from independent, third-party sellers and that they engage in price-fixing. That suit, which was filed in a San Francisco federal court, claims that the alleged actions violate a 1982 federal law governing funeral industry trade practices, it also seeks class- action status. In addition to Hillenbrand, which has its headquarters in Batesville, Indiana, and Batesville Casket, other defendants named in the suit are Service Corporation International, of Houston, Alderwoods Group Inc., of Cincinnati, and Stewart Enterprises Inc., of Jefferson, Louisiana. The suit identifies the latter three as operators of funeral homes. HINO MOTOR SALES: Recalls 2005-06 Vehicles Due to Brake Defect -------------------------------------------------------------- Hino Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 262 service brakes of 2005-06 Hino NJ8J/NV8J vehicles. According to ODI, on certain vehicles a brake airline could become disconnected, which could cause a decrease of braking ability or the parking brake to apply without being activated, increasing the risk of a crash. As a remedy, dealers will inspect each vehicle and check properly the torque on the nuts. If the nuts are not torqued properly, they will be tightened to the proper specification. For more details, contact Hino by Phone: 1-248-648-6400 or the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236. HO HO MARKET: Undeclared Sulfites Found on Dried Polygonatum ------------------------------------------------------------ New York State Agriculture Commissioner Nathan L. Rudgers alerted consumers of a finding of undeclared sulfites in "Dried Polygonatum (Vegetable)" sampled and analyzed by the Department of Agriculture. The product was sold by the Ho Ho Market Inc., 5215 8 th Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. "Dried Polygonatum (Vegetable)" is packaged in a 12 ounce plastic bag with the statement: "Expiration: 24 Months". It was sold in the Brooklyn area. The Department has determined that the retail store and distributor of the product are no longer in business. Routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the product contained high levels of sulfites, which were not declared on the label. Sulfites can cause deadly reactions in asthmatics and sulfite sensitive persons. No illnesses have been reported to the Department to date concerning this product. HOMETOWN BUFFET: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in N.D. CA --------------------------------------------------------------- HomeTown Buffet, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District, California, alleging violations of the state's wage and hour laws. On November 12, 2004, Elaine Tiffany and Shannon Whitehead, two former restaurant managers of the Company, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in California Superior Court in San Francisco County. On January 4, 2005, the Company removed the case to federal court. The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated California wage and hour laws by failing to pay all of its California managers and assistant managers overtime, and for making deductions from bonus compensation based on the company's workers' compensation costs. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, penalties, restitution of unpaid overtime and deductions, pre-judgment interest, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees. The complaint does not make a specific monetary demand. The suit is styled "Tiffany et al v. Hometown Buffet, Inc., case no. 4:05-cv-00047-SBA," filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong. Representing the Company are Rod M. Fliegel and Eric A. Grover of Littler Mendelson, 650 California Street 20th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94108-2693, Phone: 415-433-1940, E-mail: rfliegel@littler.com or EAGROVER@LITTLER.com. Representing the plaintiffs is J. Kirk Donnelly of Dostart Clapp & Coveney, LLP, 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 970 San Diego, CA 92122, Phone: 858-623-4200, Fax: 858-623-4299. HOOVER'S INC.: 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 Hoover's, Inc., certain of its current and former officers and directors and one of the investment banks that was an underwriter of the Company's July 1999 initial public offering (IPO). On November 15, 2001, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock during the period from July 20, 1999 through December 6, 2000. A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002. The purported class action alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against the Company and Individual Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendant agreed to allocate stock in the Company's IPO to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at predetermined prices above the IPO price. Plaintiffs allege that the Prospectus for the Company's IPO was false and misleading in violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements. The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The defense of the action is being coordinated with more than 300 other nearly identical actions filed against other companies. On July 15, 2002, the Company's moved to dismiss all claims against it and the Individual Defendants. On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case based upon Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the Individual Defendants. On February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint against the Company. On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in six of the approximately 300 other nearly identical actions and noted that the decision is intended to provide strong guidance to all parties regarding class certification in the remaining cases. Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the case involving the Company. The Company approved a settlement agreement and related agreements that set forth the terms of a settlement between the Company, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants. Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of the Company and the individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful. The Company would agree to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims the Company may have against its underwriters. The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under the issuers' settlement agreement. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the issuers are required to make up the difference. On February 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications consistent with its opinion. The Court ruled that the issuer defendants and the plaintiffs must submit a revised settlement agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all contribution claims by the settling and non- settling parties and does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims. There is no assurance that the court will grant final approval to the settlement. The suit is styled "In re Hoovers, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation," 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: (1) 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 (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York, NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065, Phone: 212.594.5300 (3) 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 (4) 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 (5) 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 (6) 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 HUMANA INC.: Seeks Summary Judgment For FL Managed Care Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Humana, Inc. filed an omnibus motion for summary judgment in the consolidated managed care class action filed against it and other managed care companies filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, styled "In re Managed Care Litigation." Several purported class action lawsuits that are part of a wave of generally similar actions that target the health care payer industry and particularly target managed care companies were initially filed, including a lawsuit against the Company and originally nine of its competitors that purports to be brought on behalf of physicians who have treated the Company's members. As a result of action by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the case was consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs assert that the Company and other defendants improperly paid providers' claims and "downcoded" their claims by paying lesser amounts than they submitted. The complaint alleges, among other things, multiple violations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, as well as various breaches of contract and violations of regulations governing the timeliness of claim payments. The complaint was subsequently amended to add as plaintiffs several medical societies, including the Texas Medical Association, the Medical Association of Georgia, the California Medical Association, the Florida Medical Association, and the Louisiana State Medical Society, each of which purports to bring its action against specified defendants. On September 26, 2002, the Court certified a global class consisting of all medical doctors who provided services to any person insured by any defendant from August 4, 1990, to September 26, 2002. The class included two subclasses. A national subclass consisted of medical doctors who provided services to any person insured by a defendant when the doctor had a claim against such defendant and was not required to arbitrate that claim. A California subclass consisted of medical doctors who provided services to any person insured in California by any defendant when the doctor was not bound to arbitrate the claim. On September 1, 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit agreed with the District Court's ruling as to the class for the RICO claims, although it suggested that the class should be split so that claims involving capitation and fee-for-service payments would be handled separately. However, it reversed the lower court as to state law claims, including breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violations of prompt pay laws. It found that the state claims were too individualized to be dealt with in a class action. The California subclass was not specifically challenged and therefore was permitted to remain. On October 15, 2004, the defendants filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, asking for review of the Eleventh Circuit's decision. The petition was denied on January 10, 2005. On December 9, 2004, the Court issued an order rescheduling the trial for September 6, 2005. On February 10, 2005, the Court ruled that the trial would be bifurcated so that the issue of liability would be tried first, followed by proof of damages, if liability is found. On September 17, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification, seeking a global fee-for-service class and five subclasses for the time period from January 1, 1996, to the date of certification. The global class would consist of any medical doctor who provided service on a fee-for-service basis to any person insured by Cigna Corporation or any other defendant for claims of RICO conspiracy and aiding and abetting. The motion seeks subclasses for the conspiracy counts for capitation damages and capitation injunctive relief consisting of all medical doctors who provided services on a capitated basis. The motion also requests a subclass for a direct RICO claim consisting of medical doctors who provided services on a fee-for-service basis to any person insured by Humana pursuant to a contract without an arbitration clause or without a contract. The motion also seeks two California subclasses, one involving physicians who provided services on a fee-for-service basis and the other for capitated physicians. On April 22, 2005, the defendants filed an omnibus motion for summary judgment as to all counts of the complaint. The Court has not ruled on these motions. Two of the defendants, Aetna Inc. and Cigna Corporation, have entered into settlement agreements which have been approved by the Court. On May 2, 2005, Health Net, Inc. announced that it has entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs. The settlement agreement is subject to Court review and approval. 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. INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls 2006 Vehicles Due to Brake Defect -------------------------------------------------------------- International Truck & Engine Corporation in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 3288 service brakes of 2006 International 3200/4000/7000/8000 vehicles. According to ODI, on certain vehicles equipped with air brakes, the push rod that connects the brake pedal to the brake valve was manufactured incorrectly and could break under certain loading conditions. If this push rod breaks while a vehicle is in operation, a partial loss of service braking may be experienced. This could result in a vehicle crash. As a remedy, dealers will replace the rods. For more details, contact International by Phone: 1-800-448-7825 or the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236. KIA MOTORS: Recalls 2003-05 Sedona Vehicles Due to Wheel Defects ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kia Motors America, Inc. in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 37358 wheels of 2003-05 Kia Sedonas. According to ODI, on certain mini-vans with alloy wheels, moisture can cause to accumulate around the rear hubcaps causing damage to the outer wheel bearing. Wheel gearing failure could result without warning and cause a crash. As a remedy Dealers will replace the hubcaps, while some upon inspection will also require replacement of the rear outer bearings and/or hub assembly. For more details, contact Kia by Phone: 1-800-333-4542 or the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236. NATIONWIDE LIFE: MI Court Refuses To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi refused to dismiss the class action filed against Nationwide Life Insurance Company, styled "United Investors Life Insurance Company v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company and/or Nationwide Life Insurance Company of America and/or Nationwide Life and Annuity Insurance Company and/or Nationwide Life and Annuity Company of America and/or Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. and/or Nationwide Financial Corporation, and John Does A- Z." In its complaint, plaintiff United Investors alleges that the Company and/or its affiliated life insurance companies caused the replacement of variable insurance policies and other financial products issued by United Investors with policies issued by the Nationwide defendants. The plaintiff raises claims for: (1) violations of the Federal Lanham Act, and common law unfair competition and defamation, (2) tortious interference with the plaintiff's contractual relationship with Waddell & Reed, Inc. and/or its affiliates, Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc., Waddell & Reed Financial Services, Inc. and W&R Insurance Agency, Inc., or with the plaintiff's contractual relationships with its variable policyholders, (3) civil conspiracy, and (4) breach of fiduciary duty The complaint seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, a full accounting, a constructive trust, and costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 1, 2004. On February 8, 2005 the court denied the motion to dismiss. On March 23, 2005, the Company filed its answer. The suit is styled "United Investors Lif v. Nationwide Life Insu, et al, case no. 2:04-cv-00012-NBB-SAA," filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, under Judge Neal B. Biggers. The Company is represented by Cal Mayo, Jr. of MAYO MALLETTE, PLLC, P.O. Box 1456, Oxford, MS 38655, Phone: (662) 236-0055, E- mail: cmayo@mayomallette.com; and Charles C. Platt and Peter K. Vigeland, WILMER CUTLER PICKERING, LLP, 399 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 230-8860. Representing the plaintiffs are: (i) William J. Baxley, Joel E. Dillard, BAXLEY DILLARD DAUPHIN MCKNIGHT & BARCLIFT, 2008 3rd Avenue South, Birmingham, AL 35233, Phone: (205) 271-1100 (ii) Betsy P. Collins, Scott P. Hilsen, Caroline Keller, ALSTON & BYRD, One Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: (404) 881-7000 (iii) Michelle Dean Easterling, EDWARDS, STOREY, MARSHALL & HELVESTON, P. O. Box 835, West Point, MS 39773-0835, Phone: (601) 494-5184, E-mail: mde@wpms.net (iv) Charles M. Ferguson, Jr., James W. Gewin, Matthew H. Lembke, Hobart A. McWhorter, Michael R. Pennington, BRADLEY, ARANT, ROSE & WHITE, LLP - Birmingham, P.O. Box 830709, Birmingham, AL 35283-0709, Phone: (205) 521-8000 (v) Floyd D. Gaines, Andrew P. Walsh, GAINES PLLC, 2100 Morris Avenue, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: (205) 320- 2800 (vi) Sam S. Thomas, UNDERWOOD/THOMAS, P.O. Box 24057, Jackson, MS 39225-4057, Phone: (601) 355-3668, E-mail: sst@underwoodthomas.com NATIONWIDE LIFE: Appeals Court Mulls Consumer Lawsuit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the class action filed against Nationwide Life Insurance Company (NLIC) and Nationwide Life and Annuity Insurance Company (NLAIC), styled "Robert Helman et al v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company et al." The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, challenging the sale of deferred annuity products for use as investments in tax-deferred contributory retirement plans. On April 8, 2004, the plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased an individual variable deferred annuity contract or a certificate to a group variable annuity contract issued by the Company or NLAIC which were allegedly used to fund certain tax- deferred retirement plans. The amended class action complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages. The Company and NLAIC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 24, 2004. On July 27, 2004, the court granted the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff has appealed that dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. NEVADA: Green Welling Investigates Vegas Grand Over Condo Prices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Condominium purchasers who had signed Reservation Agreements and paid deposits for specific condominium units were recently notified that they had to agree to a higher purchase price or their condominium would be sold to someone else at the higher price. Condominium purchasers were required to sign Reservation Agreements and make deposits of $10,000 to $25,000 to purchase specific condominium units for a guaranteed price at the Vegas Grand, an 880-unit luxury condominium project now under construction in Las Vegas, Nevada. Then, after Las Vegas real estate prices skyrocketed, the developer notified buyers on April 25, 2005, that if they wanted to keep the condominium for which they had already paid the deposit, they would have to agree to a significant increase in the price of their condominium. If a buyer did not agree to the higher price, their deposit would be returned and the condominium reserved for them would be sold to someone else at the higher price. Green Welling LLP was asked to investigate and file a class action lawsuit if appropriate against Del American, the developer, and other related parties involved in the Vegas Grand condominium project. For more details, contact Robert S. Green of Green Welling LLP by Mail: 235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104 by Phone: (415) 477-6700 by Fax: (415) 477-6710 by E-mail: gw@classcounsel.com or visit their Web site: http://www.classcounsel.com. NEWS CORPORATION: Working To Settle NY, DE Securities Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- News Corporation is working to settle several consolidated securities class actions filed in received complaints relating to a number of purported class actions filed in Delaware and New York Courts, related to the merger of Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. (FEG) into its direct wholly-owned subsidiary Fox Acquisition Corporation In March 2005, Fox Acquisition completed its offer to the holders of Class A common stock of FEG to exchange 2.04 shares of the Company's Class A common stock for each outstanding share of FEG's Class A common stock validly tendered and not withdrawn in the exchange offer. Shortly thereafter, the Company effected a "short form" merger of FEG with and into Fox Acquisition Corporation. Each share of FEG Class A common stock not acquired in the Offer, other than the shares owned by the Company, was converted in the "short form" merger into 2.04 shares of the Company's Class A common stock. The Company issued approximately 357 million shares of News Corporation's Class A Common Stock valued at approximately $6.3 billion in exchange for the outstanding FEG Class A common shares. After the consummation of the offer and the subsequent merger, Fox Acquisition Corp changed its name to "Fox Entertainment Group, Inc." As a result of the Offer, the Company's ownership interest increased from approximately 82% to 100%. Several suits were initially filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware. The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the Company and the members of the FEG board of directors have breached fiduciary duties owed to the public stockholders of FEG, including as a result of News Corporation offering to acquire shares of FEG Class A common stock at an unfair price and at a time that disadvantages the FEG stockholders. The complaints generally seek declaratory and injunctive relief and damages in an unspecified amount. The Company is currently aware of 17 purported class action complaints that were filed in January 2005 at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware challenging the FEG Offer. The Delaware complaints are captioned: (1) Allen v. News Corp., et al., No. 979-N; (2) Mascarenhas v. Fox Entertainment Group, et al., No. 980-N; (3) Shemesh v. Fox Entertainment Group, et al., No. 981-N; (4) Striffler v. FEG Holdings, et al., No. 982-N; (5) Howard Vogel Ret. Plan v. Powers, et al., No. 984-N; (6) Doniger v. News Corp., et al., No. 985-N; (7) Engle v. Murdoch, et al., No. 986-N; (8) Shrank v. Murdoch, et al., No. 988-N; (9) Blackman v. Fox Entertainment Group, et al., No. 991-N; (10) Fishbone v. News Corp., et al., No. 994-N; (11) Kennel v. News Corp., et al., No. 995-N; (12) Millner v. News Corp., et al., No. 996-N; (13) Pipefitters Locals v. Fox Entertainment Group, et al., No. 1003-N; (14) Molinari v. News Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1018-N; (15) Seaview Services v. Fox Entertainment, et al., C.A. No. 1026-N; (16) Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana v. Powers, et al., C.A. No. 1033-N; and (17) New Jersey Building Laborers' Pension Fund v. Powers, et al., C.A. No. 1034. The Shrank action, No. 988-N, was voluntarily dismissed on January 19, 2005. The Company is also currently aware of two purported class action complaints raising substantially similar claims that have been filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, and one that has been filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, which were filed in January 2005. The New York complaints are captioned: "Shrank v. Murdoch, et al., Index No. 600114/2005;" and "Green Meadows Ptr. v. Fox Entertainment, et al., No. 100706/2005." The US Southern District of New York complaint is captioned "Gary Kosseff v. Fox Entertainment Group, Inc., et. al., No. 05 Civ. 1942 (LLS)." On January 21, 2005, certain plaintiffs in the Delaware lawsuits filed a motion that seeks to consolidate the Delaware actions. In addition, the Company has filed motions to dismiss and to stay discovery, and the plaintiffs have filed a motion for expedited proceedings. On February 3, 2005, the Court of Chancery denied the Company's motion to stay discovery, and granted the plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery and motion to consolidate. The consolidated Delaware complaint was styled "In re Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 1033-N." Each of the consolidated Delaware complaint and the New York Supreme Court complaints generally alleges, among other things, that News Corporation and the members of the FEG board of directors purportedly breached fiduciary duties owed to the public stockholders of FEG in connection with the FEG Offer by: (i) offering to acquire their shares at an unfair price; (ii) offering to acquire their shares at a time that disadvantages the public stockholders; (iii) having FEG appoint directors who are neither independent nor disinterested to a special committee created to consider the FEG Offer; and (iv) failing to adequately disclose information material to the FEG Offer, including disclosure with respect to the FEG 2005 budget. The US Southern District of New York complaint also generally alleges, among other things, some of the foregoing matters. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 24, 2005 in the US Southern District of New York alleging violations of the federal securities laws in addition to the foregoing matters. On February 24, 2005, the US Southern District of New York denied the plaintiffs' motion for expedited proceedings. As for relief, the plaintiffs seek, among other things, an order that the complaints are properly maintainable as a class action; a declaration that defendants have breached their fiduciary duties and other duties to the plaintiffs and other members of the purported class; injunctive relief; unspecified monetary damages; attorneys' fees, costs and expenses; and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. A memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms of a settlement with respect to the aforementioned litigation was entered into by the plaintiffs and the named defendants as of March 2, 2005. Among other conditions, the settlement is subject to negotiation of final settlement documentation, confirmatory discovery by the plaintiffs, court approval of the settlement and dismissal with prejudice of the litigation. NORVERGENCE INC.: AZ Attorney General Forges Fraud Settlements -------------------------------------------------------------- Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard reached two settlements that could result in more than $450,000 in debt forgiveness to 10 Arizona victims still being required to make payments on a telecommunications device that is worthless. Attorney General Goddard joined 20 other state attorneys general in nationwide settlement agreements with Wells Fargo Financial Leasing, Inc. (WFFL) and Lyon Financial Services d/b/a U.S. Bancorp Business Equipment Finance Group (USB). The settlement is in connection with a widespread telecommunications fraud involving NorVergence, Inc., a bankrupt New Jersey-based telephone equipment and service company. A third company, CIT Technology, is also part of the national settlements, but it does not hold any contracts in Arizona. NorVergence customers will be contacted directly by WFFL and USB with information on how to participate in these settlement agreements. If all affected Arizona customers participate, the finance companies will forgive or refund about $458,727. Nationwide, these settlement agreements could provide more than $24 million of potential debt forgiveness or refunds to consumers and will affect more than 1,000 former NorVergence contracts. "The victims in this case were harmed twice. First they were sold a box that didn't do anything, and then again when collection agencies started hounding them to pay for a useless box," the Attorney General said. "This settlement will help end the nightmare that started with the hope of saving money in business costs, and ended up costing money, time and lots of frustration." NorVergence's deceptive sales pitch offered to reduce local telephone, long-distance telephone, wireless, and Internet services using purportedly high-tech devices called Matrix boxes. But these boxes were actually just data routers that only cost NorVergence between $500 and $1,500. NorVergence promised consumers a possible 30 percent reduction in their telecommunications bills. NorVergence typically required an equipment rental agreement for three to five years at a monthly rate of $200 to $4,000 per month, but the Matrix boxes did not provide the promised telephone or Internet services. After securing contracts with businesses, NorVergence sold the rental agreements to approximately 40 different finance companies, including, USB, WFFL and CIT. NorVergence had over 9,000 customer accounts nationwide. A majority of the customers were small businesses, non-profit organizations, and local government entities. Attorney General Goddard and other state attorneys general have alleged the NorVergence contracts were fraudulent. The Federal Trade Commission also launched an investigation, and some consumers have filed class action lawsuits seeking to collect on the NorVergence leases. While Wells Fargo and U.S. Bancorp deny any wrongdoing, they have agreed to forgive 85 to 86 percent of the unpaid amounts due under the NorVergence contracts, not including sales or property taxes. Joining Attorney General Goddard in the US Bancorp agreement were Attorneys General from Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, West Virginia and Washington, D.C., and the Georgia Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs. The Wells Fargo agreement was signed by Attorney General Goddard and the Attorneys General of Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Washington and Washington, D.C., and the Georgia Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs. The CIT agreement was signed by the Attorneys General from Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Washington, D.C., and the Georgia Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs. The settlements also invalidate the so-called "floating" forum clauses in the NorVergence contracts which arguably permitted these companies to sue for collection in other states. Now, any such litigation will generally be restricted to consumers' home states. Affected consumers will be contacted by the finance companies within 30 days with instructions on how to join in the settlements; consumers will then have 35 days to decide whether to participate. "These settlements are just a portion of the contracts still out there," Attorney General Goddard said. "There are other companies still trying to collect on the original NorVergence contracts. We will continue our efforts to help other Arizona consumers who are victims of this fraud." OREGON: Judge Favors Switching To Class Action For Church Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Approximately 389,000 Roman Catholic parishioners in Western Oregon may soon find themselves defendants in their archdiocese's legal fight to keep parish money and property from being used to pay sexual-abuse settlements, The Oregonian reports. In a recent hearing, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Elizabeth Perris said that she was leaning toward converting the property litigation into a rare class action at the end of July. As she and several bankruptcy lawyers thumbed through their copies of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, puzzling over the class action rules, the judge said, "I've never had a class action before in my 21 years as a bankruptcy judge." Legal experts explain, rather than name every parishioner individually a class action would enable the committee representing sex-abuse plaintiffs to sue the volunteer parishioners on behalf of all parishioners. The so-called adversary proceeding, which is similar to a lawsuit, would be meant strictly to answer the question of who owns the property in the archdiocese's 124 parishes and three high schools: the archdiocese or the parishes. Since the Archdiocese of Portland became the nation's first to file for bankruptcy in the wake of lawsuits alleging clergy sexual abuse, the question of who owns $600 million in real estate, investments and cash has been a central issue in the matter. According to individuals familiar with the matter, if the archdiocese prevails, parishioners should be able to keep church buildings and schools, however in case of a loss, parishioners could face losing or borrowing against their places of worship, although the would not be personally liable. Since the property litigation was initiated in August, it has stalled over several issues, including who is a "necessary party" to the litigation. A proposed class of defendants would legally answer that question, which could include parishes, parishioners, donors and anyone else, known or unknown, who can claim an interest in real estate, investments and cash held by the archdiocese. It must be noted that the sex-abuse plaintiffs, archdiocese, parishes and parishioners currently involved in the case all agree on the need for a class action. Steven M. Hedberg, a lawyer for the Committee of Parishioners, which represents about half of the affected parishes, asked Judge Perris for time to arrange meetings with parishioners and explain the class action. "We're talking about 390,000 people here who aren't intimately familiar with bankruptcy proceedings," he points out. Mr. Hedberg, whose firm, Perkins Coie, likely will represent the proposed defendant class, also pointed out that needs time to recruit volunteers to represent the class. If the sex-abuse plaintiffs succeed in arguing that the roughly $500 million in real estate and $100 million in investments belong to the archdiocese, those assets will become available to pay off more than $400 million in abuse claims. In essence, an individual parishioner would not be financially liable, but his or her church building could be sold to raise money for settlements. However, if the archdiocese and the proposed new class of parishioners and others succeed in arguing that the property belongs to parishes, $19 million, which is the amount of real estate and money the archdiocese says it really holds, would be available for claims. Individual parishioners, donors and other members of the class could decline to be part of the class but would give up representation by the class's lawyers. Details of opting out of the class are still being worked out though. Meanwhile, in a related matter, Judge Perris also indicated in the same hearing that she would seek the help of an independent settlement judge who would help mediate seemingly intractable differences between the lawyers representing the archdiocese and the committee representing sex-abuse plaintiffs. During a previous bankruptcy hearing, Judge Perris scolded lawyers on both sides for the hostile, accusatory tone of their legal filings. At the end of the most recent hearing, the judge scheduled a June 6 hearing to get names of candidates for a settlement judge and to hear further information on the proposed class action. PACCAR INC.: Recalls 2005 Vehicles Due to Rear Suspension Defect ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paccar, Inc. in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 850 suspension units of 2005 Kenworth C500/T2000/T600/T800/W900 vehicles. According to ODI, on certain vehicles equipped with airglide high-articulation rear suspensions, the C65-1006 sway bar used in may experience a reduction in fatigue life due to either a manufacturing process or a high induced stress during an extreme suspension articulation event. These conditions can lead to a failure of the sway bar, which could cause a rear axle to come loose, increasing the risk of a crash. As a remedy, the inspection and repair of these vehicles will depend on the type of vehicle and the intended service application. This inspect and repair criteria will be forthcoming. For more details, contact Kenworth by Phone: 1-425-828-5440 or the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236. PARADIGM MEDICAL: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set August 25, 2005 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Utah will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $1,507,500 settlement in the matter: In Re Paradigm Medical Industries Securities Litigation, Master File No. 2:03-CV-00448 (TC) on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of the company during the period between April 7, 2000 and November 4, 2002. The hearing will be held before the Honorable Tena Campbell in the United States Courthouse, 350 South Main Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101, at 3:00 p.m., on August 25, 2005. For more details, contact Paradigm Medical Industries Securities Litigation c/o Berdon Claims Administration LLC - Claims Administrator by Mail: Post Office Box 9014, Jericho, NY 11753- 8914 or visit their Web site: http://www.berdonllp.com/claims. PREMCOR INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Blue Island Refinery Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is proceeding in the litigation filed against The Premcor Refining Group, Inc., over the accidental release of used catalyst into the air by its Blue Island refinery in October 1994 and June 2000, in Circuit Court for the Cook County, Illinois. In October 1995, a class action, styled "Rosolowski v. Clark Refining & Marketing, Inc., et al.," was filed, seeking to recover damages in an unspecified amount for alleged property damage and non-permanent personal injury resulting from that catalyst release. The complaint underlying this action was later amended to add allegations of subsequent events that allegedly interfered with the use and enjoyment of neighboring property. In June 2000, the Company's Blue Island refinery experienced an electrical malfunction that resulted in another accidental release of used catalyst into the air. Following the 2000 catalyst release, two cases were filed purporting to be class actions, "Madrigal et al. v. The Premcor Refining Group Inc." and "Mason et al. v. The Premcor Refining Group Inc." Both cases sought damages in an unspecified amount for alleged property damage and personal injury resulting from that catalyst release. "Mason" was voluntarily dismissed in 2004. "Rosolowski" and "Madrigal" have been consolidated for the purpose of conducting discovery, which is currently proceeding. Other single plaintiff cases regarding the same incidents are also pending. The cases are pending in Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. PROSPERITY RESOURCES: Recalls Potatoes For Undeclared Sulfites -------------------------------------------------------------- Prosperity Resources Int'l, Inc. is recalling Sun Kee Brand Dried Sweet Potato because it may contain undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product. The recalled Sun Kee Brand Dried Sweet Potato is packed in uncoded, 12 oz., plastic packages and were sold nationwide. The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by food laboratory personnel revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Sun Kee Brand Dried Sweet Potato in packages which did not declare sulfites on the label. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. Consumers who have purchased Sun Kee Brand Dried Sweet Potato should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-973-371-9688. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Reaches Settlement For FL RICO, ERISA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Insurance reached a $22 million settlement for the consolidated nationwide class action filed against it and other healthcare companies, styled "In Re Humana, Inc. Managed Care Litigation," in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The suit was brought on behalf of provider physicians and physician groups and alleges that the Company and other health care companies engaged in an industry-wide conspiracy to defraud physicians by failing to pay under provider agreements and by unlawfully coercing providers to enter into agreements with unfair and unreasonable terms. An amended complaint, naming additional plaintiffs, including three state medical associations, and an additional defendant, was filed in March 2001, and alleges claims of breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), conspiracy to violate RICO, aiding and abetting RICO violations, and violations of state prompt pay statutes and the California unfair business practices statute. The amended complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, treble damages pursuant to RICO, and attorneys' fees. In September 2002, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification of a nationwide class of provider physicians. In September 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed with respect only to the federal RICO claims. On April 29, 2005, the Company agreed in principle to a settlement of these claims. The terms of the settlement include the payment by the Company to plaintiffs of $22 million. This settlement is subject to court approval. 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. RELIANT ENERGY: Faces Consolidated CA Natural Gas Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reliant Energy, Inc. and Reliant Energy Services, Inc., one of its wholly-owned subsidiaries face a consolidated complaint for seven new class action lawsuits filed in California state court. The suit alleges the Company participated in an unlawful conspiracy to increase natural gas prices in California from 2000 to 2001 in violation of antitrust and other laws. The lawsuits seek injunctive relief, treble damages, restitution of overpayments, disgorgement of unlawful profits and legal expenses. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: PA Judge Slashes Legal Fees in Paxil Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Concluding that the lawyers were simply asking for too much in light of the relatively small number of hours they had logged on the case, Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge John R. Padova slashed the fee request in a class action antitrust suit over the pricing of the anti-depressant drug Paxil, The Legal Intelligencer reports. According to the judge, if the lawyers were paid the full amount they requested, they would end up earning more than 23 times their ordinary hourly billing rates for the 4,239 hours they worked. He also said that after surveying fee awards in other mega class actions, a "multiplier" of 23.59 is "unprecedented," and that most fees resulted in a multiplier in the single digits. Judge Padova's decision was the result of a so-called "lodestar cross-check." Although class action settlement fees are routinely awarded on a "percentage-of-the-fund" basis, legal experts point out that courts are also required to perform a lodestar cross-check in which they compare the fee to the amount the lawyers would have earned at their ordinary billing rates. Having concluded that a multiplier of more than 23 was too high, Judge Padova was forced to decide on his own what a reasonable fee would be. Thus, the judge cut the request by one-third and awarded the lawyers $20 million, noting that it still resulted in a multiplier of more than 15. However, despite finding that a 30 percent fee would be "unreasonable," Judge Padova also had strong words of praise for the plaintiffs' lawyers when explaining why he awarded a 20 percent fee. He wrote, "The court finds that plaintiffs' counsel obtained an early and excellent result in an extremely complex and risky case. The size of the fund is substantial and, as a percentage of estimated damages, well within the norm for cases which present the degree of risk undertaken by plaintiffs' counsel in this case." Sharing in the fee will be a team of lawyers led by attorneys Jeffrey L. Kodroff of Spector Roseman & Kodroff in Philadelphia and Thomas M. Sobol of Hagens Berman in Boston. So far, the Paxil antitrust cases have cost the drug's maker, SmithKline Beecham, more than $165 million in class action settlements, as well as untold millions more paid out in confidential settlements with some of the largest drug wholesalers who opted out of the class action. As previously reported in the May 2, 2005 of the Class Action Reporter, Judge Padova, who is handling all of the cases, last month, approved a $65 million settlement in Nichols v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., a suit brought on behalf of "indirect" purchasers. In that same ruling, Judge Padova awarded $19.5 million in attorney fees to a team of plaintiffs' lawyers who logged more than 17,000 hours on the case since December 2000. In addition, Judge Padova also approved a $100 million settlement in Mr. Kodroff's case, The Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., which was a class action brought on behalf of direct purchasers, such as drug wholesalers. Eight corporations that could have been members of the direct purchaser class opted out of the case and struck their own settlements with SmithKline. Together, the eight companies, namely: CVS Meridian Inc., Rite Aid Corp., Walgreen Co., Eckerd Corp., Albertson's Inc., The Kroger Co., Safeway Inc. and Hy-Vee Inc., account for slightly more than one-third of the purchases of Paxil by direct purchasers. As previously reported, in the suits, plaintiffs alleged that SmithKline illegally maintained a monopoly for Paxil by filing a series of "sham" patent lawsuits that were designed to delay any generic version of the drug from reaching the market. Those filings contributed to the delay in the distribution of a generic drug, according to court papers. SmithKline admitted no liability in the settlements and maintained its position that its litigation efforts were not designed to cause any delay. However, plaintiffs lawyers alleged that SmithKline attempted to monopolize the Paxil market by filing "sham" patent litigation against Apotex Inc. and TorPharm Inc., both of Weston, Ontario, soon after the generic manufacturers notified SmithKline that they were seeking approval from the Food & Drug Administration to copy Paxil. The suits came on the heels of news reports that said the Federal Trade Commission was investigating SmithKline for possible antitrust violations. But the FTC investigation was later closed without any government action against SmithKline. When Judge Padova approved the $100 million settlement in the direct purchaser case, he put off the issue of attorney fees due to a then recent decision from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that discussed the lodestar cross-check. In a 46-page decision though, the judge has now concluded that the $30 million fee request was too high considering the relatively small number of hours devoted to the case. As settlements approach the $100 million level, Judge Padova explains, the 3rd Circuit has instructed that courts should consider reducing the percentage awarded to the lawyers to avoid an unreasonably large fee. Judge Padova, citing the 1985 3rd Circuit Task Force Report on Court Awarded Attorney Fees said that the appellate court instructed the district courts that "ordinarily, the percentage of a recovery devoted to attorneys fees should decrease as the size of the overall settlement or recovery increases." However, in published decisions, Judge Padova said, the 3rd Circuit has also advised, "there is no rule that a district court must apply a declining percentage reduction in every settlement involving a sizable fund." Judge Padova found there were also several factors that weighed in favor of awarding the full 30 percent fee requested. He noted, "Although the settlement class in this case is relatively small and consists of sophisticated businesses, not one member of the settlement class objected to the requested fee." The case was also especially risky, Judge Padova found, since there was no prior government investigation, or prior finding of civil or criminal liability based on antitrust violations. But the judge found that the amount of attorney time devoted to this litigation was "quite small in relationship to the requested fee." In the indirect purchaser case, the plaintiffs' lawyers logged about 17,000 hours and were awarded $19.5 million in fees, Judge Padova noted. By contrast, he points out, the lawyers in the direct purchaser case logged just about 4,200 hours. He thus wrote, "The court recognizes that plaintiffs' counsel should not be penalized for prosecuting this case in an efficient manner, or for keeping down the number of hours which they were required to devote to this case by coordinating merits discovery with plaintiffs' counsel in [the indirect purchaser case]. Nonetheless, in considering whether a particular percentage of the common fund is an appropriate fee, the court may consider the amount of time devoted to a case by counsel as disfavoring the requested fee." Comparing the requested fee to the fees awarded in other "megafund" cases, Judge Padova found that "the percentage requested in this case is among the highest that has ever been awarded in megafund cases." He explains that in megafund cases in which the lawyers logged less than 10,000 hours, the highest percentage of the common fund awarded as an attorney fee was 5.5 percent. And in the four megafund cases in which fees of 30 percent or more of the common fund were awarded, Judge Padova found that "not one involved the expenditure of less than 28,000 hours." Diverting his attention to the lodestar cross-check, Judge Padova found that the plaintiffs lawyers had logged hours that would have resulted in fees of more than $1.2 million at their ordinary billing rates. Thus, the judge noted, the requested fee of $30 million would result in a multiplier of 23.59 far greater than any multiplier yet approved by any court. He therefore wrote, "The court concludes that the percentage-of-recovery attorney fee requested in this case would lead to a lodestar multiplier that is extraordinarily and unjustifiably high." Having rejected the request, Judge Padova was forced to decide the fee on his own and concluded that a 20-percent fee was reasonable and thus wrote, "This award is justified by the high caliber of plaintiffs' counsels' work in this case, even though the percentage of recovery represented by the fee in this case is greater than the average percentage of recovery awarded as a fee in megafund cases." Although the multiplier was still a high one at 15.6, Judge Padova found that fact was "neutralized" by the "extraordinary support" that the class members showed for the fee. "Not one member of the settlement class, which is made up of approximately 90 sophisticated businesses, objected to the [fee petition]," he wrote. In-house lawyers for some of the companies went so far as to file court papers urging the judge to approve the full 30- percent fee. He noted, "The court has taken such support as a clear indicator that the market supports a dramatic bonus for work so timely and well done." SNELLING TRAVEL: Jury Rules in Favor of Defendants in SEC Case -------------------------------------------------------------- The Securities and Exchange Commission reports that on July 26, 2004, following a ten-day trial in Denver, Colorado, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, Donald Rutledge and Gregory Skufca. The Commission charged Mr. Rutledge and Mr. Skufca with violating the federal securities laws by engaging in a fraudulent scheme to manipulate the public trading market for stock issued by Snelling Travel, Inc. (Snelling Travel), quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board, in December 1999. The Commission alleged at trial that Mr. Rutledge and Mr. Skufca, working together, implemented their scheme by, among other things, restricting the market supply of Snelling Travel stock and trading the stock between themselves at prices far in excess of actual market demand. The Commission also alleged that, through their manipulative devices, Mr. Rutledge and Mr. Skufca attempted to maintain, and maintained, the artificial stock price for Snelling Travel from December 16 through Dec. 31, 1999. The Commission further alleged that Mr. Skufca personally obtained at least $500,000 in illicit profits as a result of the scheme. The Commission originally brought its case in September 2000. The Commission charged Rutledge and Skufca with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The action is styled, SEC v. Donald Rutledge and Gregory Skufca, Civil Action No. 00-K-1751, USDC, D. Colo. (LR-19239). ST. JUDE: Continues To Face Litigation Due To Silzone Devices ------------------------------------------------------------- St. Jude Medical, Inc. faces litigation in various jurisdictions in connection to its Silzoner devices, which it recalled in January 2000, after receiving information from a clinical study that patients with a Silzoner valve had a small, but statistically significant, increased incidence of explant due to paravalvular leak compared to patients in that clinical study with non-Silzoner heart valves. Subsequent to the Company's voluntary recall, the Company has been sued in various jurisdictions by some patients who received a Silzoner device and, as of April 20, 2005, has cases pending in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland and France. Some of these claims allege bodily injuries as a result of an explant or other complications, which they attribute to the Silzoner devices. Others, who have not had their device explanted, seek compensation for past and future costs of special monitoring they allege they need over and above the medical monitoring all replacement heart valve patients receive. Some of the lawsuits seeking the cost of monitoring have been initiated by patients who are asymptomatic and who have no apparent clinical injury to date. The Company has settled a number of these Silzoner-related cases and others have been dismissed. Cases filed in the United States in federal courts have been consolidated in the federal district court for the district of Minnesota under Judge John R. Tunheim. A number of class-action complaints have been consolidated into one case. Judge Tunheim ruled against the Company on the issue of preemption and found that the plaintiffs' causes of action were not preempted by the U.S. Food and Drug Act. The Company sought to appeal this ruling, but the appellate court determined that it would not review the ruling at this point in the proceedings. Certain plaintiffs have requested Judge Tunheim to allow some cases to proceed as class actions. In response to their requests, Judge Tunheim has issued several rulings concerning class action certification. Although more detail is set forth in the orders issued by the court, the result of these rulings is that Judge Tunheim declined to grant class-action status to personal injury claims, but granted class-action status for claimants from seventeen states to proceed with medical monitoring claims, so long as they do not have a clinical injury. The court also indicated that a class action could proceed under Minnesota's Consumer Protection statutes. The Company requested the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to review Judge Tunheim's class certification orders. In a September 2, 2004 order, the appellate court indicated it would accept the appeal of Judge Tunheim's certification orders. The issues have now been briefed and the parties are awaiting a date for oral arguments concerning the appeal. It is not expected that the appellate court would complete its review and issue a decision concerning the appeal of Judge Tunheim's rulings regarding class certification until sometime in 2006. In addition to the class-type claims, as of April 20, 2005, there are 18 individual Silzone cases pending in various federal courts where plaintiffs are each requesting damages ranging from $10 thousand to $120.5 million and, in some cases, seeking an unspecified amount. These cases are proceeding in accordance with the orders issued by Judge Tunheim. Not counting certain cases in Texas which have been dismissed but are now on appeal, there are also 29 individual state court suits concerning Silzone products pending as of April 20, 2005, involving 37 patients. The complaints in these cases each request damages ranging from $50 thousand to $100 thousand and, in some cases, seek an unspecified amount. These state court cases are proceeding in accordance with the orders issued by the judges in those matters. In addition, a lawsuit seeking a class action for all persons residing in the European Economic Union member jurisdictions who have had a heart valve replacement and/or repair procedure using a product with Silzone coating has been filed in Minnesota state court. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount for the class, and in excess of $50 thousand for the representative plaintiff individually. The complaint also seeks injunctive relief in the form of medical monitoring. The Company is opposing plaintiff's pursuit of this case on jurisdictional, procedural and substantive grounds. There are also four class-action cases and one individual case pending against the Company in Canada. In one such case in Ontario, the court certified that a class action may proceed involving Silzone patients. The Company's request for leave to appeal the rulings on certification was rejected. A second case seeking class action in Ontario has been stayed pending resolution of the other Ontario action, and the matter seeking class action in British Columbia is also proceeding but is in its early stages. A court in the Province of Quebec has certified a class action, and that matter is proceeding per the orders in that court. In the United Kingdom, one case involving one plaintiff is pending as of April 20, 2005. The Particulars of Claim in that case was served on December 21, 2004. The plaintiff in this case requests damages equivalent to approximately $365 thousand U.S. dollars. In Ireland, one case involving one plaintiff is pending as of April 20, 2005. The complaint in this case was served on December 30, 2004, and seeks an unspecified amount in damages. In France, one case involving one plaintiff is pending as of April 20, 2005. It was initiated by way of an Injunctive Summons to Appear that was served on November 3, 2004, and requests damages in excess of 3 million Euros. ST. JUDE: Consumers File Litigation Over Symmetry Heart Devices --------------------------------------------------------------- St. Jude Medical, Inc. faces, as of April 20, 2005, sixteen cases in the United States which allege that its Symmetry Bypass System Aortic Connector (Symmetry device) caused bodily injury or might cause bodily injury. In addition, a number of persons have made a claim against the Company involving the Symmetry device without filing a lawsuit. The first lawsuit involving the Symmetry device was filed against the Company on August 5, 2003, and the most recently initiated case was served upon the Company on March 15, 2005. Each of the complaints in these cases request damages ranging from $50 thousand to $100 thousand and, in some cases, seeks an unspecified amount. Four of the sixteen cases are seeking class-action status. One of the cases seeking class-action status has been dismissed, but the dismissal is being appealed by the plaintiff. In a second case seeking class action status, a Magistrate Judge has recommended that the matter not proceed as a class-action, and the parties are presently awaiting the court to review the Magistrate's decision. A third case seeking class action status has been indefinitely stayed by the court, and is presently inactive. The hearing concerning class certification in the fourth case seeking class action status is scheduled for May 19, 2005. It appears that the plaintiffs in those cases seeking class-action status seek or will seek damages for injuries and monitoring costs. In a disclosure with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company said that the Symmetry device was cleared through a 510(K) submission to the FDA, and therefore, is not eligible for the defense under the doctrine of federal preemption that such suits are prohibited. Given the Company's self-insured retention levels under its product liability insurance policies, the Company expects that it will be solely responsible for these lawsuits, including any costs of defense, settlements and judgments. VEMAR HELMETS: Recalls Helmets Due to FMVSS No. 218 Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Vemar Helmats, SRL. in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 4257 of 9999 Vemar VRX3/VSS/VSX motorcycle helmets. According to ODI, on certain helmets of all sizes fail the penetration requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, "Motorcycle Helmets." In the event of a crash, the helmet could be penetrated, possibly resulting to injury for the wearer. As a remedy, Vemar will notify its customers and will repair the helmet by adding a layer of material in the crown area free of charge. For more details, contact the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236. 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 19-20, 2005 NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Four Seasons Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 26-27, 2005 CONSUMER FINANCE LITIGATION & CLASS ACTIONS American Conferences New York Contact: http://www.americanconference.com September 26-27, 2005 REINSURANCE SUMMIT Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 26-27, 2005 WATER CONTAMINATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Marina del Rey Los Angeles Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 26-27, 2005 BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia 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 September 27-28, 2005 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF FINITE AND STRUCTURED RISK (RE)INSURANCE American Conferences New York Contact: http://www.americanconference.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 October 7, 2005 REINSURANCE LAW & PRACTICE 2005: NEW LEGAL & BUSINESS DEVELOPMENTS IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENT Practising Law Institute New York, NY Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu October 17-18, 2005 BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz Carlton, Phoenix Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 27-28, 2005 RETAIL LIABILITY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino,Las Vegas Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 3-4, 2005 CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS ALI-ABA Washington DC Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 November 3-4, 2005 NATIONAL MANUFACTURING CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Coconut Grove, Miami Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 7, 2005 ALL SUMS: REALLOCATION & SETTLEMENT CREDITS CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton, Boston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 7-8, 2005 LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS: COPYRIGHT - FROM TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS TO THE DIGITAL AGE Mealey Publications Downtown Conference Center at Pace University, New York City Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 7-8, 2005 CONSTRUCTION DEFECT & MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz Carlton Phoenix, Phoenix Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 9, 2005 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Four Seasons Resort, Santa Barbara Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 10-11, 2005 CALIFORNIA SECTION 17200 CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Four Seasons Resort Santa Barbara Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 14-15, 2005 SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton, New Orleans Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 17-18, 2005 ASBESTOS LIABILITY FORUM Mealey Publications London, England Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 17-18, 2005 Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar MassTortsMadePerfect.Com Las Vegas, Nevada Contact: 800-320-2227; 850-436-6094 (fax) December 5-6, 2005 ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 6, 2005 ASBESTOS INSURANCE CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 12-13, 2005 VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Caesars Palace, Las Vegas Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com 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 14, 2005 HOW TO ARBITRATE A CLASS ACITON OR NOT ABA-CLE Contact: 1-800-285-2221 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 July 28-29, 2005 CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PROSECUTION & DEFENSE STRATEGIES 2005 (VIDEOCONFERENCE) 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: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a lawsuit in the United States District Court for 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 Laboratories, Inc. (NasdaqNM: ABRX) 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 Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com. BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Marc S. Henzel Files Stock Lawsuit in CA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of publicly traded securities of Brocade Communication Systems, Inc (Nasdaq: BRCD) ("Brocade") between February 21, 2001 and May 15, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Brocade violated federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading public statements. These allegations arise out of Brocade's May 16, 2005 announcement that it would have to restate its fiscal 2001 to fiscal 2004 earnings. Brocade stated that "the Company will restate its financial statements for the fiscal years ending 2002 through 2004 to record additional charges for stock-based compensation expense" and that fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2002 earnings per share would be reduced by up to $0.11 and $0.19, respectively. For more details, contact Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com. GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of GlaxoSmithKline plc (NYSE: GSK) common stock and ADRs during the period between February 21, 2001 and August 5, 2004 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges GlaxoSmithKline and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. GlaxoSmithKline along with its subsidiaries constitute a global healthcare group engaged in the creation, discovery, development, manufacture and marketing of pharmaceutical and consumer health-related products. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the prices of GlaxoSmithKline's stock and ADRs were artificially inflated by defendants concealing deficiencies with the Company's selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor ("SSRI") drug, Paxil, in treating adolescent depression. On August 5, 2004, The Wall Street Journal published an article that reported that a new analysis by the FDA had confirmed the link between SSRIs (including Paxil) and suicidal tendencies in young people. The prices of GlaxoSmithKline's stock and ADRs, which were inflated during the Class Period, declined as the falsity of defendants' statements came to light. For more details, contact Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.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 * * *