/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/050818.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, August 18, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 163 Headlines AMERICAN EXPRESS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Mutual Fund Lawsuit ARGENTINA: Investor Group Sues Local Banks Over Defaulted Bonds BIOGEN IDEC: TYSABRI Users Launch Medical Monitoring Suit in CA BIOGEN IDEC: Faces Several Average Wholesale Pricing Lawsuits BOSTON BEER: Faces Suits Over Advertising To Underage Consumers BURLINGTON NORTHERN: TX Court Refuses To Certify Investor Suit CALIFORNIA: Corn Syrup Antitrust Settlement to Benefit Charities CALIFORNIA: Homeowners in Tribal Land Sues Indian Affairs Office CALIFORNIA: San Diego Policemen File Overtime Wage Suit V. City COLLINS BUS: Recalls Buses Due to FMVSS No. 221 Noncompliance CONSUMERINFO.COM: Settles FTC Deceptive Credit Marketing Lawsuit FINLAND: Report Says Justice Ministry Considers Class Action Law HINO MOTOR: Recalls 46 NE8J, NJ86 Trucks Due to Crash Hazard ILLINOIS: Locklear Electric's Suit V. NAAP up For Certification MAJOR AUTOMOTIVE: Faces NY Suit For Sale of Defective Vehicles MAJOR AUTOMOTIVE: Reaches Settlement For NJ Consumer Fraud Suit PRE-PAID LEGAL: Working To Resolve Fraud Lawsuits V. Memberships PRE-PAID LEGAL: Appeals Court Yet To Rule on OK Suit Dismissal PRE-PAID LEGAL: Court Nixes Appeal of OK Certification Ruling QUALCOMM INC.: CA Court Hears Wage Suit Decertification Appeal QUALCOMM INC.: Cellphone Injury Suits Remanded To WA State Court ROHM & HAAS: MO Court Dismisses Personal Injury, Damage Lawsuit ROYAL DUTCH: NJ Judge Allows Securities Fraud Lawsuit to Proceed SILICON LABORATORIES: Parties Submit Revised NY Suit Settlement UTAH: Attorney General Says Body Armor Deadline Draws Nearer WAL-MART STORES: $1.39 Gift Cards Suit in Management Conference New Securities Fraud Cases AMERICAN ITALIAN: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Suit in MO AMERICAN ITALIAN: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Suit in MO AMERICAN ITALIAN: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in MO BUCA INC.: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit in MN CUSTOM DESIGNED: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in NM HILB ROGAL: Goodkind Labaton Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline RED ROBIN: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO RED ROBIN: Dyer & Shuman Sets Lead Plaintiff October 15 Deadline RED ROBIN: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CO RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Alfred G. Yates Lodges Stock Suit in NY SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in NY ********* AMERICAN EXPRESS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Mutual Fund Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- American Express Financial, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against it, American Express Financial Corporation and American Express Financial Advisors, styled "In re American Express Financial Advisors Securities Litigation." The suit also names as defendants James M. Cracchiolo in his capacity as President and CEO of American Express Financial and Chairman and CEO of American Express Advisors. Certain of the Company's mutual funds are also named as nominal defendants. (1) Naresh Chand v. American Express Company, American Express Financial Corporation and American Express Financial Advisors, Inc.; (2) Elizabeth Flenner v. American Express Company et al. (March 2004); (3) John B. Perkins v. American Express Company et al. (March 2004); (4) Kathie Kerr v. American Express Company et al. (April 2004); and (5) Leonard D. Caldwell, Gale D. Caldwell and Richard T. Allen v. American Express Company et al. (April 2004) The plaintiffs allege violations of certain federal securities laws and/or state statutory and common law. The plaintiffs, among other things, allege that the Company's financial plans are used as a means to recommend mutual funds that pay "undisclosed kickbacks." The class period at issue is March 10, 1999 through February 9, 2004. Plaintiffs seek to represent one class consisting of all of the Company's clients who purchased the preferred mutual funds during the relevant period and another class comprised of those of the Company's clients who also purchased financial plans during the relevant period. For their damages, plaintiffs seek restitution of the "undisclosed kickbacks" and the fees paid for the financial plans. In addition, two lawsuits making similar allegations (based solely on state causes of actions) were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York and styled "Beer v. American Express Company and American Express Financial Advisors" and "You v. American Express Company and American Express Financial Advisors." The Company removed these two actions to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs have moved to remand the cases to state court. The Court's decision on the remand motion is pending. The suit is styled "In Re American Express Financial Advisors Securities Litigation, case no. 1:04-cv-01773-DAB," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Deborah A. Batts. Representing the plaintiffs is Michael Robert Reese of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-631-8696, Fax: 212-629-0307, E-mail: mreese@milberg.com. Representing the Company is Peter Kristian Vigeland of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (NYC), 399 Park Avenue, 30th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-230-8800, Fax: 212-230-8888, E-mail: Peter.Vigeland@wilmer.com. ARGENTINA: Investor Group Sues Local Banks Over Defaulted Bonds --------------------------------------------------------------- An association representing Argentine bondholders intends to launch a lawsuit against the local banks, seeking $25 million in damages for alleged malpractice in the sale of sovereign bonds, The AFX News Limited reports. According to the lawyer of the Civil Association of Financial Victims, Osvaldo Prato, damages will be sought through a class action, which means more investors could benefit from a favorable ruling, besides the 9,000 members of the association. He insists though that the legal action was being brought against the banks, and not against the state. The holders of Argentine sovereign bonds, in Argentina and abroad, were caught in Argentina's debt moratorium declared in December 2001. This debt was restructured at the beginning of this year, when holders of bonds in default were issued new securities in exchange for their notes. Mr. Prato told AFX News Limited that banks should have been able to know what was coming because they have tools, such as country-risk indexes, to anticipate risks. He said that they sold over $20 billion in bonds when Argentina's country-risk premium was already high. Mr. Prato also said it could take at least five years for a ruling to be pronounced on this matter. BIOGEN IDEC: TYSABRI Users Launch Medical Monitoring Suit in CA --------------------------------------------------------------- Biogen Idec, Inc. and Elan Pharmaceutical Management Corporation face a purported class action, captioned "Wayne v. Biogen Idec Inc. and Elan Pharmaceutical Management Corp.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint purports to assert claims for strict product liability, medical monitoring and concert of action arising out of the manufacture, marketing, distribution and sale of TYSABRI. The action is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons in the U.S. who have had infusions of TYSABRI and who have not been diagnosed with any medical conditions resulting from TYSABRI use. The plaintiff alleges that defendants, acting individually and in concert, failed to warn the public about purportedly known risks related to TYSABRI use. The plaintiff seeks to recover the cost of periodic medical examinations, restitution, interest, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. BIOGEN IDEC: Faces Several Average Wholesale Pricing Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- Biogen Idec MA, Inc. (formerly Biogen, Inc.), several other major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and in certain cases, Biogen Idec Inc. face lawsuits filed by the City of New York and the following Counties of the State of New York: (1) County of Albany, (2) County of Allegany, (3) County of Broome, (4) County of Cattaraugus, (5) County of Cayuga, (6) County of Chautauqua, (7) County of Chenango, (8) County of Erie, (9) County of Fulton, (10) County of Genesee, (11) County of Greene, (12) County of Herkimer, (13) County of Jefferson, (14) County of Madison, (15) County of Monroe, (16) County of Nassau, (17) County of Niagara, (18) County of Oneida, (19) County of Onondaga, (20) County of Putnam, (21) County of Rensselaer, (22) County of Rockland, (23) County of St. Lawrence, (24) County of Saratoga, (25) County of Steuben, (26) County of Suffolk, (27) County of Tompkins, (28) County of Warren, (29) County of Washington, (30) County of Wayne, (31) County of Westchester, and (32) County of Yates All of the cases, except for the County of Erie and County of Nassau cases, are the subject of a Consolidated Complaint, which was filed on June 15, 2005 in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Multi-District Litigation No. 1456. The County of Nassau, which originally filed its complaint on November 24, 2004, filed an amended complaint on March 24, 2005 and that case is also pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The County of Erie originally filed its complaint in Supreme Court of the State of New York on March 8, 2005. On April 15, 2005, the Company and the other named defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. That case has been stayed pending a decision by the Joint Panel on Multi-District Litigation (JPMDL) regarding transfer to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On May 12, 2005, the JPMDL issued a Conditional Transfer Order, transferring the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The County of Erie filed a motion to vacate the Conditional Transfer Order on June 7, 2005. The Company, together with other named defendants, filed an opposition to the motion to vacate shortly thereafter. The motion to vacate is currently pending before the JPMDL. All of the complaints allege that the defendants fraudulently reported the Average Wholesale Price for certain drugs for which Medicaid provides reimbursement, also referred to as Covered Drugs; marketed and promoted the sale of Covered Drugs to providers based on the providers' ability to collect inflated payments from the government and Medicaid beneficiaries that exceeded payments possible for competing drugs; provided financing incentives to providers to over-prescribe Covered Drugs or to prescribe Covered Drugs in place of competing drugs; and overcharged Medicaid for illegally inflated Covered Drugs reimbursements. The complaints allege violations of New York state law and advance common law claims for unfair trade practices, fraud, and unjust enrichment. In addition, all of the complaints, with the exception of the County of Erie complaint, allege that the defendants failed to accurately report the "best price" on the Covered Drugs to the Secretary of Health and Human Services pursuant to rebate agreements entered into with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and excluded from their reporting certain drugs offered at discounts and other rebates that would have reduced the "best price." On April 8, 2005, the court dismissed similar claims, which were brought by Suffolk County against the Company and eighteen other defendants in a complaint filed on August 1, 2003. The court held that Suffolk County's documentation was insufficient to plead allegations of fraud. Neither the Company nor the other defendants have answered or responded to the complaints that are currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, as all of the plaintiffs have agreed to stay the time to respond until a case management order and briefing schedule have been approved by the Court. BOSTON BEER: Faces Suits Over Advertising To Underage Consumers --------------------------------------------------------------- Boston Beer Co., Inc., along with numerous other alcohol beverage producers, has been named as a defendant in a number of class action lawsuits in several states relating to advertising practices and underage consumption. Each complaint contains substantially the same allegations that each defendant marketed its products to underage consumers and seeks an injunction and unspecified money damages on behalf of a class of parents and guardians. The Company intends to defend this litigation vigorously. All of these actions are in their earliest stages and it is not possible at this time to determine their likely impact on the Company, the Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission. BURLINGTON NORTHERN: TX Court Refuses To Certify Investor Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 48th Judicial District refused to certify the class action filed against Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation, styled "Ray Ridgeway, et al. v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation and The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, No. 48-185170- 00." The plaintiffs' causes of action include alleged breach of contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duties with respect to a special dividend that was paid in 1988 by a Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation (BNSF) predecessor, Santa Fe Southern Pacific Corporation (SFSP). The complaint alleges that SFSP erroneously informed shareholders as to the tax treatment of the dividend "specifically, the apportionment of the dividend as either a distribution of earnings and profits or a return of capital," which allegedly caused some shareholders to overpay their income taxes. The plaintiffs assert, through their expert's report, that SFSP had essentially no accumulated earnings and profits and that the entire dividend distribution should have been treated as a return of capital, rather than the approximately 34 percent that SFSP determined was a return of capital. On July 8, 2005, the court entered a final order denying the plaintiffs' requests to certify a class action. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of intent to appeal this matter to the Texas Court of Appeals. CALIFORNIA: Corn Syrup Antitrust Settlement to Benefit Charities ---------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement of a class action lawsuit arising from a food- products price-fixing scandal will bring nearly $2.7 million to California charities that provide food or nutritional counseling to the needy, including $869,000 to San Joaquin and Stanislaus County groups, The Record reports. Upon hearing that his agency, Second Harvest Food Bank of San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties, should receive $150,000, Paul Rengh told The Record, "I have goose bumps, I've got to tell you." According to the Second Harvest chief executive, "Our food banks are always in need of truck repairs, and improving our truck fleet and our freezers and coolers. If this is true, it would be just wonderful." Among other charities to benefit and their settlement awards are: St. Mary's Interfaith Dining Hall in Stockton, $100,000; Greater Stockton Emergency Food Bank, $59,000; Seniors First in Stockton and Lodi Boys & Girls Club, $50,000 each; Stockton Shelter for the Homeless, Women's Center of San Joaquin, Lodi House and Loel Center in Lodi, $30,000 apiece; and Gospel Center Rescue Mission in Stockton, $25,000. Court documents reevaled that the settlement stems from a suit that accuses four companies of conspiring to fix prices for high fructose corn syrup. The companies are Archer-Daniels-Midlands Co.; Cargill Inc.; A.E. Stanley Manufacturing Co.; and Corn Products Corp., all of who will pay $20 million under the settlement approved recently in Stanislaus County Superior Court. Most of the money will go to businesses that purchased the overpriced corn syrup, said plaintiffs lead attorney James B. Brown of Stockton. In announcing the settlement Mr. Brown also told The Record, "The proof indicated the business purchasers probably absorbed a good percentage of the overcharges in this product." Additionally, Mr. Brown, who is a partner in the firm Herum Crabtree Brown told The Record that while virtually all California residents in the 1990s were probably affected by the price-fixing scheme, it would be impractical to try to distribute settlement funds to each individual. He adds that as a practical alternative, the law allows the money to be applied for public good, in this case, to benefit charities providing food and nutritional counseling to the poor. He also stated, "It is particularly appropriate that some of the proceeds from this lawsuit, which alleged that consumers were gouged by price fixing into paying increased prices for products that contained high fructose corn syrup, should be used to feed poor people. This is the American system of justice at its best: taking unjust profits from the corporate bad guys and redistributing them to the most needy among us." A preliminary settlement in the case, which was due to go to trial in September, was reached in June, according to Mr. Brown said. Notices were published, inviting anyone with objections to raise them at a hearing in Modesto. No objections though were heard and the judge signed off on the settlement, whose checks could go out within two weeks. As a final note, Mr. Brown told The Record, "We need to cut the checks and we need to meet with the charities, but the checks should go out within the next couple of weeks. It shouldn't take any longer than that." CALIFORNIA: Homeowners in Tribal Land Sues Indian Affairs Office ---------------------------------------------------------------- Three Palm Springs homeowners, who are living on Indian-owned land filed a federal class action lawsuit that alleges the local Bureau of Indian Affairs defrauds buyers by misrepresenting future increases in land lease fees, The Press-Enterprise reports. Filed in U.S. District Court in Riverside under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the suit names the Palm Springs bureau and 10,000 unnamed Realtors and Indian lessors as defendants. It seeks at least $25 million in damages. The suit contends that a large number of employees in the bureau are members of local tribes and therefore have a financial interest in the land leases the agency administers. It further contends that the bureau employees told Realtors during seminars that future rent increases on Indian land leases would be minimal, which the Realtors repeated to interested homeowners. According to the suit, the bureau implemented policies to prevent prospective buyers from ascertaining the true amount of likely rent increases. Specifically, the suit states that the bureau allegedly refuses to divulge past appraisals of Indian- owned land to prospective buyers. The plaintiffs, Alvin Annis, Richard J. Hussar and Gregory Landenburg, according to the suit, would not have bought their properties had they known their rental increases would be substantial. "How do you sell a home with a land lease that is potentially close to a thousand dollars?" said Mr. Landenburg, adding that a bureau appraisal for the square mile his lot is on has gone up 125 percent over last year. "It's just outrageous, it's immoral," he told The Press-Enterprise. Court documents indicate that potential class members could include homeowners on tribal land who deal with the Palm Springs bureau. CALIFORNIA: San Diego Policemen File Overtime Wage Suit V. City --------------------------------------------------------------- Approximately 1,100 San Diego police officers are claiming that the city and police administrators bilked them out of overtime income by illegally refusing to compensate officers for job- related activities they perform out of uniform, such as getting ready for court appearances and preparing investigative reports at home, according to a recently filed lawsuit, The Voice of San Diego reports. The federal class action suit, which will seek a jury award of $120 million or more for police officers who have been denied overtime pay and were misinformed as to what they can claim as overtime under federal labor law, alleges that the city treats expense reimbursements as regular pay by taxing officers' equipment and uniform allowances when the payments should be made in full. Asked for comment on the suit, Executive Assistant Chief of Police Operations Bill Maheu, who oversees the department's budget, told The Voice of San Diego that officers are fairly compensated for overtime as it is laid out in the Fair Labor Standards Act. However, police officers' attorney Gregory Petersen contends that police managers' concerns are more about cutting costs than abiding by federal law. He told the Voice of San Diego, "Homicide detectives, who aren't given time to work on their cases at work, have to do it at home. That's pretty egregious." Mr. Maheu though insists that he didn't know whether officers were working on reports at home, but that doing so was unnecessary. He adds, "There's not a reason to take it home and do it there. At the very least, you can take initial information and carry the report over to an investigator working the next shift if you have to." He acknowledged that the $900 annually doled out to an officer as a uniform allowance is now taxed and it used to be paid in whole "several years ago." He said he remembers a revised legal interpretation of what the expense was as the cause for the switch. Mr. Petersen contends that if the city treats the reimbursements like salary by taxing it then the San Diego City Employees' Retirement System could make the case that employee contributions should be coming out of repayments to officers as well. He also added that cops in several instances were also not being given uninterrupted half-hour breaks for each shift. According to retirement board President Peter Prevolos, "The board has an obligation to look at that if in fact that's true. We've got to evaluate that and drill it down until it's either incorrect or is indeed true. If it's the truth, than we need to look at it." The city charter orders the City Council to approve a balanced budget every year, and Mr. Maheu acknowledged that, traditionally, overtime costs are underestimated by millions of dollars. In the 2005 fiscal year, the department racked up $15 million in overtime expenses when only $6 million was budgeted, Mr. Maheu said. The police department's handling of overtime has gotten so bad, according to Mr. Petersen that managers encourage patrol officers to "keep your eyes closed on the way home" in order to avoid overtime costs that could incur if they were to happen upon an incident just before clocking out. He said that he has seen memos that direct officers to do just that. Mr. Maheu told The Voice of San Diego that he is unaware of documents that bear those instructions, and said that such direction was inappropriate. He however asserted that the city has "made a habit of funding its employment contracts with no money." Department managers are mindful of keeping costs down, he said, even if it means skirting the federal labor laws. Mr. Maheu disagreed, saying that the police department complied with the law. According to him, Police Chief Bill Lansdowne has implemented ways to save on overtime costs, such as working with the City Attorney's Office to make sure that only subpoenaed officers go to court instead of every police officer listed in a case. Also, overtime work is pre-approved before it is assigned, he said, and people up and down the chain of command are familiar with overtime laws. He also contends, "There's not a police agency in the world where the budget is not an issue. In the same breath, there's never someone who's asked, 'How much did you spend saving that person's life?'" Mr. Petersen told The Voice of San Diego that he was hired when police officers wanted to know what was owed to them and what their rights were, but he added that overtime law is non- negotiable and not an item for collective bargaining discussions. COLLINS BUS: Recalls Buses Due to FMVSS No. 221 Noncompliance ------------------------------------------------------------- Collins Bus Corporation in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 201 units of 2004 Bantam and 2004 Super Bantam school buses due to no compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 221, "SCHOOL BUS BODY JOINT STRENGTH." NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V359000. According to the ODI, the recall affects certain 2004 Bantam and Super Bantam school buses between July 2004 and November 2004. The amount of adhesive applied to the roof seams of the buses are inadequate for the type of adhesive used, which fails to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 221. As a remedy delers will correct the buses by adding two additional screws between the current screws that attach the seams of the ceiling skins to the structural roof bows. The recall is expected to begin during the week of August 29, 2005. For more details, contact NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov. CONSUMERINFO.COM: Settles FTC Deceptive Credit Marketing Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consumerinfo.com, Inc., doing business as Experian Consumer Direct, has settled Federal Trade Commission charges that it deceptively marketed "free credit reports" by not adequately disclosing that consumers automatically would be signed up for a credit report monitoring service and charged $79.95 if they didn't cancel within 30 days, in violation of federal law. The settlement requires Consumerinfo to pay redress to deceived consumers, bars deceptive and misleading claims about "free" offers, requires disclosure of terms and conditions of any "free" offers, and requires the defendant to give up $950,000 in ill-gotten gains. According to the FTC complaint, the defendant drove consumers to their www.freecreditreport.com and www.consumerinfo.com Web sites with radio, television, e-mail and Internet ads that promised free credit reports and a bonus - free trials of a credit-monitoring service. Ads made claims such as: "FREE! FREE! FREE! Get Your FREE Credit Report Online in Seconds!!!!," "Click here to get a FREE copy of your online Credit Report Instantly!," "And that's not all . along with your INSTANT credit report, we'll give you 30 FREE days of the Credit Check Monitoring Service at no obligation." Consumers were required to provide detailed personal information and a valid credit card account number to get their credit report. They were assured that, "Your card will not be charged during the free trial period. However, valid credit card information is required to establish your account." According to the FTC's complaint, Consumerinfo's advertising and Web sites failed to explain adequately that after the free trial period for the credit monitoring service expired, consumers automatically would be charged a $79.95 annual membership, unless they notified the defendant within 30 days to cancel the service. Consumerinfo billed the credit cards that it had told consumers were "required only to establish your account," and, in some cases, automatically renewed memberships by re-billing consumers without notice. The FTC charged that the defendant's failure to adequately disclose the automatic billing and to get consumers' consent to bill their accounts violated federal law. The complaint also alleges that Consumerinfo misled consumers about their association with the annual free credit report program for which U.S. consumers are eligible by federal law. A federal law enacted in December 2003, gives consumers the right to get one free credit report every 12 months from each of the three national consumer reporting companies. This program began in western states on December 1, 2004, and will cover all U.S. consumers by September 1, 2005. Consumers can get their free reports by phone, mail, or at one authorized Web site, www.annualcreditreport.com. The FTC complaint alleges that Consumerinfo deceptively advertised and promoted its "free reports" at its "freecreditreport.com" Web site, without disclosing that it was not associated with the official annual free credit report program. "Consumers paid the price for ordering free credit reports from freecreditreport.com," said Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "It's unfair and deceptive to promise consumers something for free and then trick them into paying for products they didn't want in the first place." "Consumers also need to be alert about impostor sites - sites that misspell annualcreditreport.com or use sound alike names, but don't link to the authorized site. We are sending letters to operators of more than 130 impostor sites to inform them that we know they are out there and that attempts to mislead consumers are illegal," she said. The settlement is designed to assure that the defendant's negative-option or "free" offers do not contain misrepresentations, and that they disclose all terms and conditions of the offers. The settlement establishes specific disclosure requirements in promotions for the defendant's "free credit report" offer. Among other things, the defendant must clearly tell consumers that they will be charged unless they cancel within the trial period, and that the offer is not related to the free credit report program mandated by Congress. The settlement requires redress for consumers who enrolled in Consumerinfo's credit monitoring program between 2000 and 2003, canceled the monitoring service and received a partial refund or filed a complaint about the charges for the service. Consumers who qualify for a refund should receive a notice from Consumerinfo by email or first class mail within the next few months. The FTC staff has released answers to frequently asked questions available at www.ftc.gov/freereports to help Consumerinfo customers determine if they're eligible for a refund. It also has established an information hotline for consumers to call for information on refunds. The phone number is (202) 326-3457. In addition to the redress program, the settlement requires the defendant to pay $950,000 in ill-gotten gains to the Commission. The money may be used to provide consumer education. The settlement also contains record-keeping and bookkeeping provisions to allow the FTC to monitor compliance with the order. The complaint named Consumerinfo.com., Inc., doing business as Experian Consumer Direct, Qspace, Inc., and Iplace Inc. Consumerinfo.com is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Experian North America, which is also the parent company of Experian Information Services, one of the three national credit reporting companies. This case was brought with the invaluable assistance of the office of California Attorney General, Bill Lockyer. The agency also wishes to acknowledge the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which filed a complaint about Consumerinfo.com with the Commission, and the World Privacy Forum for reports it submitted to the agency on imposter sites. Copies of the complaint and consent agreement 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: 202-326-2180 or contact the Consumerinfo Information Line: 202-326-3457 or visit the Website: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/08/consumerinfo.htm. FINLAND: Report Says Justice Ministry Considers Class Action Law ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Finnish ministry of justice reportedly asked a working group to prepare a proposal for legislation on class action, The Nordic Business Report reports. The law would reportedly be applied in cases pertaining to consumer issues. According to a report by Finnish news agency STT, the working group is to file its proposal by the end of January 2006. HINO MOTOR: Recalls 46 NE8J, NJ86 Trucks Due to Crash Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 46 units of 2006 NE8J and 2006 NJ86 trucks due to crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V356000. According to the ODI, on certain chassis and cabs, the wheel bearings were grease-packed onto the front axle rather than oil lubricated as specified. It was later determined that the caliper mounting bolts were not properly torqued and the proper end play adjustment was not made. This can cause the caliper mounting bolts could become disconnected from the rotor assembly, which could cause a decrease in braking ability, increasing the risk of a crash. As a remedy, dealers will torque all affected caliper mounting bolts and readjust each wheel for the proper end play adjustment. The recall is expected to begin on August 19, 2005. For more details, contact Hino, Phone: 248-648-6400 OR the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov. ILLINOIS: Locklear Electric's Suit V. NAAP up For Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- The first class action case filed in Madison County Circuit Court after President George W. Bush signed the Class Action Fairness Act into law last February 18 will be up for a case management conference and class certification on August 24 in Circuit Judge Daniel Stack's third floor courtroom, The Madison County Record reports. Locklear Electric of Wood River filed the suit back in February 25, alleging it received one or more unsolicited faxes from National Association of Preferred Providers advertising the availability of health care insurance. The complaint contends that NAPP did not obtain "prior express invitation or permission" before sending the fax advertisement in violation of the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Thus, according to the compliant, "Defendant's transmission of unsolicited fax advertisements constitutes an unlawful taking of Locklear's fax paper, toner ink, and electricity." Additionally, Locklear claims in its suit that NAPP "willfully" sent or caused to be sent unsolicited fax advertisements, and therefore it is liable for $1,500 in damages for each separate unsolicited fax sent. In order for the suit to be unaffected by a new federal law which governs whether a class action lawsuit is filed in state or federal court, the complaint is claiming, "the aggregate of the class are less than $5 million." The new Class Action Fairness Act calls for all cases seeking more than $5 million in damages to be heard in federal court. As reported in previous editions of the Class Action reporter, Locklear has filed two similar class action suits against other companies that have allegedly sent unsolicited faxes to them. The suit is styled, Locklear Electric V. National Association of Preferred Providers, which was filed in Madison County Circuit Court. Locklear is represented by Lanny Darr of Schrempf, Blaine, Kelly, & Darr of Alton. William Bunning of St. Louis represents NAPP. MAJOR AUTOMOTIVE: Faces NY Suit For Sale of Defective Vehicles -------------------------------------------------------------- Major Automotive Companies, Inc. faces a summons and complaint filed in the New York State Supreme Court, County of Bronx, styled "Justin Jung et al. v. Major Automotive Companies, Inc." Plaintiff filed the suit in December 2004, alleging the sale of defective or otherwise dangerous vehicles. Named plaintiff bases his suit on a single-vehicle accident. The action includes provisions for the possible promulgation of a class action lawsuit regarding the previous accusations. MAJOR AUTOMOTIVE: Reaches Settlement For NJ Consumer Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Major Automotive Companies, Inc. forged a settlement in the class action filed against it in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, styled "Maryann Cerbo, et al. v. Ford of Englewood, Inc., et al." The lead plaintiff had alleged the systematic overcharge by all New Jersey Licensed Automotive Dealers for the documentation fees for the registration of new/used vehicles. Under advice of counsel, the Company, through its Compass Dodge, Inc. franchise, agreed to accept the proposed settlement offer by the plaintiff's counsel. Using a complex set of guidelines, including total sales and ratio of new and used vehicles sold, we agreed to comply with the settlement provisions. The current estimated cost of settlement is approximately $30,000, which has been accrued in the fourth quarter of 2004. The settlement proposal awaits approval by the New Jersey Superior Court. PRE-PAID LEGAL: Working To Resolve Fraud Lawsuits V. Memberships ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pre-paid Legal Services, Inc. is working to resolve the multiple lawsuits filed against it, certain of its officers, employees, sales associates and other defendants in various Alabama and Mississippi state courts, beginning in the second quarter of 2001. The suits seek actual and punitive damages for alleged breach of contract, fraud and various other claims in connection with the sale of memberships. During 2004, there were at one time as many as 30 separate lawsuits involving approximately 285 plaintiffs in Alabama. As of July 22, 2005, as a result of dismissals, summary judgments, or settlements for nominal amounts, the Company is aware of approximately 8 separate lawsuits involving approximately 11 plaintiffs that have been filed in multiple counties in Alabama. As of July 22, 2005, the Company is aware of 15 separate lawsuits involving approximately 425 plaintiffs in multiple counties in Mississippi. Certain of the Mississippi lawsuits also name the Company's former provider attorney in Mississippi as a defendant. At least three complaints have been filed by the law firm representing plaintiffs in eleven of the cases on behalf of certain of the Mississippi plaintiffs and others with the Attorney General of Mississippi in March 2002, December 2002 and August 2003. The Company has responded to the Attorney General's requests for information with respect to these complaints, and as of July 22, 2005, is not aware of any further actions being taken by the Attorney General. In Mississippi, the Company filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern and Northern Districts of Mississippi in which the Company seeks to compel arbitration of the various Mississippi claims under the Federal Arbitration Act and the terms of the Company's Membership agreements. One of the federal courts has ordered arbitration of a case involving 8 plaintiffs. These cases are all in various stages of litigation, including trial settings in Alabama in September 2005, and in Mississippi in November and December 2005, and seek varying amounts of actual and punitive damages. The first trial in Mississippi on these cases resulted in a unanimous jury verdict in the Company's favor, including other named defendants, on all claims on October 19, 2004, while the second and third trials in Mississippi resulted in insubstantial plaintiffs' verdicts on February 15, 2005 and May 9, 2005 respectively. As of July 22, 2005, post trial motions are pending on both plaintiffs' verdicts. On July 18, 2005 the Circuit Judge in the May 9, 2005 trial entered an order granting plaintiff's motion to reconsider the submission of the issue of punitive damages to the jury, and set the case for trial on that issue in November 2005. The Company is seeking post trial and appellate relief from the final judgment in that case and the recent order. Although the amount of Membership fees paid by the plaintiffs in the Mississippi cases is $500,000 or less, certain of the cases seek damages of $90 million. Additional suits of a similar nature have been threatened. On April 19, 2002, counsel in certain of the above-referenced Alabama suits also filed a similar suit against the Company and certain officers in the District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma on behalf of Jeff and Jana Weller individually and doing business as Hi-Tech Auto making similar allegations relating to the Company's Memberships and seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a "nationwide" class. The Pre-Paid defendants' preliminary motions in this case were denied, and on June 17, 2003, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of the Pre-Paid defendants' motion to compel arbitration, finding that the trial court erred when it denied Pre-Paid's motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the terms of the valid Membership contracts, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with that opinion. On December 3, 2004, the District Court ordered the plaintiffs to proceed with the arbitration. The ultimate outcome of this case is not determinable. PRE-PAID LEGAL: Appeals Court Yet To Rule on OK Suit Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on plaintiffs' appeal the dismissal of the securities class action filed against Pre-paid Legal Services, Inc. and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The suit seeks unspecified damages on the basis of allegations that the Company issued false and misleading financial information, primarily related to the method it used to account for commission advance receivables from sales associates. On March 5, 2002, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, and entered a judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion requesting reconsideration of the dismissal which was denied. The plaintiffs have appealed the judgment and the order denying their motion to reconsider the judgment to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. In August 2002, the lead institutional plaintiff withdrew from the case, leaving two individual plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs on behalf of the putative class. As of December 31, 2003, the briefing in the appeal had been completed. On January 14, 2004 oral argument was held in the appeal and as of July 22, 2005, a decision was still pending. The suit is styled "In Re: Pre-Paid Securities Litigation, case no. 5:01-cv-00182," filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, under Judge Robin J. Cauthron. Representing the plaintiffs are Stuart W. Emmons and William B. Federman, Federman & Sherwood, 120 N Robinson Ave, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, Fax: 405-239-2112, E-mail: swe@federmanlaw.com or wfederman@aol.com. Representing the Company are: (1) Clayton Basser-Wall, Brobeck Phleger & Harrison-SAN FRANCISCO, Spear Street Tower, One Market Plaza, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-442-0900 (2) Brooke S. Murphy, Crowe & Dunlevy-OKC, 20 N Broadway Ave, Suite 1800, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405- 235-7735, Fax: 405-272-5278, E-mail: murphyb@crowedunlevy.com (3) Margaret M. Snyder, Clifford Chance Rogers & Wells LLP, Steuart Street Tower, One Market Plaza, San Francisco, CA 94105-1420, Phone: 415-778-4700, Fax: 415-778-4701 (4) Robert P. Varian, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, 405 Howard St, The Orrick Building, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-773-5934, Fax: 415-773-5759, E-mail: rvarian@orrick.com PRE-PAID LEGAL: Court Nixes Appeal of OK Certification Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals refused plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal of a lower court ruling refusing to grant class certification to a lawsuit filed against Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. and certain of its executive officers. On March 1, 2002, Caroline Sandler, Robert Schweikert, Sal Corrente, Richard Jarvis and Vincent Jefferson filed the suit, seeking unspecified damages filed on behalf of the Company's sales associates and alleges that the marketing plan offered by the Company constitutes a security under the Securities Act of 1933. The suit seeks remedies for failure to register the marketing plan as a security and for violations of the anti- fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with representations alleged to have been made in connection with the marketing plan. The complaint also alleges violations of the Oklahoma Securities Act, the Oklahoma Business Opportunities Sales Act, breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment and violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act and negligent supervision. This case is subject to the Private Litigation Securities Reform Act. Pursuant to the Act, the Court has approved the named plaintiffs and counsel and an amended complaint was filed in August 2002. The Pre-Paid defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint and to strike the class action allegations on September 19, 2002, and discovery in the action was stayed pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss. On July 24, 2003, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Pre-Paid defendants' motion to dismiss. The claims asserted under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Oklahoma Securities were dismissed without prejudice. The motion was denied as to the remaining claims. On September 8, 2004, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs petitioned the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to appeal the class certification ruling, and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petition for interlocutory appeal. The suit is styled "In Re: Pre-Paid Sec Lit II, case no. 5:02- cv-00273," filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma under Judge Robin J. Cauthron. Representing the plaintiffs are Clell I Cunningham, III of Dunn Swan & Cunningham, 210 W Park Ave, Suite 2800, Oklahoma City, OK 73102-5604, Phone: 405-235-8318, Fax: 405-235-9605, E-mail: skip@DSCPC.com; and Steven E. Fineman, Wendy R. Fleishman, and Rachel Geman of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein-NEW YORK, 780 3rd Ave, 48th Fl, New York, NY 10017-2024, Phone: 212-355-9500, Fax: 212-355-9592, E-mail: sfineman@lchb.com, wfleishman@lchb.com or rgeman@lchb.com. QUALCOMM INC.: CA Court Hears Wage Suit Decertification Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of California heard arguments for the plaintiffs' appeal of the decertification of the class action filed against QUALCOMM, Inc., styled "Durante, et al v. QUALCOMM." On February 2, 2000, three former employees filed a putative class action against the Company, ostensibly on behalf of themselves and those former employees of ours whose employment was terminated in April 1999. Virtually all of the purported class of plaintiffs received severance packages at the time of the termination of their employment, in exchange for a release of claims, other than federal age discrimination claims, against the Company, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 9,2004) reports. The complaint purports to state 10 causes of action including breach of contract, age discrimination, violation of Labor Code Section 200, violation of Labor Code Section 970, unfair business practices, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unjust enrichment, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, declaratory relief and undue influence. The complaint seeks an order accelerating all unvested stock options for the members of the class, plus economic and liquidated damages of an unspecified amount. On June 27, 2000, the case was ordered transferred from Los Angeles County Superior Court to San Diego County Superior Court. On July 3, 2000, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, and discovery commenced. On May 29, 2001, the Court dismissed all plaintiffs' claims except for claims arising under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. On July 16, 2001, the Court granted conditional class certification on the remaining claims, to be revisited by the Court at the end of the discovery period. On April 15, 2003, the Court granted the Company's summary judgment motions as to all remaining class members' disparate impact claims. On June 18, 2003, the Court ordered decertification of the class and dismissed the remaining claims of the opt-in plaintiffs without prejudice. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal. On June 20, 2003, 76 of the opt-in plaintiffs filed, but have not yet served, a new action in the same court, alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act as a result of their layoffs in 1999. To date, all but 27 of the class members and plaintiffs agreed to dismiss all pending appeals and claims against the Company in exchange for a waiver of litigation costs. QUALCOMM INC.: Cellphone Injury Suits Remanded To WA State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class actions filed against QUALCOMM INC. and other manufacturers of wireless phones, wireless operators and industry related organizations have been remanded to the Washington D.C. Superior Court. Several purported class action lawsuits, including In re Wireless Telephone Frequency Emissions Products Liability Litigation, have been filed, seeking monetary damages out of the sale and use of cellular phones. The suits were later coordinated in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On March 5, 2003, the Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss five of the consolidated cases (Pinney, Gimpleson, Gillian, Farina and Naquin) on the grounds that the claims were preempted by federal law. On March 21, 2005, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling by the District Court and ordered the cases remanded to state court. All remaining cases filed against the Company allege personal injury as a result of their use of a wireless telephone. Those cases have been remanded to the Washington, D.C. Superior Court. The courts that have reviewed similar claims against other companies to date have held that there was insufficient scientific basis for the plaintiffs' claims in those cases. ROHM & HAAS: MO Court Dismisses Personal Injury, Damage Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Missouri Superior Court dismissed a lawsuit filed against Rohm & Haas Co., Morton International, Inc., which the Company acquired, Joseph Magazzu, a former Morton employee, and the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality on behalf of over 700 plaintiffs, alleging personal injury and property damage caused by environmental contamination. On April 7, 2005, this complaint was dismissed, without prejudice, with respect to all the plaintiffs. Similar complaints filed in Mississippi on behalf of approximately 1,800 other plaintiffs are pending. These are individual plaintiffs since Mississippi procedural rules do not permit class actions ROYAL DUTCH: NJ Judge Allows Securities Fraud Lawsuit to Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finding that the shareholders had "adequately" shown reason for the court to examine their allegations concerning the company's restatements of its oil reserves, a federal judge in Newark, New Jersey allowed a securities fraud lawsuit against Royal Dutch Shell, PLC, to proceed, The Associated Press reports. The class action lawsuit questions whether the company's statements on its reserves, an important measure of future performance, purposely omitted or twisted important facts. Royal Dutch Shell, which is based in The Hague, Netherlands, told The Associated Press that it plans to appeal the ruling, questioning whether the court has jurisdiction "over non-U.S. purchasers who bought their securities on non U.S.-markets." Court documents revealed that restatements of the reserves last year led to stock declines, prompting shareholders to sue the oil company, some executives and its accounting firms, PricewaterhouseCoopers and KPMG. The reduced projections also cost Shell, one of the world's largest oil producers with BP PLC and Exxon Mobil Corp., almost $150 million in fines imposed by U.S. and British regulators and led to the dismissal of three senior executives. As a result of the ruling, the plaintiffs and defendants are to exchange information, which could include scheduling depositions. The case though remains far from being presented to a jury. According to the opinion by U.S. Chief District John W. Bissell, the company's global footprint does not prevent it from being sued in New Jersey. Plaintiffs filed in the state because Shell has gasoline distribution terminals there. A lead lawyer for the shareholders, Stanley D. Bernstein, told The Associated Press that they were satisfied with the decision, even though it did dismiss several of the original counts against certain defendants. Reached in London, Shell spokesman Simon Buerk, told The Associated Press, "The decision reflects a ruling at an early procedural phase of the case that presents the court's views on the scope of its statutory jurisdiction and the adequacy of plaintiffs' complaint. The decision does not reflect whether plaintiffs ultimately will be able to prove any of the claims they have alleged." The Anglo-Dutch oil company, formally unified last month, resulted from the combination of Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. of the Netherlands, and Shell Transport & Trading Co., of London. SILICON LABORATORIES: Parties Submit Revised NY Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the consolidated securities class action filed against Silicon Laboratories, Inc., four of its officers individually and the three investment banking firms who served as representatives of the underwriters in connection with the Company's initial public offering of common stock, submitted a revised suit settlement to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that the registration statement and prospectus for the Company's initial public offering did not disclose that the underwriters solicited and received additional, excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors, and the underwriters had agreed to allocate shares of the offering in exchange for a commitment from the customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined higher prices. The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount and is being coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical actions filed against other companies. A court order dated October 9, 2002 dismissed without prejudice the Company's four officers who had been named individually. 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 Company's case. The company has approved a settlement agreement and related agreements which 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 it 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 were required to 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. The issuers and plaintiffs have submitted to the Court a revised settlement agreement consistent with the Court's opinion. The revised settlement agreement has been approved by all of the issuer defendants who are not in bankruptcy. The underwriter defendants will have an opportunity to object to the revised settlement agreement. The suit is styled "In re Silicon Laboratories, 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 UTAH: Attorney General Says Body Armor Deadline Draws Nearer ------------------------------------------------------------ Police officers have less than a month to take part in a multimillion-dollar settlement from a class action lawsuit filed against the Second Chance body armor company for manufacturing faulty bulletproof vests, says Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, The Salt Lake Tribune reports. According to A.G. Shurtleff, those officers who purchased a Zylon vest are eligible to be included in the $29 million settlement if they register their contact information by September 9 at http://www.zylonvest-classaction.comor by calling 1-877-567-2754. He adds that the funds are available for those who have already replaced their vest with their own money. The amount awarded will be determined by how many officers join in the settlement. The Zylon vests were advertised as thin, lightweight and flexible, offering full protection from bullets. But tests showed the vests did not stop a .44 caliber bullet from penetration and also deteriorated under high temperature, humidity and sunlight. A.G. Shurtleff told The Salt Lake Tribune that those wishing to be excluded from the settlement could submit a request by the September 9 deadline. More information about the lawsuit and settlement procedures is online at http://www.purchasing.utah.gov/vestsettlement.htm. The settlement actually stems from a lawsuit in the District Court for Mayes County, in the State of Oklahoma, relating to bullet proof vests manufactured by Second Chance Body Armor, Inc. ("Second Chance"), which contains Zylonr, a fiber manufactured and sold by Toyobo Company, Ltd. ("Toyobo"), and sold by Second Chance and its distributors under the trade names ULTIMA, ULTIMAX and TRIFLEX. The lawsuit alleges that these vests fail to meet the performance characteristics for which they were warranted, that the vests are unfit for their intended purpose and that the allegedly defective condition of the vests was withheld from the marketplace. The suit is styled, Lemmings, et al. v. Second Chance Body Armor, Inc., et al., Case No. CJ-2004-62. The case is being heard in the District Court for Mayes County, State of Oklahoma. Allan Kanner, Esq. of ALLAN KANNER & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C., 701 Camp St., New Orleans, LA, 70130 is the Lead Class Counsel and Notice Counsel for the Class. Arvin Maskin, Esq. of WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, L.L.P. 767 Fifth Ave., New York, NY, 10153 is the Lead Counsel for Toyobo and Toyobo America and Notice Counsel for Toyobo and Toyobo America. WAL-MART STORES: $1.39 Gift Cards Suit in Management Conference --------------------------------------------------------------- After months of delays, Wal-Mart Stores may finally get a chance to present its argument that gift cards cannot be redeemed for cash to Madison County Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron during a case management conference on August 24, The Madison County Record reports. Ashley Peach filed the suit against Wal-Mart on June 16, 2004, alleging that the cashier at Wal-Mart failed to return a $1.39 balance on her gift card. As previously reported in the March 10, 2005 edition of the Class Action Reporter, Ms. Peach, who is represented by Jeffery Millar of The Lakin Law Firm, alleges that Wal-Mart wrongfully retained unused balances on gift cards. In her complaint, she states that sometime after Mother's Day in May of 2004 she purchased shampoo, conditioner, and other toiletries from the Granite City Wal-Mart, using two separate $10 gift cards to pay for the purchase that totaled $18.61. However, after the sale was complete, Ms. Peach, who has also filed class actions against Fashion Bug and K-Mart alleging the retailers also would not give her cash for gift card balances, alleges the cashier would not give her back the $1.39 balance as cash even though she demanded it. According to her, that balance on the gift card represents money to which she and the class has the right to immediately possess. According to Count I of the complaint, Ms. Peach claims she has been damaged in the amount of the remaining balance on the gift card, legal interest, as well as reasonable attorney fees and court costs, plus treble punitive damages, but in no event an amount in excess of $75,000 exclusive of costs and interest. In Count II of her complaint, Ms. Peach alleges that Wal-Mart's improper conduct constitutes unjust enrichment and it would violate the fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. Wal-Mart's consistent corporate practices wrongfully retain the benefits received from the class, according to the complaint. Wal-Mart, which is represented by Jennifer Kingston of Bryan Cave in St. Louis, contends that using the card constitutes acceptance of its terms. In the upcoming conference, Ms. Kingston will argue that Ms. Peach's complaint fails as a matter of law because Ms. Peach cannot prove she suffered any actual damages, and a claim is only actionable if the damages alleged are real and present. In her court filing, Ms Kingston argues, "The gift card was bought for the express purpose of purchasing Wal-Mart inventory and it cannot now be transformed into a right to collect cash." Wal- Mart back that up by saying in its own filings, "Ms. Peach has not-and cannot-allege that she is unable to use the remaining balance on her gift card." New Securities Fraud Cases AMERICAN ITALIAN: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Suit in MO ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri against American Italian Pasta Company (NYSE: PLB). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from October 25, 2000 through August 9, 2005. For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com. AMERICAN ITALIAN: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Securities Suit in MO --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of American Italian Pasta Company ("Pasta" or the "Company") (NYSE:PLB) between October 4, 2000 and August 9, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Pasta and Timothy S. Webster, David B. Potter, Jerry H. Dear, Warren B. Schmidgall, George D. Shadid and Horst W. Schroeder ("Defendants"). The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that The Company failed to disclose or misrepresented that the Company failed to properly expense $6.6 million in promotional allowances and deduction receivables, that the Company failed to take timely write-downs for spare parts inventory, that the Company maintained inadequate reserves for slow moving, damaged, and discontinued inventories, the Company failed to record $1.9 million in certain fixed asset retirements, and that as a result the Company's financials were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). On August 9, 2005, after the market closed, Pasta announced a $60.7 million charge and an SEC inquiry into the Company's results. Specifically, the Company stated the SEC was investigating it for unspecified restatements and for transactions in the Company's stock by outsiders in late 2004 and early 2005, for which the Company had received inquiries from the New York Stock Exchange and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange. In addition, the Audit Committee of Pasta is conducting an internal investigation of certain accounting procedures. For more details, contact Mark S. Goldman, Esq. of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-753-2796, E-mail: info@gsk-law.com. AMERICAN ITALIAN: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in MO ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking class action filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of American Italian Pasta Company (NYSE: PLB - News; "AIPC") between October 25, 2000 and August 9, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that AIPC violated federal securities laws by issuing financial statements that did not conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). On August 9, 2005, AIPC announced a $60.7 million accounting charge and a Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") inquiry. AIPC stated that the SEC was investigating it for various unspecified financial restatements and for transactions of the company's stock by outsiders in late 2004 and early 2005. AIPC also stated that its Audit Committee was conducting an internal investigation. On this news, AIPC stock fell from a close of $20.94 per share on August 9, 2005, to close at $13.28 per share on August 10, 2005. For more details, contact Justin S. Kudler, Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net. BUCA INC.: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit in MN ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against BUCA, Inc. (Nasdaq: BUCA). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from February 6, 2001 through March 11, 2005. For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com. CUSTOM DESIGNED: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in NM ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico against Custom Designed Compressor Systems, Inc. (OTC Pink Sheets: CPYJ). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from September 14, 2004 through October 22, 2004. For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com. HILB ROGAL: Goodkind Labaton Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP, which filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. ("Hilb Rogal" or the "Company") (NYSE:HRH) between February 14, 2002 and May 26, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"), reminds all parties that Lead Plaintiff papers must be filed with the court no later than August 22, 2005. The lawsuit was filed against Hilb Rogal, Andrew L. Rogal, Martin L. Vaughan III, Timothy J. Korman, Carolyn Jones, Robert W. Blanton Jr. and Robert B. Lockhart ("Defendants"). The deadline to move for Lead Plaintiff is August 22, 2005. The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, Defendants are alleged to have issued a series of false and misleading statements during the Class Period, which failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was paying or receiving the equivalent of kickbacks or bribes in connection with placing its clients' insurance business; (2) the Company's contingent and/or override commissions were designed to allow the Company to steer its flow of business to those insurance carriers which agreed to pay it kickbacks; (3) the Company's business practices were in direct conflict of interest with its customers, were fraudulent and illegal, and could open the Company up to civil and criminal liability, lost future revenues, tarnished reputation, potential inability to borrow, and potential loss of customers; and (4) a substantial portion of the Company's revenues were derived from the improper commissions, so that the Company's financial statements were materially inflated at all relevant times. On May 26, 2005, the Company announced that its Chief Operating Officer, Defendant Robert B. Lockhart, had resigned following a review of the Company's business practices. The internal inquiry, which was commenced in response to numerous states' attorneys general and other legal and regulatory bodies investigations, found that the Company made improper payments out of its Hartford offices in connection with the placement of insurance policies. Shares of Hilb Rogal reacted negatively to the news, falling from $38.20 per share on May 26, 2005 to $33.69 per share on May 27, 2005, on heavy trading volume. For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP, Phone: (800) 321-0476, E-mail: http://www.glrslaw.com/get/?case=HilbRogal. RED ROBIN: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. (NASDAQ: RRGB) between November 8, 2004 and August 11, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against defendant Red Robin and one or more of its officers and/or directors. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com. RED ROBIN: Dyer & Shuman Sets Lead Plaintiff October 15 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Dyer & Shuman, LLP is encouraging all persons who purchased the common stock of Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. (NASDAQ: RRGB) between November 8, 2004 and August 11, 2005 ("Class Members") to contact Kip B. Shuman of Dyer & Shuman, LLP at 1-800-711-6483 or via email at KShuman@DyerShuman.com, or their counsel of choice, concerning their rights and interests as potential class members in the shareholder class action recently filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the firm and certain of its former officers and directors. The firm reminds investors that they have until October 14, 2005 to file for lead plaintiff in the case. For more details, contact Kip B. Shuman of Dyer & Shuman, LLP, Phone: 1-800-711-6483, E-mail: KShuman@DyerShuman.com, Web site: http://www.dyershuman.com. RED ROBIN: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CO --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. (Nasdaq: RRGB) ("Red Robin") between November 8, 2004 and August 11, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Red Robin violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Red Robin issued a series of materially false and misleading statements regarding Red Robin's business and prospects and concealed improper self-dealing by its CEO. On August 11, 2005, Red Robin reported that its second quarter results would be lower than expectations due to charges and adjustments to various accounts and that its Chairman, President and CEO had resigned in light of an investigation into his personal use of Red Robin's assets. On this news, Red Robin stock fell from a close of $59.79 per share on August 11, 2005, to close at $45.55 per share on August 12, 2005. For more details, contact Justin S. Kudler, Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net. RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Alfred G. Yates Lodges Stock Suit in NY --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC, initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all securities purchasers of RenaissanceRe Holdings, Ltd. (NYSE:RNR) ("RenaissanceRe" or the "Company") between January 24, 2002 and July 25, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action, case no. 05-CV-7232, is pending in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendants RenaissanceRe, James Stanard, Michael Cash, William Riker, John M. Lummis, and Martin J. Merritt. Defendants are charged with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company entered into and improperly accounted for various contracts with Inter-Ocean Reinsurance Company, Ltd, which allowed the Company to effectively manipulate and smooth its earnings during the Class Period: (2) that the Company improperly accounted for premiums received during the first three quarters of 2004 on multi-year reinsurance contracts, which all caused the Company to misstate its net income figures for the Class Period; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; (4) that the Company's financial results were in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). On February 22, 2005, RenaissanceRe announced its plan to restate its financial statements. On February 28, 2005, RenaissanceRe announced that it had received a subpoena from the SEC in connection with an industry-wide investigation into non- traditional insurance products. On June 15, 2005, RenaissanceRe announced that it had received a subpoena from the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. On July 11, 2005, RenaissanceRe announced that Michael W. Cash resigned following his refusal to accept service of a subpoena from the SEC calling for his testimony in its investigation into the restatement of the Company's financial statements. On July 25, 2005, the Company announced that James N. Stanard, the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, had received a "Wells Notice" from the SEC staff in connection with the SEC's ongoing investigation into the restatement of the Company's financial statements. On this news, shares of RenaissanceRe fell $4.25 per share, or 9 percent, to close on July 25, 2005, at $42.98 per share. For more details, contact Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Phone: 1-800-391-5164, E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com. SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Symbol Technologies, Inc. ("Symbol") (NYSE:SBL) securities during the period between May 10, 2004 and August 1, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Symbol and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Symbol engages in the design, development, manufacture, and service of products and systems used in enterprise mobility solutions. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued numerous positive statements about the Company's performance and future prospects. As alleged in the Complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, which were known, or recklessly disregarded by them, at all relevant times: (1) that Symbol had inadequate and deficient internal and financial controls; (2) that Symbol's reported expenses were understated; (3) that Symbol had massive overcapacity, inefficient operations and obsolete assets; (4) that Symbol was experiencing declining demand for its products; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements concerning the Company's financial prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis at all relevant times. As the market learned the true information about Symbol, the inflation caused by Defendants' misrepresentations was removed and the price of Symbol common stock fell by nearly 50% from its Class Period high. For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/symbol/. ********* 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 2005. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *