/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/050914.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, September 14, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 182
Headlines
ACCREDITED HOME: IL Court Denies Interlocutory Appeal Petition
ACCREDITED HOME: Working To Settle CA Consolidated Employee Suit
ALAMOSA PCS: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement
ALAMOSA HOLDINGS: Appeals Court Upholds TX Stock Suit Dismissal
AT&T WIRELESS: Opt-Out Deadline In NY Suit Set October 2005
AVAYA INC.: Implements Settlement of Consumer Fraud Litigation
AVAYA INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuits in NJ
AVAYA INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
BEMIS CO.: Discovery Proceeds in PA Labelstock Antitrust Lawsuit
CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Launch Consolidated Suit in MN
CROSS COUNTRY: MedStaff Unit Faces Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA
DOLMAR POWER: Recalls 1.3T Chain Saws Due to Injury Hazard
E-Z-GO: Recalls 60T Golf Cars, Personnel Carriers For Fire Risk
INSTINET GROUP: DE Court Allows Expedited Proceedings in Lawsuit
INTERSTATE BAKERIES: MO Judge Gives Final OK for $18M Settlement
KPMG LLP: Settles Suit by Gemstar-TV Guide Shareholders For $25M
MAKITA U.S.A.: Recalls 3,400 Chain Saws Because of Injury Hazard
MANTRA FILMS: CA Judge Grants Class Status to Suit Over Videos
MEGAMANIA INTERACTIVE: SEC Lodges Suit Over Manipulation Scheme
MERCK & CO.: Law Firm Files Vioxx Lawsuit on Behalf of Canadians
NETWORK ENGINES: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
NETWORK ENGINES: Discovery Begins in MA Securities Fraud Lawsuit
NJ AFFORDABLE: SEC Files Emergency Action To Halt Fraud, Scheme
OPENTV CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
PEOPLES ENERGY: IL Court Partially Dismisses Consumer Lawsuit
PHARMACYCARDS.COM: Reaches Pact For FTC's Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
PNM RESOURCES: Seeks Dismissal of CA Antitrust Suit Cross-Claim
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss OK Consumer Suit
PRESTO TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Final Judgments Entered in SEC Action
PSS WORLD: Firm, Subsidiary, Officers Settle Hirsch Case in FL
RELIANT ENERGY: NV Court Dismisses Natural Gas Antitrust Lawsuit
RELIANT ENERGY: Faces Consolidated Energy Antitrust Suit in CA
SHOPPING.COM: Shareholders Launch CA Fraud Suit V. eBay Merger
STAR GAS: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in CT
TITLE INSURANCE: Settlement Reached in Insurance Premiums Suit
USI HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs File Amended Consolidated NJ RICO Suit
WILLIAM LYON: DE Court Certifies Consolidated Shareholder Suit
WILLIAM LYON: Plaintiffs Dismiss Consolidated CA Investor Suit
WINK COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
ZHONE TECHNOLOGIES: NJ Court Partially Dismisses Stock Lawsuit
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
New Securities Fraud Cases
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Leo W. Desmond Lodges Securities Suit in OH
AVON PRODUCTS: Ademi & O'Relly Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
BUCA INC.: Leo W. Desmond Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
DHB INDUSTRIES: Ademi & O'Relly Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY
DHB INDUSTRIES: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NY
DHB INDUSTRIES: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
HOST AMERICA: Shepherd Finkelman Provides Litigation Updates
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in MN
MANNATECH INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NM
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Goodkind Labaton Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
RED ROBIN: Ademi & O'Relly Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
RED ROBIN: Leo W. Desmond Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Goodkind Labaton Sets Plaintiff Deadline
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Ademi & O'Relly Files Securities Suit in NY
*********
ACCREDITED HOME: IL Court Denies Interlocutory Appeal Petition
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Madison County, Illinois refused
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.'s petition for an interlocutory
appeal of its ruling granting class certification to the lawsuit
filed against the Company, styled "Wratchford et al. v.
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.
The suit was filed in December 2002 under the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the consumer
protection statutes of the other states in which the Company
does business. The complaint alleges that the Company has a
practice of misrepresenting and inflating the amount of fees it
pays to third parties in connection with the residential
mortgage loans that it funds. The plaintiffs claim to represent
a nationwide class consisting of others similarly situated, that
is, those who paid the Company to pay, or reimburse its payments
of, third-party fees in connection with residential mortgage
loans and never received a refund for the difference between
what they paid and what was actually paid to the third party.
The plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages on behalf of
themselves and the class, in addition to pre-judgment interest,
post-judgment interest, and any other relief the court may
grant.
On January 28, 2005, the court issued an order conditionally
certifying a class of Illinois residents with respect to the
alleged violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act and a nationwide class with respect to an
unjust enrichment cause of action included in the original
complaint. The court conditioned its order on the outcome of a
case pending before the Illinois Supreme Court in which one of
the issues is the propriety of certifying a nationwide class
based on alleged violations of other state laws similar to the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
The Company filed a petition to have the court certify an
interlocutory appeal of the class certification decision, but
the court has denied the petition. In a filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company said that it
continues to believe the court erred in certifying any class in
this matter, and intends to petition the Illinois Supreme Court
for a supervisory order reversing the lower court's class
certification decision.
ACCREDITED HOME: Working To Settle CA Consolidated Employee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. is working on a settlement for the
class action filed against it in California Superior Court in
Sacramento County, styled "Yturralde v. Accredited Home Lenders,
Inc."
The complaint alleges that the Company violated California and
federal law by misclassifying the plaintiff, formerly a
commissioned loan officer for the Company, as an exempt employee
and failed to pay the plaintiff on an hourly basis and for
overtime worked. The plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of
himself and all of our other similarly situated current and
former employees, lost wages and benefits, general damages,
multiple statutory penalties and interest, attorneys' fees and
costs of suit, and also seeks to enjoin further violations of
wage and overtime laws and retaliation against employees who
complain about such violations.
The Company has been served with eleven substantially similar
complaints on behalf of certain other former and current
employees, which have been consolidated with the Yturralde
action.
In addition, prior to the passage of Proposition 64 in
California, a private individual who was not a current or former
employee of an employer could bring an action to enforce certain
provisions of California law against that employer. Such an
action had been filed and served upon the Company; however, in
light of the passage of California Proposition 64, this
complaint was dismissed with prejudice. The Company has
appealed the court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration
of the consolidated cases, and a resolution of that appeal is
not expected before early 2006. In the meantime, discussions
are ongoing between the parties regarding potential settlement
or mediation of the claims, and the Company has pursued and
effected settlements directly with many current and former
employees covered by the allegations of the complaints.
ALAMOSA PCS: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Alamosa PC
Holdings, Inc., styled "In re Alamosa PCS Holdings Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, docket No. 01 Civ.
11235," arising out of its initial public offering (IPO).
Various underwriters of the IPO also are named as defendants in
the suit.
The action against us is one of more than 300 related class
actions which have been consolidated and are pending in the same
court. The complainants seek to recover damages and allege,
among other things, that the registration statement and
prospectus filed with the SEC for purposes of the IPO were false
and misleading because they failed to disclose that the
underwriters allegedly:
(1) solicited and received commissions from certain
investors in exchange for allocating to them shares of
common stock in connection with the IPO, and
(2) entered into agreements with their customers to
allocate such stock to those customers in exchange for
the customers agreeing to purchase additional Company
shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.
On February 19, 2003, the Court granted motions by the Company
and 115 other issuers to dismiss the claims under Rule 10b-5 of
the Exchange Act which had been asserted against them. The Court
denied the motions by the Company and virtually all of the other
issuers to dismiss the claims asserted against them under
Section 11 of the Securities Act.
The issuers in the IPO cases, including the Company, have
reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle
the claims asserted by the plaintiffs against them. Under the
terms of the proposed settlement, the insurance carriers for the
issuers will pay the plaintiffs the difference between $1
billion and all amounts which the plaintiffs recover from the
underwriter defendants by way of settlement or judgment.
Accordingly, no payment on behalf of the issuers under the
proposed settlement will be made by the issuers themselves. The
claims against the issuers will be dismissed, and the issuers
and their officers and directors will receive releases from the
plaintiffs. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the
issuers will also assign to plaintiffs certain claims which they
may have against the underwriters arising out of the Company's
IPO, and the issuers will also agree not to assert certain other
claims which they may have against the underwriters, without
plaintiffs' consent. The proposed settlement is subject to
agreement among the parties on final settlement documents and
the approval of the court. The court has issued a decision and
order which preliminarily approves the settlement as to the
issuers.
The suit is styled "In re Alamosa PCS Holdings Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, docket No. 01 Civ. 11235,"
related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira A.
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
ALAMOSA HOLDINGS: Appeals Court Upholds TX Stock Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed
plaintiffs' appeal of a lower court's dismissal of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Alamosa
Holdings, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors.
In November and December 2003 and January 2004, multiple
lawsuits were filed against the Company and David E. Sharbutt,
its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Kendall W. Cowan, its
Chief Financial Officer and Steven Richardson, its Chief
Operating Officer, on behalf of a putative class of persons who
and/or entities that purchased Alamosa Holdings' securities
between January 9, 2001 and June 13, 2002, inclusive, and seeks
recovery of compensatory damages, fees and costs. Each lawsuit
was filed in the United Stated District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, in either the Lubbock Division or the Dallas
Division. On February 27, 2004, the lawsuits were consolidated
into one action pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division, styled
"Massachusetts State Guaranteed Annuity Fund, et. al. v. Alamosa
Holdings, et. al., case no. 5:03-cv-289-c." On March 4, 2004,
the Court appointed the Massachusetts State Guaranteed Annuity
Fund to serve as lead plaintiff and approved its selection of
lead counsel for the consolidated action.
On May 18, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint. The consolidated complaint names three of the
original defendants (the Company, David Sharbutt and Kendall
Cowan), drops one of the original defendants (Steven Richardson)
and names two new defendants who are outside directors (Michael
Roberts and Steven Roberts). The putative class period remains
the same. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act. The consolidated complaint seeks recovery of compensatory
damages, fees, costs, rescission or rescissory damages in
connection with the Sections 11 and 15 claims, and injunctive
relief and/or disgorgement in connection with defendants'
alleged insider trading proceeds.
At the end of the putative class period on June 13, 2002, the
Company announced that its projection of net subscriber
additions for the second quarter of 2002 would be less than
previously projected. The consolidated complaint alleges, among
other things, that the Company made false and misleading
statements about subscriber additions during the putative class
period. The consolidated complaint also alleges that its
financial statements were false and misleading because the
Company improperly recognized revenue and failed to record
adequate allowances for uncollectible receivables.
The Company asked the court to dismiss the consolidated suit.
On March 28, 2005, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and entered a judgment dismissing this action. On April
22, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the
dismissal order and judgment to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals. On May 17, 2005, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
dismissed the appeal pursuant to the unopposed motion of lead
plaintiff/appellant.
The suit is styled "Massachusetts State Guaranteed Annuity Fund,
et al v. Alamosa Holdings, Inc., case no. 5:03-cv-00289," filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, under Judge Sam R. Cummings. Representing the Company is
George W. Bramblett, Jr., Haynes & Boone - Dallas, 901 Main St,
Suite 3100, Dallas, TX 75202-3789, Phone: 214/651-5000, Fax:
214/651-5940, E-mail: george.bramblett@haynesboone.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are Jason B. Stephens, Stephens &
Anderson, 4200 W Vickery Blvd, Fort Worth, TX 76107, Phone:
817/920-9000, Fax: 817/920-9016, E-mail:
jason@stephensanderson.com; and Roger F. Claxton, Claxton &
Hill, 3131 McKinney Ave, Suite 700 LB 103, Dallas, TX 75204-
2471, Phone: 214/969-9029, Fax: 214/953-0583, E-mail:
claxtonhill@airmail.net.
AT&T WIRELESS: Opt-Out Deadline In NY Suit Set October 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. in New York City
informs investors who purchased AT&T Wireless Tracking Stock
between April 26, 2000 and May 1, 2000, inclusive, that the
deadline to opt out of the class action is October 6, 2005.
The AT&T Wireless class action lawsuit, In re AT&T Wireless
Tracking Stock Securities Litigation, is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (500 Pearl
Street, New York, New York), Docket No. 00-CV-8754 (MGC) and is
assigned to the Honorable Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, U.S.
District Judge.
The Class Action Complaint alleges that the defendants, AT&T
Corporation (NYSE:T) and C. Michael Armstrong, violated the
federal securities laws by failing to disclose certain material
adverse trends in AT&T's business in the Prospectus for the AT&T
Wireless Tracking Stock initial public offering. Motions by
these defendants to dismiss the class action claims have been
denied by a federal court.
The class action lawsuit seeks to recover investors' losses
resulting from defendants' alleged misrepresentations and
omissions concerning AT&T Corporation's business in the
Prospectus.
Investors who bought AT&T Wireless Tracking Stock during the
period April 26, 2000 through May 1, 2000 have until October 6,
2005 to opt out of the class action by sending written notice to
AT&T Wireless Securities Litigation, c/o Gilardi & Co., P.O. Box
808061, Petaluma, CA 94975-8061. The written request for
exclusion must include the investor's full name and address and
be signed by the investor who wishes to opt out.
Investors who do not opt out of the class action will be bound
by any judgment (and any portion thereof) in the class action,
regardless of whether the judgment is favorable to the class.
Investors who wish to remain members of the class need do
nothing at the present time. Investors who incurred losses in
connection with the purchase of AT&T Wireless stock may
participate in the class action or file their own case
regardless of whether they sold their AT&T Wireless stock at any
time.
For more details, contact Christopher J. Gray of Law Office of
Christopher J. Gray, P.C., 460 Park Ave., 21st Floor, New York,
NY 10022, Phone: (212) 838-3221, Fax: (212) 937-3139, E-mail:
newcases@cjgraylaw.com, Web site:
http://www.gilardi.com/pdf/awes1not.pdf.
AVAYA INC.: Implements Settlement of Consumer Fraud Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avaya, Inc. has implemented the settlement of three separate
purported class action lawsuits filed against Lucent, the
Company's former parent, one in state court in West Virginia,
one in federal court in the Southern District of New York and
another in federal court in the Southern District of California.
The case in New York was filed in January 1999 and, after being
dismissed, was re-filed in September 2000. The case in West
Virginia was filed in April 1999 and the case in California was
filed in June 1999, and amended in 2000 to include the Company
as a defendant. The Company has assumed Lucent's obligations for
all of these cases under the Contribution and Distribution
Agreement between the Company and Lucent, which sets forth the
agreements between it and Lucent with respect to the principal
corporate transactions required to effect the distribution (the
"Contribution and Distribution Agreement").
All three actions are based upon claims that Lucent sold
products that were not Year 2000 compliant, meaning that the
products were designed and developed without considering the
possible impact of the change in the calendar from December 31,
1999 to January 1, 2000. The complaints allege that the sale of
these products violated statutory consumer protection laws and
constituted breaches of implied warranties.
A class was certified in the West Virginia State court matter.
The certified class in the West Virginia matter includes those
persons or entities that purchased, leased or financed the
products in question. In addition, the court also certified as a
subclass all class members who had service protection plans or
other service or extended warranty contracts with Lucent in
effect as of April 1, 1998, as to which Lucent failed to offer a
free Year 2000-compliant solution.
The federal court in the New York action has issued a decision
and order denying class certification, dismissing all but
certain fraud claims by one representative plaintiff. No class
claims remain in this case at this time. The federal court in
the California action also issued an opinion and order granting
class certification. The class includes any entities that
purchased or leased certain products on or after January 1,
1990, excluding those entities that did not have a New Jersey
choice of law provision in their contracts and those who did not
purchase equipment directly from defendants. The federal court
in the California action issued an order staying the action
pending the outcome of the West Virginia matter.
In May 2004, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs in all of the above-described actions. Under
the general terms of the agreement, eligible class members who
acquired certain products between 1990 and 1999 may receive
credits up to $110 million or a cash alternative. The credits
are valid for a three-year period and can be applied toward a 45
percent discount on purchases of new Avaya products and/or a 30
percent discount on Avaya maintenance services. Alternatively,
eligible class members may receive a one-time cash payment equal
to 25 percent of the credits to which they may be entitled. The
state court in West Virginia approved the settlement in July
2004 and issued an order of final approval of the settlement.
The claims process commenced in August 2004 and the time period
for filing claims expired in October 2004. The Company has
notified eligible class members of the amounts that they are
eligible to receive under the settlement.
AVAYA INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuits in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avaya, Inc. and certain of its officers face several securities
class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, alleging violations of the
federal securities laws. The actions purport to be filed on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
period from October 5, 2004 (the date of the Company's signing
of the agreement to acquire Tenovis) through April 19, 2005.
The complaints, which are substantially similar to one another,
allege, among other things, that the plaintiffs were injured by
reason of certain allegedly false and misleading statements made
by us relating to the cost of the Tenovis integration, the
disruption caused by changes in the delivery of our products to
the market and reductions in the demand for the Company's
products in the U.S., and that based on the foregoing the
Company had no basis to project its stated revenue goals for
fiscal 2005. The Company has been served with a number of these
complaints. No class has been certified in the actions. The
complaints seek compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys' fees.
AVAYA INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avaya, Inc. faces a class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging
violations of certain laws under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The suit also names as defendants
certain of the Company's officers, employees and members of the
Company's Board of Directors.
The action purports to be filed on behalf of all participants
and beneficiaries of the Avaya Inc. Savings Plan, the Avaya Inc.
Savings Plan for Salaried Employees and the Avaya Inc. Savings
Plan for the Variable Workforce (collectively, the "Plans"),
during the period from October 5, 2004 through July 20, 2005.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the named
defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to participants
and beneficiaries of the Plans and failed to act in the
interests of the Plans' participants and beneficiaries in
offering Avaya common stock as an investment option, purchasing
Avaya common stock for the Plans and communicating information
to the Plans' participants and beneficiaries. As of this time,
defendants have not been served with this complaint. No class
has been certified in the action. The complaint seeks a
monetary payment to the plans to make them whole for the alleged
breaches, costs and attorneys' fees.
BEMIS CO.: Discovery Proceeds in PA Labelstock Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated class action filed
against Bemis Co., Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Morgan
Adhesives Company, in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Fifteen civil lawsuits were initially filed, five of which
purport to represent a nationwide class of labelstock
purchasers. The suits allege a conspiracy to fix prices within
the self-adhesive labelstock industry.
On November 5, 2003, the Judicial Panel on MultiDistrict
Litigation (JPMDL) issued a decision consolidating all of the
federal class actions for pretrial purposes in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, before
the Honorable Chief Judge Vanaskie. Judge Vanaskie entered an
order which calls for discovery to be taken on the issues
relating to class certification and briefing on plaintiffs'
motion for class certification to be completed in November 2005.
At this time, a discovery cut-off and a trial date have not been
set.
The Company has also been named in four lawsuits filed in the
California Superior Court in San Francisco. Three of these
lawsuits seek to represent a class of all California indirect
purchasers of labelstock and each alleged a conspiracy to fix
prices within the self-adhesive labelstock industry. These
three lawsuits have been consolidated. The fourth lawsuit seeks
to represent a class of California direct purchasers of
labelstock and alleges a conspiracy to fix prices within the
self-adhesive labelstock industry.
Finally, the Company has been named in one lawsuit in Vermont,
seeking to represent a class of all Vermont indirect purchasers
of labelstock, one lawsuit in Ohio, seeking to represent a class
of all Ohio indirect purchasers of labelstock, one lawsuit in
Nebraska seeking to represent a class of all Nebraska indirect
purchasers of labelstock, one lawsuit in Kansas seeking to
represent a class of all Kansas indirect purchasers of
labelstock, one lawsuit in Tennessee, seeking to represent a
class of purchasers of labelstock in various jurisdictions, and
one lawsuit in Arizona seeking to represent a class of Arizona
indirect purchasers of labelstock, all alleging a conspiracy to
fix prices within the self-adhesive labelstock industry.
CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Launch Consolidated Suit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ceridian Corporation and certain of its executive officers face
a consolidated securities class action filed in the United
States District Court, District of Minnesota. Six suits were
initially filed, styled:
(1) Edmund Biancarelli v. Ceridian Corp., et al.,
(2) Garco Investments v. Ceridian Corp., et al.,
(3) Ellen Lear v. Ceridian Corp., et al.,
(4) Bruce Valentine Mickan v. Ceridian Corp., et al.,
(5) Richard Shaller v. Ceridian Corp., et al.,
(6) Sharon Zaks v. Ceridian Corp., et al.
The complaints for these actions are virtually identical. These
actions purport to be class actions filed on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of the
company between April 17, 2003 through and including July 19,
2004, and allege claims against the company and certain of its
officers under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs challenge the accuracy of
certain public disclosures made by Ceridian regarding its
financial performance, and in particular Ceridian's accounting
for revenue at its Stored Value Systems business unit and
accounting for capitalization and expensing of certain costs in
Ceridian's U.S. Human Resource Solutions business.
The suit is styled In Re: Ceridian Corp Securities Litigation,
et al v. et al, case no. 0:97-cv-02044-MJD-JGL," filed in the
United States District Court in Minnesota under Judge Michael J.
Davis.
Representing the Company are:
(1) Craig W. Gagnon, Michael E. Keyes, Oppenheimer Wolff &
Donnelly LLP, 3300 Plz VII Bldg, 45 S 7th St Ste 3300,
Mpls, MN 55402, Phone: (612) 607-7000, Fax: 612-607-
7100, E-mail: cgagnon@oppenheimer.com or
mkeyes@oppenheimer.com
(2) Gregory Paul Joseph, Joseph Law Office, 805 3rd Ave
31st Fl, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-407-1200, Fax:
1-212-407-1280 (fax), E-mail: gjoseph@josephnyc.com
(3) Amy J. Longo, O'Melveny & Myers, 610 Newport Center Dt
17th Fl, Newport Beach, CA 92660, Phone: 949-760-9600,
Fax: 1-949-823-6994
(4) Ann Curme Shaw, Ceridian Corp, 3311 E Old Shakopee Rd
Mpls, MN 55425, Phone: 952-853-4210, Fax: 952-853-3413,
E-mail: ann.c.shaw@ceridian.com
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(1) Chestnut & Cambronne, P.A., 3700 Piper Jaffray Tower,
222 South Ninth Street, Minneapolis, MN, 55402, Phone:
612.339.730,
(2) Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P., Suite 301, 660
Pennsylvania Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC, 20003-
4335, Phone: 202.544.9840, Fax: 202.544.9850,
(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) 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
(5) Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C., Philadelphia, PA,
Phone: 800.993.3233, E-mail: sfprpc@op.net
CROSS COUNTRY: MedStaff Unit Faces Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Country Healthcare Inc.'s MedStaff subsidiary faces a
purported class action lawsuit filed on February 18, 2005 in the
Superior Court of California in Riverside County. The lawsuit
only relates to MedStaff corporate employees.
The suit alleges, among other things, violations of certain
sections of the California Labor Code, the California Business
and Professions Code, and recovery of unpaid wages and
penalties. MedStaff currently has less than 50 corporate
employees in California. The plaintiffs, Maureen Petray and
Carina Higareda purport to sue on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, allege that MedStaff:
(1) failed, under California law, to provide meal period
and rest breaks and pay for those missed meal periods
and rest breaks;
(2) failed to compensate the employees for all hours
worked;
(3) failed to compensate the employees for working
overtime; and
(4) failed to keep appropriate records to keep track of
time worked
Plaintiffs request, among other things, an order enjoining
MedStaff from engaging in the practices challenged in the
complaint; for an order for full restitution of all monies
MedStaff allegedly failed to pay plaintiffs and their purported
class; for interest; for certain penalties provided for by the
California Labor Code; and for attorneys' fees and costs. The
lawsuit is in its very early stages and has not yet been
certified by the court as a class action.
DOLMAR POWER: Recalls 1.3T Chain Saws Due to Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), DOLMAR Power Products, of Duluth, Georgia is voluntarily
recalling about 1,300 units of DOLMAR chain saws.
According to the company, the flywheels on some of the chain
saws may come apart during use, which could cause serious
personal injury. DOLMAR has received three reports of the
flywheel coming apart. There have been no reports of injury.
The recall involves DOLMAR PS6400 and PS7900-model chain saws in
which the last five digits of the serial numbers are within the
following ranges:
Chain saw Model = Serial Number Range
PS6400 = 71998 through 79250
PS7900 = 40156 through 43009
The chain saw's housing is "warm red" with "DOLMAR" written on
it. The chain saw's serial number can be found on the right hand
side of the silver nameplate which is located on the back of the
fuel tank. No other DOLMAR chain saws are involved in the
recall. Any PS6400 or PS7900 chain saws with the letter "N"
preceding the serial number on the nameplate and a blue dot on
the shipping carton have been repaired and are not involved in
the recall.
Manufactured in Germany, the chain saws were sold at all outdoor
power equipment distributors and industrial suppliers nationwide
from October 2004 through August 2005 for between $570 and $750.
Consumers should stop using these chain saws immediately and
contact DOLMAR to arrange for a free repair. Known purchasers
were sent direct mail notification of this recall.
Consumer Contact: For more information, call DOLMAR toll-free at
(888) 673-7278 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit their Web site: http://www.dolmarusa.com.
E-Z-GO: Recalls 60T Golf Cars, Personnel Carriers For Fire Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), E-Z-GO, of Augusta, Georgia - A Textron Company is
voluntarily recalling about 60,000 units of E-Z-GO 2002-2005
gasoline-powered Fleet and Freedom Golf Cars, and Shuttle 2+2
Personnel Carriers.
According to the firm, high engine temperatures can permit fuel
to get into the air filter box, posing a risk of fire. There
have been 12 reports of fire involving these gasoline-powered
golf cars. There have been no injuries reported.
The recall involves certain model year 2002 through 2005 E-Z-GO
Fleet and E-Z-GO Freedom gasoline-powered golf cars and Shuttle
2+2 personnel carriers. The model names for the recalled
products are TXT, Freedom and Shuttle 2+2. The model names are
printed on the sides of the Freedom and Shuttle 2+2 vehicles,
and the E-Z-GO logo is on the front of all three vehicles. The
recalled vehicles have 9-horsepower engines and serial numbers
ranging from 1451059 through 2341739. The serial numbers of
early production vehicles are found on plates located on the
passenger side dash housing. The serial numbers of late
production vehicles are found on plates located on the body
below the driver's seat and on the chassis between the seat back
supports.
Manufactured in the United States, the products were sold at E-
Z-GO and independent dealers from January 2002 through August
2005 with a manufacturer's suggested retail price ranging
between $6,400 and $8,800.
Owners of the recalled golf cars should contact the nearest E-Z-
GO dealer to arrange for a free repair. E-Z-GO and E-Z-GO
dealers will contact known owners to schedule an appointment for
a free repair.
Consumer Contact: For more information, consumers can contact E-
Z-GO at (800) 241-5855 Ext. 4558 between 8:30 am and 4:30 pm ET
Monday through Friday, or visit their Web site:
http://www.ezgo.com.
INSTINET GROUP: DE Court Allows Expedited Proceedings in Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery in and for New Castle County
allowed expedited proceedings in the consolidated class action
filed against Instinet Group, Inc., each of our directors and
Reuters.
In April and May 2005, four suits were initially filed. The
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed one of the lawsuits. The
remaining lawsuits, styled "Donovan Spamer, et al. v. Instinet
Group, Inc., et al. (Filing ID 5675328; filed on April 22,
2005)," "Caroline Weisz, et al. v. Instinet Group, Inc., et al.
(Filing ID 5773404; filed on May 9, 2005)" and "Dr. Lee J.
Pittman, et al. v. Instinet Group Inc., et al. (Filing ID
5773404; filed May 9, 2005)" were filed on behalf of all
stockholders other than the defendants and were consolidated
under the caption "In re Instinet Group, Inc. Shareholders
Litigation, Civil Action No. 1289-N)."
On June 22, 2005, plaintiffs, through their counsel, filed a
consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated action is being
brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of stockholders
of the company who are not affiliated with the defendants. The
amended complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants
breached their fiduciary duties as to the Company's public
stockholders in connection with the proposed merger by approving
the transaction at an allegedly unfair and inadequate price. The
amended complaint seeks, among other things, class action
status, an injunction against consummation of the merger,
invalidation of certain provisions of the merger agreement,
damages in an unspecified amount, rescission in the event the
merger is consummated and attorney's fees.
Plaintiffs filed for expedited proceedings, which the Court
granted on June 29, 2005. The Court has scheduled a preliminary
injunction hearing for September 13, 2005.
INTERSTATE BAKERIES: MO Judge Gives Final OK for $18M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Fernando Gaitan, Jr. signed a final order
approving the $18 million settlement of a class action
shareholder lawsuit filed against Interstate Bakeries
Corporation and three former executives, The Kansas City Star
reports.
The suit alleged that in an earnings conference call in 2002,
Charles Sullivan, the company's former chairman and chief
executive officer, Frank Coffey, then its chief financial
officer, and James Elsesser, who succeeded Sullivan as CEO,
misled Wall Street and investors about the health of the
company.
Signed by the Judge Gaitan recently, the settlement covers
investors who bought Interstate's stock between April 2, 2002,
and April 8, 2003. The settlement, in which the defendants
denied any wrongdoing, provides for an insurance policy from
which Interstate can pay $15 million of the settlement. In
addition, the company would pay the remaining $3 million as it
emerges from Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.
Court records show that Interstate filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection a year ago after experiencing declining
sales amid high fixed costs. Later, a series of events led to an
inability to file required financial statements with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit will
receive 25 percent of the settlement, or $4.5 million. Previous
court documents estimated that before attorneys' fees, the
plaintiffs would receive about 68 cents per share. During the
class action period, Interstate's stock traded at a high of
$29.10 a share and a low of $9.03.
The settlement culminates seven class action lawsuits filed in
early 2003 that later were consolidated. All made the same
general allegations - that in the 2002 conference call company
officials told stock analysts and investors that sales of snack
cakes were rebounding. But in a conference call three months
later, the officials said that sales of such products had fallen
markedly, causing a one-day 35 percent drop in Interstate's
stock.
Meanwhile, according to court documents, three days after the
first conference call, specifically, between September 20, 2002
and October 16, 2002, seven officers and directors of
Interstate, including Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Coffey, sold 290,300
shares of the company for gross proceeds of $7.48 million and at
an average price of $25.77 a share.
The suit is styled, Smith v. Interstate Bakeries Corp. et al,
Case No. 4:03-cv-00142-FJG, which was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri, the
Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan Jr., presiding. Gustavo F. Bruckner
of Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, 270 Madison Ave.,
Suite 900, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 545-4600, Fax:
(212) 545-4653, E-mail: Bruckner@whafh.com and Tim Eugene Dollar
of The Law Offices of Tim Dollar, LC, 1100 Main St., Suite 2600,
Kansas City, MO 64105, Phone: (816) 876-2600, Fax:
(816) 221-8763, E-mail: timd@dollar-law.com, are representing
the Plaintiff/s. Daniel Bukovac of Stinson, Morrison, Hecker,
LLP, 1201 Walnut St., Suite 2800, Kansas City, MO 64106, Phone:
(816) 842-8600 Fax: (816) 474-4208, Email:
dbukovac@stinsonmoheck.com and Ralph C. Ferrara of Debevoise &
Plimpton, 555 Thirteenth St., NW Suite 1100, Washington, DC
20004, Phone: (202) 383-8020.
KPMG LLP: Settles Suit by Gemstar-TV Guide Shareholders For $25M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Accounting firm KPMG, LLP, settled a class action lawsuit
brought by shareholders of Gemstar-TV Guide International Inc.
for $25 million, Bloomberg News reports.
According to a lawyer for the plaintiffs, who is with the law
firm of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, LLP, the $25
million settlement includes $10 million, which KPMG agreed to
pay last year to settle with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Court records show that KPMG was the auditor for Gemstar, the
Los Angeles-based publisher of TV Guide, from September 1999
through March 2002, when the company overstated revenue by
nearly $250 million. Last year, Gemstar settled the shareholder
lawsuit for $67.5 million in cash and stock.
MAKITA U.S.A.: Recalls 3,400 Chain Saws Because of Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Makita U.S.A. Inc., of La Mirada, California is
voluntarily recalling about 3,400 units of Makita Chain Saws.
According to the firm, the flywheels on some of the chain saws
can come apart during use, which could cause serious personal
injury. Makita has received three reports of the flywheel coming
apart. There have been no reports of injury.
The recall involves Makita DCS6401 and DCS7901-model chain saws
in which the last five digits of the serial numbers are within
the following ranges:
Chain saw Model = Serial Number Range
DCS6401 = 41915 through 45612
= 81722 through 82057
DCS7901 = 31182 through 31491
The chain saw's housing is teal with the name "Makita" written
on it. The chain saw's serial number can be found on the right
hand side of the silver nameplate which is located on the back
of the fuel tank. No other Makita chain saws are involved in the
recall. Any DCS6401 or DCS7901 chain saws with the letter "N"
preceding the serial number on the nameplate and a blue dot on
the shipping carton have been repaired and are not involved in
the recall.
Manufactured in Germany, the chain saws were sold at all outdoor
power equipment distributors and industrial contractor supply
houses nationwide sold these chain saws from October 2004
through August 2005 for between $520 and $730.
Consumers should stop using these recalled chain saws
immediately and contact Makita to arrange for a free repair.
Known purchasers were sent direct mail notification of this
recall.
Consumer Contact: For more information, call Makita toll-free at
(866) 714-3860, Ext.232 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, or visit their Web site:
http://www.makitatools.com.
MANTRA FILMS: CA Judge Grants Class Status to Suit Over Videos
--------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Wendell Mortimer, Jr. granted
class action status to a lawsuit that charges consumers were
wrongfully charged for Girls Gone Wild videotapes and DVDs, thus
clearing the way for the suit to proceed, The
ConsumerAffairs.com reports. The widely advertised videos
feature footage of scantily clad teen-aged girls.
The suit alleges that Mantra Films Inc. automatically signed
customers up for monthly mailings after they requested a
reduced-price "introductory" mailing, court records show.
In one of hundreds of complaints received by
ConsumerAffairs.com, Jeremy of Marysville, Ohio, said, "I
ordered a video off the TV offer for $10 and every month now I
receive a video and they charge my credit card $25 and I do not
want the videos. I've tried contacting them to cancel it."
Richard Doherty, an attorney with Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates,
one of the attorneys representing consumers, told
ConsumerAffairs.com, "This is the old negative option scheme."
He also said, "The class consists of all persons who were
charged by the defendants for videotapes or DVDs for which
defendant did not have the consumer's express consent."
MEGAMANIA INTERACTIVE: SEC Lodges Suit Over Manipulation Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil lawsuit
against MegaMania Interactive Inc., a Pink Sheet company based
in Houston, Texas; its CEO, George W. Bogle, Jr.; Mia Venture
Capital, LLC, a stock-promotion firm; and Peter Emmanuel, the
owner of Mia Venture Capital. The complaint alleges that the
defendants engaged in a fraudulent promotional campaign,
involving false press releases, spam emails, bulk faxes, and an
Internet-based research report, to manipulate the market in
MegaMania's stock. Concurrent with the fraudulent promotional
campaign, which inflated MegaMania's stock price by over 120%,
Mr. Bogle sold approximately 118,000 MegaMania shares into the
market through an intermediary for about $92,000, and Mr.
Emmanuel sold approximately 452,000 MegaMania shares into the
market for proceeds of approximately $364,950.
The SEC's complaint alleges that MegaMania, Mr. Bogle, Mr.
Emmanuel, and Mia Venture Capital violated Sections 5(a), 5(c),
and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The
SEC is seeking a permanent injunction, disgorgement plus
prejudgment interest, and a civil money penalty against each
defendant and further seeking a penny-stock bar against Mr.
Bogle and Emmanuel. The suit is styled, SEC v. MegaMania
Interactive, Inc., et al., U.S.D.C./S.D. Tex., Case No. 4:05-cv-
03134 (LR-19369).
MERCK & CO.: Law Firm Files Vioxx Lawsuit on Behalf of Canadians
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, Ltd. filed the
first class action lawsuit on behalf of all citizens of Canada
who allegedly died or were seriously injured by the pain
medication Vioxx.
The suit accuses United States pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co.
of failing to properly research the known risks of Vioxx and
warn Canadian consumers of potentially fatal side effects.
"Vioxx should never have been marketed in the first place," said
Kenneth B. Moll, whose firm filed the first worldwide class
action regarding Vioxx last fall.
On September 30, 2004, Merck withdrew Vioxx from all worldwide
markets after studies showed a three-fold risk of heart attack
and stroke. "Merck's decision to withdraw Vioxx from the market
came years after the company first learned of the health risks,"
said Mr. Moll. "Countless individuals in Canada and around the
world have suffered severe and fatal injuries which could have
been avoided if Merck had acted responsibly." On August 19,
2005, a Texas jury awarded $253.5 million to a widow of a man
who died after taking Vioxx. "The verdict clearly shows Merck's
culpability in their decision to put profits ahead of the safety
of their consumers," said Mr. Moll.
For more details, contact Tiffany Donnelly of Kenneth B. Moll &
Associates, Ltd., Phone: 312-558-6444, Fax: 312-558-1112, Web
site: http://www.kbmoll.com.
NETWORK ENGINES: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Network
Engines, Inc., Lawrence A. Genovesi (the Company's Chairman and
former Chief Executive Officer), Douglas G. Bryant (the
Company's Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance
and Administration), and the following underwriters of our
initial public offering:
(1) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,
(2) Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.,
(3) Goldman Sachs & Co.,
(4) Lehman Brothers, Inc. and
(5) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.
An amended class action complaint, captioned In re Network
Engines, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 01
Civ. 10894 (SAS), was filed on April 20, 2002. The suit alleges
that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
issuing and selling securities pursuant to the Company's initial
public offering in July 2000, or IPO, without disclosing to
investors that the underwriter defendants had solicited and
received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
investors. The suit also alleges that the underwriter
defendants entered into agreements with certain customers
whereby the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate to those
customers shares of the Company's common stock in the offering,
in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
additional shares of common stock in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices.
The suit alleges that such tie-in arrangements were designed to
and did maintain, distort and/or inflate the price of our common
stock in the aftermarket. The suit further alleges that the
underwriter defendants received undisclosed and excessive
brokerage commissions and that, as a consequence, the
underwriter defendants successfully increased investor interest
in the manipulated IPO securities and increased the underwriter
defendants' individual and collective underwritings,
compensation and revenues. The suit seeks damages and
certification of a plaintiff class consisting of all persons who
acquired shares of the Company's common stock between July 13,
2000 and December 6, 2000.
In July 2002, Network Engines, Lawrence A. Genovesi and Douglas
G. Bryant joined in an omnibus motion to dismiss challenging the
legal sufficiency of plaintiffs' claims. The motion was filed
on behalf of hundreds of issuer and individual defendants named
in similar lawsuits. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, and the
court heard oral argument on the motion in November 2002. On
February 19, 2003, the court issued an opinion and order denying
the motion as to Network Engines. In addition, in October 2002,
Lawrence A. Genovesi and Douglas G. Bryant were dismissed from
this case without prejudice.
On July 9, 2003, a Special Committee of the Board of Directors
authorized Network Engines to negotiate a settlement of the
pending claims substantially consistent with a memorandum of
understanding negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer
defendants and their insurers. The Company negotiated the
settlement, which provides, among other things, for a release of
Network Engines and the individual defendants for the conduct
alleged in the amended complaint to be wrongful. The company
would agree to undertake other responsibilities under the
settlement, including agreeing to assign, or not assert, certain
potential claims that the Company may have against the
underwriters. On February 15, 2005, the Court issued an Opinion
and Order preliminarily approving the settlement, provided that
the defendants and plaintiffs agree to a modification narrowing
the scope of the bar order set forth in the original settlement
agreement. The settlement is still subject to final court
approval.
The suit is styled " In re Network Engines, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 10894 (SAS)," filed in
relation to "IN re IPO Securities Litigation, 21-MC-92 (Sas),"
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms
in this litigation are:
(i) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
(ii) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300,
(iii) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(iv) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com
(v) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
(vi) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
NETWORK ENGINES: Discovery Begins in MA Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties have begun informal discovery in the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court of Massachusetts against Network Engines, Inc. and certain
individual Network Engines defendants.
The suit generally concerns the timing of the announcement of an
amendment to the Company's agreement with EMC Corporation
regarding the resale of EMC-approved Fibre Channel HBAs. In its
March 17, 2004 order, the court selected Wing Kam Yu, Blake
Kunkel, and Thomas Cunningham as lead plaintiffs and appointed
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (now Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman LLP) as plaintiffs' lead counsel. The lead
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on June 4,
2004. The defendants on August 13, 2004 filed a motion to
dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. The plaintiffs on
October 12, 2004 filed an opposition to the defendants' motion
to dismiss. The defendants filed a reply to the plaintiff's
opposition on November 12, 2004. The court on November 22, 2004
denied the Company's motion to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint. On December 23, 2004, the Defendants filed an answer
to the amended consolidated complaint.
Since that time the parties have engaged in some informal
discovery and, more recently, have exchanged formal discovery
requests. Pursuant to the Court-approved schedule in the case,
the plaintiffs' class certification motion is due on August 5,
2005 and any opposition is due on October 5, 2005. Discovery is
to conclude on or before March 31, 2006.
The suit is styled "Morgan v. Network Engines Inc. et al., case
no. 1:03-cv-12529-JLT," filed in the United States District
Court in Massachusetts, under Judge Joseph L. Tauro. Lawyers
for the defendants are Robin L. Alperstein of Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, 399 Park Avenue, New York, NY
10022, Phone: 212-230-8800, Fax: 212-230-8888; and Daniel W.
Halston and John A. Litwinski, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP, 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
617-526-6654, Fax: 617-526-5000, E-mail:
daniel.halston@wilmerhale.com or john.litwinski@wilmerhale.com.
Lead counsel for the plaintiffs are Rachel S. Fleishman and
Carlos F. Ramirez of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone:
212-594-5300.
NJ AFFORDABLE: SEC Files Emergency Action To Halt Fraud, Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an emergency
enforcement action to halt fraudulent unregistered offerings of
securities and an ongoing Ponzi scheme orchestrated by NJ
Affordable Homes Corporation and its owner and president, Wayne
Puff.
The Commission's complaint alleges that from at least 1999 to
the present, NJ Affordable and Mr. Puff have sold, in
unregistered offerings, at least $40 million in notes to more
than 490 investors located throughout the United States. In
selling the notes, the defendants made, and continue to make,
materially misleading misrepresentations and omissions
concerning investment risk and the nature of NJ Affordable's
business. The Commission alleges that NJ Affordable and Mr. Puff
guaranteed investors high rates of return, between 15% and 20%,
based on promises that NJ Affordable and Mr. Puff would use the
investors' money to fund the purchase, renovation, and resale of
real property. The defendants failed to disclose to investors
that they could not pay such high rates of return, are funding
payments to existing investors by soliciting new investor money,
and are generating fictitious revenue by selling their
properties to insiders, investors, and affiliated entities.
Moreover, the Commission alleges that NJ Affordable and Puff
failed to tell investors that the investment is not as secure as
promised because NJ Affordable and Mr. Puff routinely inflate
the value of the property upon which NJ Affordable granted
mortgage interests.
The complaint charges NJ Affordable and Puff with violating
Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.
In its emergency enforcement action, the Commission is seeking,
among other emergency relief, a temporary restraining order
freezing the assets of NJ Affordable and Puff and appointing a
temporary receiver over NJ Affordable. In addition to this
emergency relief, the Commission also seeks orders enjoining NJ
Affordable and Puff, preliminarily and permanently, from
committing future violations of the foregoing federal securities
laws, and a final judgment ordering NJ Affordable and Mr. Puff
to disgorge ill-gotten gains, and assessing civil penalties. The
suit is styled, SEC v. NJ Affordable Homes Corporation and Wayne
Puff, Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-04403, JLL, D.N.J. (LR-19372).
OPENTV CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the proposed settlement
of the consolidated securities class action filed against OpenTV
Corporation, certain of its officers and directors and certain
investment banks which acted as underwriters for the Company's
initial public offering.
The consolidated suit, styled "In re OpenTV Corp. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," alleges undisclosed and
improper practices concerning the allocation of our initial
public offering shares, in violation of the federal securities
laws, and seek unspecified damages on behalf of persons who
purchased OpenTV Class A ordinary shares during the period from
November 23, 1999 through December 6, 2000. The Court has
appointed a lead plaintiff for the consolidated cases. On April
19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
Other actions have been filed making similar allegations
regarding the initial public offerings of more than 300 other
companies. All of these lawsuits have been coordinated for
pretrial purposes as "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation." Defendants in these cases filed an omnibus motion
to dismiss on common pleading issues. Oral argument on the
omnibus motion to dismiss was held on November 1, 2002. All
claims against the Company's officers and directors have been
dismissed without prejudice in this litigation pursuant to the
parties' stipulation approved by the Court on October 9, 2002.
On February 19, 2003, the Court denied in part and granted in
part the omnibus motion to dismiss filed on behalf of
defendants, including the Company. The Court's Order dismissed
all claims against the Company except for a claim brought under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. The Court has given
plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their claims in order to
state a claim. Plaintiffs have not yet filed an amended
complaint. Plaintiffs and the issuer defendants, including the
Company, have agreed to a settlement, in which plaintiffs will
dismiss and release their claims in exchange for a guaranteed
recovery to be paid by the insurance carriers of the issuer
defendants and an assignment of certain claims.
On February 15, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement contingent on specified modifications.
The suit is styled "In re OpenTV Corporation Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," related to "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Shira A. 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
PEOPLES ENERGY: IL Court Partially Dismisses Consumer Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois state court granted in part Peoples Energy
Corporation's motion to dismiss the amended class action filed
against it and its subsidiary The Peoples Gas and Light Coke
Company, by a Peoples Gas customer alleging, among other things,
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act related to matters at issue in Peoples Gas' gas
reconciliation proceedings. The suit seeks unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages.
On September 22, 2004, the Court granted a motion to dismiss all
counts against Peoples Gas. On October 21, 2004, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint against the Company. On November 22,
2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On April 6, 2005, the Court denied the Company's
motion in part, by allowing to stand the plaintiffs' claims for
violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act and claims that the Company acted in concert with others to
commit a tortious act, and granted the Company's motion in part
by dismissing all of the plaintiffs' other claims, though
without prejudice to plaintiffs' ability to amend its complaint.
PHARMACYCARDS.COM: Reaches Pact For FTC's Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A payment processor and its principal who attempted to process
more than $1.2 million in unauthorized charges on consumer
checking accounts, even though they knew or should have known
the debits were not authorized by consumers, have agreed to
settle Federal Trade Commission charges that their practices
violated federal law. The settlement bars the defendants from
processing payments without ensuring that the charges are
authorized; making false claims to other payment processors in
an effort to enlist processing services for clients; and
processing payments when they know that their client does not
have a business relationship with the consumer.
The payment processor made the unauthorized debits on behalf of
a business known as Pharmacycards. In May 2004, the FTC charged
"Pharmacycards.com" with electronically debiting thousands of
consumers' accounts for $139, without consumers' knowledge or
consent. According to the FTC, Pharmacycards attempted to debit
more than $10 million from consumers' checking accounts in less
than three months. The FTC alleges that the Pharmacycards
defendants gained access to the banking system via third-party
payment processors by claiming that they were engaged in a
legitimate business - selling pharmacy discount cards.
According to the 2004 complaint, the Pharmacycards defendants
provided consumers' checking account numbers to third-party
payment processors, including the defendants in this case,
Universal Processing Inc., and its principal, Rey Pasinli.
In the complaint naming Pasinli and Universal, the FTC alleges
they arranged for consumers' accounts to be debited without
meeting with the Pharmacycards operators or requiring that they
complete their standard payment processing application.
According to the complaint, "They agreed to use their entree to
the banking system to debit consumer checking accounts on behalf
of two individuals they had never met, purportedly from England,
purportedly with a corporation chartered in Cyprus, who were
using a Montreal customer service center, free, untraceable e-
mail accounts, an unsecure website hosted in India, a Vancouver,
British Columbia, mailing address, and who directed that the
proceeds be sent to a bank in Cyprus."
Shortly after they started processing the Pharmacycards charges,
return rates for the charges "started high and almost
immediately sky-rocketed" - a tip-off that the charges were not
authorized by consumers. Nevertheless, the defendants continued
processing approximately $1.2 million in debits to consumers'
accounts and attempted to convince their upstream payment
processors to continue processing the Pharmacycards
transactions. More than 70% of the debit transactions were
"returned."
The agency alleges that when the defendants processed the
charges they knew or avoided knowing that the charges were
unauthorized. The FTC charges that in doing so, the defendants
engaged in unfair practices that violate the Federal Trade
Commission Act.
The settlement bars the defendants from processing payments
without taking steps to assure they were authorized by
consumers. It bars them from misrepresenting that consumers
authorized payments and bars them from processing charges while
knowing or consciously avoiding knowing that the client does not
have a business relationship with the consumer.
The settlement requires that before the defendants take on
clients, they take steps to ensure that the client is a
legitimate business, complying with the Telemarketing Sales Rule
and the FTC Act. It also requires the defendants to monitor the
return rates for payments processed for clients and investigate
the cause for any return rate that exceeds 2.5% and cease
processing for any client engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or
practices. The defendants also will give up all of their ill-
gotten gains - $9,476. The settlement contains record-keeping
and bookkeeping provisions to allow the agency to monitor
compliance.
The Commission vote to accept the settlement was 4-0. It was
filed in United States District Court for the Central District
of California, Southern Division.
Copies of the complaint and stipulated order 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 contact Tracy Thorleifson or Laureen France, FTC
Northwest Region, Phone: 206-220-4481 or 206-220-4471, or visit
the website: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/09/universal.htm.
PNM RESOURCES: Seeks Dismissal of CA Antitrust Suit Cross-Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
PNM Resources Inc. is seeking the dismissal of the cross-claim
filed against it by the defendants in the class actions filed in
the United States District Court in California.
Several suits were initially filed in California State courts
against electric generators and marketers, alleging that the
defendants violated the law by manipulating the market to
grossly inflate electricity prices. Named defendants in these
lawsuits include Duke Energy Corporation and related entities
along with other named sellers into the California market and
numerous other unidentified defendants. Certain of these
lawsuits were consolidated for hearing in state court in San
Diego, California.
In May 2002, the named defendants served a cross-claim on the
Company. Duke Energy Corporation also cross-claimed against
many of the other sellers into California. Duke Energy
Corporation asked for declaratory relief and for indemnification
for any damages that might ultimately be imposed on it. Several
defendants removed the case to federal court in California. The
federal judge has entered an order remanding the matter to state
court, but the effect of that ruling has been stayed pending
appeal.
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss OK Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action filed against Pre-Paid Legal Services,
Inc. (NYSE: PPD) in 2002 in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma against the company and some of
its executive officers in the matter of Caroline Sandler, et al.
v. Pre-Paid Legal Services Inc., et al. has been voluntarily
dismissed.
The case involved various claims on behalf of associates
relating to our marketing plan. The court previously denied
class action status on September 8, 2004. On September 8, 2005
the six individual plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims
with prejudice.
PRESTO TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Final Judgments Entered in SEC Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission said that final judgments
were recently entered by the United States District Court in San
Diego against the defendants in a telecommunications fraud case
perpetrated by Presto Telecommunications, Inc. of San Diego, and
its president and founder, Alfred Louis "Bobby" Vassallo, Jr.,
55, of La Jolla, Calif. Mr. Vassallo and Presto, which
purported to be an international telecommunications company
"positioned to become Latin America's Premier Integrated
Communications Provider," raised over $11 million from the sale
of Presto securities.
The Commission's complaint, filed on January 27, 2004, in
federal court in San Diego, alleged that the defendants induced
more than 800 investors in 42 states to invest in Presto with
promises that the company had significant business relationships
with AT&T, Sprint, MCI, and Qwest. These four telecommunications
companies had purportedly expressed interest in acquiring Presto
or in making capital investments in the company. Investors were
told that Presto was a "partner" to and had "alliances" with
Cisco Systems and Unisys. Investors were also told that the
U.S. Commerce Department was lobbying Mexican telecommunications
regulators on Presto's behalf, and that their funds would be
used to build and operate a telecommunications network in
Mexico. According to the complaint, these representations were
false. The complaint further alleged that Presto failed to
disclose to prospective investors that the license its
affiliated entity received from the Mexican government in 1998
was, in fact, the subject of revocation proceedings that
commenced in 2001. Additionally, the complaint alleged that
while Mr. Vassallo and others represented that investor funds
would be used to pay Presto's business expenses, primarily fiber
optics and equipment, only 16% of investor and company funds
were used for equipment and fiber, and Mr. Vassallo
misappropriated at least $1.2 million of investor and company
funds for personal expenses. These expenses include jewelry,
luxury automobiles, a down payment on an expensive home,
mortgage payments, home improvements, political and charitable
contributions, and school tuition for his children. The court
appointed Thomas F. Lennon as permanent receiver over Presto.
On August 24, 2005, the District Court entered final judgments
of permanent injunction and other relief against Presto and Mr.
Vassallo. The judgments enjoin Presto and Mr. Vassallo from
violating the securities registration and antifraud provisions
of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The judgment against Mr. Vassallo orders him to disgorge
to the receiver $1,263,658.79, representing the amount of his
ill-gotten gains as a result of the conduct alleged in the
complaint, plus pre-judgment interest of $23,638.97. Mr.
Vassallo was also ordered to pay civil penalties in the amount
of $120,000. Mr. Vassallo was further ordered to pay the costs,
fees, and expenses incurred by the receiver in the amount of
$601,784.77. The judgment against Presto was entered with the
consent of the receiver. It specifies that pursuant to one or
more plans of distribution to be submitted by the receiver to
the court, the funds and assets of the receivership estate, if
any, will be distributed to investors less court-approved fees
and expenses.
The final judgments against Presto and Mr. Vassallo conclude the
Commission's action. Administration of the receivership estate
will continue. The suit is styled, SEC v. Presto Tele-
Communications, Inc., and Alfred Louis Vassallo, Jr. aka Bobby
Vassallo, Civil Action No. 04CV00163IEG, WMc, S.D. Cal. (LR-
19368).
PSS WORLD: Firm, Subsidiary, Officers Settle Hirsch Case in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
PSS World Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ/NM: PSSI), its subsidiary Gulf
South Medical Supply, Inc. ("Gulf South"), and certain current
and former officers and directors have reached an agreement in
principle with the Plaintiff and the certified class of persons
who held Company stock on March 26, 1998, to settle all claims
in the shareholder securities class action litigation styled
Jack Hirsch v. PSS World Medical, Inc., et. al., Case No. 3:98-
CV-502-J-32TEM, pending in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division.
The litigation was originally filed in May 1998 and arose out of
the Company's 1998 acquisition of Gulf South and the subsequent
restatements of its financial results for previous years. The
Company will establish a pre-tax reserve of $16.5 million to
settle the litigation, of which $13.2 million will be recovered
through existing insurance policies. The Company had previously
established a $2.6 million pre-tax reserve to cover potential
uninsured losses relating to this matter.
David A. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer,
commented, "We are pleased to close this old chapter of the
Company's history and continue the implementation of our
business plans. The settlement of this litigation has little
impact on our current or future operations, yet it relieves a
distraction to our leadership. Our Board of Directors and
management chose to settle this legacy matter from 1998,
cleaning the Company's slate of pending litigation matters
relating to the 1998 acquisition of Gulf South and enabling our
team to focus on the execution of our three-year strategic
plan."
The settlement is the outcome of an extensive mediation process
and represents a compromise between the parties involved. Under
the settlement agreement, the parties to the litigation deny any
violations of law and have agreed to the settlement to eliminate
uncertainties, burden and expense of further protracted
litigation. The settlement is subject to the execution of formal
documentation and court approval. The Company said it expects to
pursue all available legal remedies from Ernst & Young LLP, the
auditor of Gulf South prior to the Company's acquisition of the
entity, for damages associated with their audits of the Gulf
South financial statements and public filings.
PSS World Medical, Inc. is a national distributor of medical
products to physicians and elder care providers through its two
business units. Since its inception in 1983, PSS has become a
leader in the two market segments that it serves with a focused
market approach to customer services, a consultative sales
force, strategic acquisitions, strong arrangements with product
manufacturers and a unique culture of performance.
For more details, contact Robert C. Weiner of PSS World Medical,
Inc., Phone: 904-332-3287.
RELIANT ENERGY: NV Court Dismisses Natural Gas Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of Nevada dismissed one of the
25 previously disclosed natural gas lawsuits filed against
Reliant Energy, Inc. alleging violations of federal and state
antitrust laws and violations of the California unfair
competition law.
The allegations in this case are substantially similar to the
allegations in the other pending natural gas cases that have
been filed against the Company. The court ruled that, under the
Natural Gas Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
retains statutory authority over wholesale natural gas prices
and that the plaintiff's federal antitrust claims and state law
claims, accordingly, were barred by the filed rate doctrine.
The decision is subject to appeal.
RELIANT ENERGY: Faces Consolidated Energy Antitrust Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Energy, Inc. and Reliant Energy Services, Inc., one of
its wholly-owned subsidiaries, face a consolidated class action
filed in California State Court, alleging that 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.
Seven new class action lawsuits were initially filed. The
lawsuits seek injunctive relief, treble damages, restitution of
overpayments, disgorgement of unlawful profits and legal
expenses.
SHOPPING.COM: Shareholders Launch CA Fraud Suit V. eBay Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shopping.com, Ltd. faces two class actions filed in the
California Superior Court for the County of San Mateo, opposing
the Company's proposed merger with eBay Inc.
On June 8, 2005, an alleged holder of the Company's a purported
class action lawsuit, styled "David Chin, et al. v. Shopping.com
Ltd. et al., Civ 447369," and names certain of the Company's
directors and the Company as defendants. The suit alleges that
in pursuing the transaction with eBay and approving the
Agreement of Merger entered into on June 1, 2005, among eBay,
the Company and Harbour Acquisition Ltd. (the "Agreement of
Merger"), the director defendants violated their fiduciary
duties to the Company's shareholders by, among other things,
failing to obtain the highest price reasonably available,
tailoring the Agreement of Merger to meet the specific needs of
eBay and the director defendants, engaging in self dealing, and
obtaining personal financial benefits not shared equally by the
plaintiff and other shareholders. The complaint also alleges
that the Agreement of Merger resulted from a flawed process
designed to ensure a sale to one buyer. The complaint seeks,
among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief and
damages in an unspecified amount.
On June 28, 2005, an alleged holder of the Company's ordinary
shares filed another purported class action lawsuit in
California Superior Court for the County of San Mateo. The
complaint is captioned "Edward Feierstein, et al. v.
Shopping.com Ltd. et al., Civ 447837," and names certain of the
Company's directors and the Company as defendants. The
Feierstein Complaint is substantially similar to the Chin
complaint.
STAR GAS: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in CT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Star Gas Propane, L.P. was dropped as a defendant in the
consolidated amended securities class action filed against Star
Gas Partners, L.P. and certain of its executive officers in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.
The suit was initially filed against the defendants and the
company in October 2004. The allegations are that Star Gas
Defendants purportedly violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. Following the initiation of
this claim, 17 additional class action complaints were filed
including "White v. Star Gas, et al.," which named the Company
as a defendant.
The Court ruled on April 8, 2005 that the cases should be
consolidated and it appointed lead counsel to prepare a
Consolidated Amended Complaint. On June 20, 2005 the
Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed. The Consolidated
Amended Complaint did not name the Company as a defendant.
TITLE INSURANCE: Settlement Reached in Insurance Premiums Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Wites & Kapetan, P.A. said that a settlement was
reached for a class action pending against Florida's largest
title insurer, Attorneys' Title Insurance Fund, Inc.
The lawsuit, which is pending in Broward County Circuit Court,
alleges that Attorneys' Title Insurance Fund, Inc., which is
known as The Fund, overcharged persons that pay the premiums for
title insurance in Florida.
The lawsuit focuses on title insurance premiums charged to
borrowers in mortgage refinancing transactions. In such
transactions, the borrower is required to pay a title insurance
company a premium for a title insurance policy that the insurer
then issues to the lender. That policy is known as a Lender's
Policy, and insures the lender, not the borrower. The lawsuit
alleged that The Fund overcharged borrowers for such premiums by
failing to charge them a discounted premium as required by
Florida law, known as the Reissue Rate. The plaintiffs also
alleged that The Fund failed to charge the Reissue Rate in other
circumstances where the law so required.
In settling the lawsuit, The Fund established a settlement fund
of $2.5 million to pay the claims of class members, and agreed
to institute wide-ranging changes to its business practices that
are an industry first. In the settlement documents, The Fund
agrees that charging Reissue Rates is mandatory, and that
virtually all Florida residents are eligible for such rates. The
Fund will now communicate to and enforce this policy among its
agents, and will include these changes in all future training,
policy and procedure manuals. The Fund will also communicate
these policies to the entire title insurance industry in all
future editions of "The Fund Title Notes", the leading practice
guide for Florida's title insurance industry. All of the changes
are new for The Fund, and are the result of this settlement.
Included in the class are persons that paid a title insurance
premium to The Fund from February 1, 1999 to September 5, 2005
that should have been, but were not, charged a premium based on
the Reissue Rate in connection with
(1) a mortgage refinancing;
(2) the purchase of unimproved land; and/or
(3) the purchase of a property from a seller that purchased
that property within three years of your purchase.
Class members will soon receive notice of the settlement through
direct mail, and publication in newspapers throughout the state.
Marc A. Wites, of Wites & Kapetan, P.A., is counsel to
Plaintiffs and the Class in this and 5 other similar class
actions pending against Florida title insurers, including
Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Old Republic National Title
Insurance Company, Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, American
Pioneer Title Insurance Company, k/n/a Ticor Title Insurance
Company of Florida, and Fidelity National Title Insurance
Company. Like the case against The Fund, the plaintiffs in these
class actions allege that they were overcharged for title
insurance premiums.
For more details, contact Marc A. Wites, Phone: 1-866-277-8631
or 954-570-8989, E-mail: mwites@wklawyers.com, Web site:
http://www.flalitguide.com.
USI HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs File Amended Consolidated NJ RICO Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
USI Holdings Corporation faces an amended consolidated class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, alleging violations of state and federal
antitrust laws.
The Company has been named as one of more than 30 insurance
company and insurance brokerage defendants in an amended
complaint filed in the United States District Court Southern
District of New York in a putative class action lawsuit
captioned "Opticare Health Systems, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan
Companies, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. CV 06954 (DC))." The
amended complaint focuses on the payment of contingent
commissions by insurers to insurance brokers who sell their
insurance and alleged "bid rigging" in the setting of insurance
premium levels. The amended complaint purports to allege
violations of numerous laws including the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) and federal restraint of trade
statutes, state restraint of trade, unfair and deceptive
practices statutes, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment. The amended complaint seeks class certification,
treble damages for the alleged injury suffered by the putative
plaintiff class and other damages.
The Company is also a defendant in "copycat" or tag-along
lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, namely "Lewis v. Marsh & McLennan
Companies, Inc., et al., 04 C 7847" and "Preuss v. Marsh &
McLennan Companies, Inc., et al., 04 C 7853." Another copycat
suit, styled "Palm Tree Computers Systems, Inc. et ano v. Ace,
USA et al.," was filed in the Circuit Court for the Eighteenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County, Florida Civil
Division, Class Representation, under Case No. 05-CA-373-16-W.
The suit has been removed to the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, Case No.
6:05-CV-422-2ZKRS. A similar copy-cat class action complaint
captioned "Bensley Construction, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan
Companies, Inc. et al., No. ESCV2005-0277 (Essex Superior Court,
Massachusetts) was served upon the Company in May 2005. This
action has been removed to the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts. Like the `Opticare' complaint,
these complaints contain no particularized allegations of
wrongdoing by the Company.
In February 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPMDL) transferred the actions then pending to the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation subsequently issued a
conditional transfer order to transfer the "Palm Tree" lawsuit
to the same court for the same purposes, and the plaintiffs and
at least one defendant are opposing transfer of that lawsuit.
On August 1, 2005, in the multidistrict litigation pending in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
the plaintiffs filed a First Consolidated Amended Commercial
Class Action Complaint and a First Consolidated Employee
Benefits Class Action Complaint (The "Consolidated MDL
Complaints") that purport to allege claims against the Company
based upon RICO, federal and state antitrust laws, breach of
fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary and
unjust enrichment. The Consolidated MDL Complaints are together
approximately 324 pages in length, and, like the predecessor
complaints, focus the allegations of fact upon defendants other
than the Company. It is anticipated that the Company will move
to dismiss the Consolidated MDL Complaints. None of the
plaintiffs in any of the actions have indicated the amounts
being sought in the particular actions.
The OptiCare suit is styled "In Re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation, case no. 2:05-cv-01168-FSH," filed in the United
States District Court in New Jersey, under Judge Faith S.
Hochberg. Representing the plaintiffs are Joseph P. Guglielmo
and Edith M. Kallas, MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN LLP (NYC)
One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York NY 10119 Phone: 212-594-5300;
and Mark C. Rifkin, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP,
270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212 545-4600 E-
mail: rifkin@whafh.com.
WILLIAM LYON: DE Court Certifies Consolidated Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for New
Castle County granted class certification to the consolidated
lawsuit filed against William Lyon Homes, challenging the
proposal made by General William Lyon to acquire the outstanding
publicly held minority interest in the Company's common stock
for $82 per share in cash and challenging related actions of the
Company and the directors of the Company.
Five purported class action lawsuits were initially filed on
behalf of the public stockholders of the Company, styled as:
(1) Eastside Investors, LLP v. William Lyon Homes, et al.,
Civil Action No. 1301-N, filed on April 27, 2005;
(2) Donald Lamuth v. William Lyon et al., Civil Action No.
1304-N, filed April 28,2005;
(3) Stephen L. Brown v. William Lyon Homes, et al., Civil
Action No. 1307-N, filed on April 28, 2005;
(4) Michael Crady v. William Lyon Homes, et al., Civil
Action No. 1311-N, filed on May 2, 2005; and
(5) Anthony A. D'Amato v. William Lyon, et al., Civil
Action No. 1323-N, filed on May 6, 2005
The Delaware Complaints name the Company and the directors of
the Company as defendants. These complaints allege, among other
things, that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties
owed to the plaintiffs in connection with the Proposed
Transaction and other related corporate activities. The
plaintiffs are seeking to enjoin the Proposed Transaction and,
among other things, to obtain damages, attorneys' fees and
expenses related to the litigation.
On May 9, 2005, the Delaware Complaints were consolidated into a
single case entitled "In re: William Lyon Homes Shareholder
Litigation, Civil Action No. 1311-N." On May 20, 2005, a class
was certified in the Consolidated Delaware Action. The Company
stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission
that it believes that the remaining Consolidated Delaware Action
described above is without merit, particularly given that
General Lyon withdrew his offer for the Proposed Transaction on
or around June 28, 2005 and announced on July 25, 2005 that he
was ending his efforts at this time to take the Company private.
WILLIAM LYON: Plaintiffs Dismiss Consolidated CA Investor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs dismissed the consolidated class action filed against
William Lyon Homes in the Superior Court of California, County
of Orange, challenging General William Lyon's proposal to
acquire the outstanding publicly held minority interest in the
Company's common stock for $82 per share in cash. The suits are
styled "Lewis Lester v. William Lyon Homes, et al., Case No. 05-
CC-00092" and "Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. William Lyon
Homes, Inc. et al., Case No. 05-CC-00093."
The suits name the Company and the directors of the Company as
defendants and allege, among other things, that the defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties to the public stockholders.
The California Complaints seek to enjoin the Proposed
Transaction and also seek damages and attorneys' fees and
expenses related to the litigation.
On May 26, 2005, the California Complaints were consolidated
into a single case entitled "In re: William Lyon Homes, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 05-CC-00092." On July 8, 2005,
plaintiffs in the Consolidated California Action dismissed that
lawsuit without prejudice.
WINK COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
securities class action filed against Wink Communications, Inc.,
two of its officers and directors and certain investment banks
which acted as underwriters for the Company's initial public
offering.
The lawsuit is now captioned "In re Wink Communications, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation." The operative
amended complaint alleges undisclosed and improper practices
concerning the allocation of the Company's initial public
offering shares in violation of the federal securities laws, and
seeks unspecified damages on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock during the period from August 19, 1999
through December 6, 2000.
This action is among the over 300 lawsuits that have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes as "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation." On February 19, 2003, the
Court ruled on the motions to dismiss filed by all defendants in
the consolidated cases. The Court denied the motions to dismiss
the claims under the Securities Act of 1933, granted the motion
to dismiss the claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and one individual
defendant, and denied that motion against the other individual
defendant.
A stipulation of settlement for the claims against the issuer
defendants has been submitted to the Court. There is no
guarantee that the settlement will become effective, as it is
subject to a number of conditions, including approval of the
Court, which cannot be assured. On February 15, 2005, the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement contingent on specified
modifications.
The suit is styled "In re Wink Communications, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation," related to "In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS),"
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under Judge Shira A. 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
ZHONE TECHNOLOGIES: NJ Court Partially Dismisses Stock Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
dismissed in part a securities class action filed against Zhone
Technologies, Inc. and Tellium, Inc. As a result of the
Company's merger with Tellium, Inc., it became a defendant in
the lawsuit.
On various dates between approximately December 10, 2002 and
February 27, 2003, numerous class-action securities complaints
were filed against Tellium. On May 19, 2003, a consolidated
amended complaint representing all of the actions was filed.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that Tellium and its
then-current directors and executive officers, and its
underwriters, violated the Securities Act of 1933 by making
false and misleading statements or omissions in its registration
statement prospectus relating to the securities offered in the
initial public offering. The complaint further alleges that
these parties violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
acting recklessly or intentionally in making the alleged
misstatements and/or omissions in connection with the sale of
Tellium stock. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified
amount, including compensatory damages, costs and expenses
incurred in connection with the actions and equitable
relief as may be permitted by law or equity.
On March 31, 2004, the Court granted Tellium's and the
underwriters' motions to dismiss the complaint and allowed the
plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint. On May 14,
2004, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated and amended
complaint. On June 25, 2004, the Company, as Tellium's
successor-in-interest, and the underwriters again moved to
dismiss the complaint. The motions to dismiss were fully
briefed. On June 30, 2005, the Court issued its decision,
dismissing with prejudice the plaintiffs' claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, but denying the motions to
dismiss with respect to the plaintiffs' claims under the
Securities Act of 1933. The plaintiffs recently have moved for
reconsideration of that portion of the Court's June 30, 2005
decision dismissing their claims under the Securities Exchange
Act.
The suit is styled "ANITE GROUP PLC. v. ZHONE TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., case no. 2:05-cv-03357-WJM-RJH," filed in the United
States District Court in New Jersey under Judge William J.
Martini. Representing the plaintiffs is Robert A. Magnanini,
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP, 150 John F. Kennedy Parkway, 4th
Floor, Short Hills, NJ 07078, Phone: (973) 218-1111, E-mail:
rmagnanini@bsfllp.com.
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
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
INSURANCE FRAUD CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
September 27, 2005
REINSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
September 27, 2005
REINSURANCE 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
September 29-30, 2005
RAA'S RE CLAIMS SEMINAR: REINSURANCE CLAIMS MANAGEMENT BY CLAIMS
PROFESSIONALS FOR CLAIMS PROFESSIONALS
Mealey Publications
New York, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 2005
ASBESTOS LIABILITY FORUM
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 2005
LAW CLIENT DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 6-7, 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
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 17-18, 2005
INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 18-19, 2005
RAA'S REFINANCE SEMINAR--ABC'S OF FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 19, 2005
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS WALL STREET FORUM: MASS TORT LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
The Carlyle Hotel
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 24-25, 2005
C-8/PFOA SCIENCE, RISKS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Rittenhouse Philadephia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 26-27, 2005
PREVENTING AND DEFENDING WAGE & HOUR CLAIMS & CLASS ACTIONS
American Conferences
Sheraton Fisherman's Wharf Hotel, San Francisco, CA
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563
October 27, 2005
HEART DEVICE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 27-28, 2005
RETAIL & HOSPITALITY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 28, 2005
PREVENTING AND DEFENDING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS &
LITIGATION
American Conferences
Sheraton Fisherman's Wharf Hotel, San Francisco, CA
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563
October 28, 2005
DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION 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
MANUFACTURER'S LIABILITY CONFERENCE: LEGAL PROTECTIONS CRUCIAL
TO YOUR BOTTOM LINE
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 7-8, 2005
FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE LITIGATION & ARBITRATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Downtown Conference Center at Pace University, New York City
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 15-16, 2005
12TH ADVANCED NATIONAL FORUM ON LITIGATING BAD FAITH AND
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
American Conferences
Fontainebleau Resort, Miami, FL, United States
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563
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 1-2, 2005
REINSURANCE GENERAL COUNSEL'S CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
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 7, 2005
ASBESTOS INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 12-14, 2005
10th Annual Drug & Medical Device Litigation
10TH ANNUAL DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conferences
The Waldorf Astoria, New York, NY, United States
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563
December 12-13, 2005
VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Caesars Palace, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 12-13, 2005
LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Pentagon City, Washington DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
January 23-24, 2005
ADVANCED INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
April 5-8, 2006
INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ
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
May 25-26, 2006
INSURANCE COVERAGE 2006: CLAIM TRENDS & LITIGATION
Practising Law Institute
New York
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu
September 28-30, 2006
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
September 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
September 01-30, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
September 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
September 01-30, 2005
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
September 01-30, 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
October 05, 2005
LIFE OF A REINSURANCE CLAIM
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 06, 2005
EMAIL DISCOVERY AND RETENTION POLICIES FOR CORPORATE COUNSEL
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 11, 2005
MTBE TELECONFERENCE: NEW GROUNDBREAKING RULINGS IN THE FEDERAL
MDL
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 11, 2005
ASBESTOS INSURANCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 25, 2005
ASBESTOS MEDICINE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 26, 2005
CA SUPREME COURT DECISION--SEXUAL HARRASSMENT
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 01, 2005
REAL WORLD APPLICATION OF ADDITIONAL INSURED CLAIMS
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 16, 2005
HRT
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 17, 2005
FOOD LIABILITY--ADVERTISING PRACTICES
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 17, 2005
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY TUTORIAL
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 30, 2005
PESTICIDES
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 30, 2005
ASBESTOS SCREENINGS
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 6, 2005
WELDING RODS
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 7, 2005
PERCHLORATE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 8, 2005
SSRI's TELECONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 14, 2005
FINITE RISK REINSURANCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 14, 2005
CLASS CERTIFICATION--HOW TO GET A CLASS CERTIFIED OR DEFEAT
CERTIFICATION
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 15, 2005
D&O TELECONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 15, 2005
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ISSUES
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
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
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Leo W. Desmond Lodges Securities Suit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Abercrombie &
Fitch Co. (NYSE:ANF) securities between June 2, 2005 and August
16, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio against Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
It is alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5)
promulgated thereunder, 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 actions.
For more details, contact Leo W. Desmond, Esq. of the Law
Offices of Leo W. Desmond, Thirteen Main St., Suite Four,
Sparta, NJ 07871, Phone: (888) 337-6663 or (973) 726-4242, E-
Mail: Information@SecuritiesAttorney.com, Web site:
http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com.
AVON PRODUCTS: Ademi & O'Relly Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Ademi & O'Relly, LLP, initiated a class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Avon Products, Inc. ("Avon")
(NYSE:AVP) common stock during the period between April 8, 2005,
and July 18, 2005 (the "Class Period").
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 the Company was experiencing increasing resistance
to its expansion efforts in China because local
businesses were dissatisfied with the Company's plans
to direct sell in that market;
(2) that the Company's revenue growth in its Central and
Eastern Europe markets was dramatically slowing from
internally forecasted levels such that the Company
would be unable to reach its stated earnings
projections;
(3) that the Company's expansion efforts in Russian were
being delayed due to a variety of adverse factors; and
(4) that as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their earnings projections and
positive statements about the Company.
On July 19, 2005, before the start of trading, Avon issued a
press release announcing that its earnings for the second
quarter of 2005 would be below expectations because of two
factors: "an unexpected temporary decline in China as Beauty
Boutique owners reacted with concern to the imminent resumption
of direct selling in that country" and "lower-than- anticipated
revenue growth in Central and Eastern Europe resulting from
underperformance of several key marketing offers as well as
delayed expansion into new geographies within Russia."
Upon this news, shares of Avon common stock closed at $31.30 per
share, a decline of $5.30 per share, or over 14%, from the
previous trading day's close, on unusually heavy trading volume.
For more details, contact Guri Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP,
Phone: (866) 264-3995, E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com, Web site:
http://www.ademilaw.com/cases/Avon.php.
BUCA INC.: Leo W. Desmond Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Buca, Inc.
(Nasdaq:BUCA) securities between February 6, 2001 and March 11,
2005 inclusive (the "Class Period'). The case is pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
against Buca, Inc.
It is alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5)
promulgated thereunder, 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 actions. Until a class is certified,
you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you
purchased stock during the class period, you have a right to
become involved as a plaintiff, but are not required to do so to
recover damages.
For more details, contact Leo W. Desmond, Esq. of the Law
Offices of Leo W. Desmond, Thirteen Main St., Suite Four,
Sparta, NJ 07871, Phone: (888) 337-6663 or (973) 726-4242, E-
Mail: Information@SecuritiesAttorney.com, Web site:
http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com.
DHB INDUSTRIES: Ademi & O'Relly Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Ademi & O'Relly, LLP, initiated a class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of DHB Industries Inc. ("DHB"
or the "Company") (AMEX:DHB) publicly traded securities during
the period between April 21, 2004, and August 29, 2005 (the
"Class Period").
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous statements concerning the quality of
the Company's bulletproof vests. Recently, DHB announced it
would stop manufacturing and selling certain of its vests due to
their being decertified by a government agency and took a write-
off. Following this announcement, shares of DHB stock declined
in value. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of DHB publicly-traded securities during the Class
Period.
For more details, contact Guri Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP,
Phone: (866) 264-3995, E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com, Web site:
http://www.ademilaw.com/cases/DHB.php.
DHB INDUSTRIES: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 DHB
Industries, Inc. (AMEX: DHB) between April 21, 2004 and August
29, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against defendant DHB 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 St.,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036 or E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
DHB INDUSTRIES: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, initiated a securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York against DHB Industries, Inc. (Amex: DHB)
and individual defendants. Purchasers of DHB securities between
April 21, 2004 through August 29, 2005, (the "Class Period").
DHB designs, develops, manufactures and markets protective armor
through its subsidiaries, Point Blank Body Armor, Inc. and
Protective Apparel Corporation of America.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, DHB and
certain individual defendants violated the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false statements or failing to
disclose adverse facts known to them about DHB. Defendants'
fraudulent scheme, it is alleged,
(1) deceived the investing public regarding DHB's prospects
and business;
(2) artificially inflated the prices of DHB's publicly
traded securities;
(3) allowed defendants to sell approximately $195.4
million of their own shares at inflated prices; and
(4) caused members of the Class to purchase DHB's publicly
traded securities at inflated prices.
The plaintiff is represented by Scott+Scott, which has expertise
in prosecuting investor class actions. The firm dedicates itself
to client communication and satisfaction and currently is
litigating major securities, antitrust and employee retirement
plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents
pension funds, charities, foundations, individuals and other
entities worldwide.
For more details, contact Neil Rothstein or Amy K. Saba of
Scott+Scott, LLC, Phone: 1-800-332-2259 ext. 22, cell
+1-619-251-0887 or 1-800-332-2259 ext. 26, E-mail:
nrothstein@scott-scott.com or asaba@scott-scott.com.
HOST AMERICA: Shepherd Finkelman Provides Litigation Updates
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, in its
ongoing effort to assist investors in Host America Corporation
("Host America" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:CAFE, CAFEW), issues
this notice to update investors regarding the class action
lawsuits that was filed against Host America in connection with
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC's August 9, 2005 press
release.
After a significant independent investigation, Shepherd
Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC and its co-counsel filed the first
of several class action lawsuits against Host America on August
8, 2005, alleging that the July 12, 2005 Form 8-K and press
release were false and misleading.
The Complaint filed by Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC
alleges that "Wal-Mart was not a customer of the Company's in
connection to purchasing the LightMasterPlus...Wal-Mart had made
no commitment to purchase or install the LightMasterPlus outside
of the test installation" and therefore, Defendants had no basis
for stating that the test installation was a "first-phase roll-
out," that "the next phase will involve a significant number of
stores," or that the purported installation was a "major event
for our company." On August 31, 2005, Host America issued a
press release updating investors about the ongoing investigation
into its July 12, 2005 notice. In the press release, Host
America informed investors that the Company "never had a written
agreement" or "any agreement for the installation of
LightMasterPlus" with Wal-Mart and that nearly two months after
its announcement on July 12, 2005, "neither Host nor its wholly-
owned energy management subsidiary R.S. Services, Inc. has
received from Wal-Mart a list of the 10 stores to be surveyed."
In reaction to this announcement, the price of the Company's
common stock closed on September 1, 2005, down $10.54 per share,
or more than 73 percent.
For more details, contact James E. Miller, Esq. or James C.
Shah, Esq. of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, Phone:
866-540-5505 or 877-891-9880, E-mail:
jmiller@classactioncounsel.com or jshah@classactioncounsel.com.
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Hutchinson
Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: HTCH) between October 4, 2004 and
August 29, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota against defendant Hutchinson 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 St.,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036 or E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
MANNATECH INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NM
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Mannatech, Inc. (NasdaqNM:
MTEX) between August 10, 2004 and May 9, 2005 (the "Class
Period").
The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of New Mexico against the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, Samuel L. Caster, its Chief Financial
Officer, Stephen D. Fenstermacher, and its Chief Operating
Officer, Terry L. Persinger.
According to the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market during the
Class Period. The Complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose that the Company's internal controls were grossly
inadequate, resulting in inadequate control of the Company's
sales associates and that defendants caused or permitted
unfounded and false claims to be disseminated to the public
concerning the efficacy of Mannatech's products.
Mannatech develops nutritional supplements, skin-care, and
weight management products. During the Class Period, defendants
repeatedly assured investors that the Company was on track to
meet its financial goals and touted the success of its "network-
marketing" program as an effective method to increase sales.
Defendants also made glowing statements about Mannatech's
products, touting the products as miracle cures for weight loss
and serious illnesses, such as a pill that could "work wonders"
on cancer. As a result, Mannatech stock reached over $26 a share
during the Class Period.
On May 9, 2005, Barron's published an article exposing improper
practices prevalent at Mannatech. The article questioned the
legitimacy of the Company's business practices, and noted that
despite the Company's "surface flash, eye-popping financials and
grand plans, Mannatech's allure steadily dims the more intensely
one scrutinizes its provenance and how it makes its living."
Specifically, the article pointed to a complaint filed in Los
Angeles Superior Court that charged the Company with negligent
misrepresentations and conspiracy to commit fraud, as well as a
host of complaints from the Texas Attorney General's office
questioning the background of Mannatech's CEO, Samuel Caster.
The article also questioned the validity of the Company's
therapeutic claims for certain nutritional supplements and cited
millions of dollars worth of suspiciously timed sales by Company
insiders. In response to the facts contained in the article that
questioned the legitimacy of the Company's statements and
business practices, the stock fell to $12.11 on May 10, 2005,
having lost more than 50% of its value during the Class Period.
For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman of Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New
York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (800) 320-5081, E-mail:
sfeerick@milbergweiss.com, Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com,and Maya Saxena or Joseph White of
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, 5200 Town Center Circle,
Suite 600, Boca Raton, FL 33486, E-mail:
msaxena@milbergweiss.com or jwhite@milbergweiss.com.
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Goodkind Labaton Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP, which
initiated a class action lawsuit on July 27, 2005 in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of Molina Healthcare, Inc. (NYSE:MOH) between
November 3, 2004 and July 20, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class
Period"), stated that the deadline to move for Lead Plaintiff is
September 26, 2005.
The lawsuit was filed against Molina Healthcare, J. Mario
Molina, and John C. Molina ("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
Defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements
regarding Molina HealthCare's operating condition, and failed to
disclose:
(1) The Company was experiencing rising costs;
(2) State-approved payments associated with the Company's
Medicaid contracts were insufficient to cover rising
medical-care costs; and
(3) As a result, the Company's financials would be
materially and adversely impacted.
On July 20, 2005, Molina Healthcare announced that for the
second quarter 2005, it would report a loss per diluted share of
$(0.15) to $(0.20). The Company also announced it was revising
its earnings guidance for fiscal year 2005 to $0.73 to $0.80 per
share from its previously issued guidance of $2.40 to $2.45 per
share, and net income of $20.6 million to $22.6 million, from
its previously announced guidance of $67.0 million to $69.0
million. The sudden and dramatic reduction in guidance comes
after the Company had reiterated its guidance three times in
2005 and after it postponed on May 18, 2005, an equity offering
primarily on behalf of the Molina Family Trusts. News of this
shocked the market, sending the shares $20 per share lower, to
trade at $26.00, or a one-day decline of 43% in reaction to the
news.
For more details, contact Christopher Keller Esq. of Goodkind
Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP, Phone: 800-321-0476, Web site:
http://www.glrslaw.com/get/?case=Molina.
RED ROBIN: Ademi & O'Relly Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Ademi & O'Relly, LLP, filed a class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on
behalf of purchasers of Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. ("Red
Robin") (Nasdaq:RRGB) common stock during the period between
November 8, 2004, and August 11, 2005 (the "Class Period").
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Red Robin's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and prospects and by
concealing improper self dealing by the Company's CEO. This
caused the Company's stock to trade as high as $62.38 per share.
Defendants took advantage of this inflation, selling or
otherwise disposing of 320,000 shares of their Red Robin stock
then valued at more than $17 million. On August 11, 2005, Red
Robin reported that Q2 2005 results would be worse 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 Company assets. On
this news, Red Robin's stock collapsed to as low as $44.13 per
share before closing at $45.55 per share on volume of 9.8
million shares.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:
(1) the Company lacked requisite internal controls and
corporate governance procedures to safeguard the
Company from abuse by the CEO of his position at the
Company;
(2) contrary to defendants' claims of fiscal 2005 growth
and profitability, the Company was actually on track
for lower results than represented;
(3) the Company lacked the necessary personnel to issue
accurate financial reports and projections; and
(4) as a result of (1)-(3) above, the Company's projections
for fiscal year 2005 were grossly inflated.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Red Robin common stock during the Class Period (the "Class").
For more details, contact Guri Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP,
Phone: (866) 264-3995, E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com, Web site:
http://www.ademilaw.com/cases/RedRobin.php.
RED ROBIN: Leo W. Desmond Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Red Robin Gourmet
Burgers, Inc. (Nasdaq:RRGB) securities 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 Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc.
It is alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5)
promulgated thereunder, 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 actions.
For more details, contact Leo W. Desmond, Esq. of the Law
Offices of Leo W. Desmond, Thirteen Main St., Suite Four,
Sparta, NJ 07871, Phone: (888) 337-6663 or (973) 726-4242, E-
Mail: Information@SecuritiesAttorney.com, Web site:
http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com.
RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Goodkind Labaton Sets Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP, which
filed a class action lawsuit on July 27, 2005, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. (NYSE:RNR)
between January 24, 2002, and July 25, 2005, inclusive, (the
"Class Period"), stated that the deadline to move for Lead
Plaintiff is September 26, 2005.
The lawsuit was filed against RenaissanceRe, James Standard,
Michael W. Cash, William Riker, John M. Lummis and Martin J.
Merritt ("Defendants").
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1034 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements to
the market regarding the Company's financial condition. The
complaint further alleges that these statements were false and
misleading because:
(1) In 2001, RenaissanceRe entered into various contracts
with Inter-Ocean, which were used by Defendants to
smooth and manipulate the earnings of the Company in
the years 2002 through 2004;
(2) RenaissanceRe failed to properly account for the timing
of the recognition of reinsurance recoverables, which
had the impact of misstating net income by as much as
12% in a given year;
(2) RenaissanceRe failed to properly account for the timing
of the recognition of premium on multi-year ceded
reinsurance contracts in the first three quarters of
2004;
(3) As a result, the Company's financial reports were not
prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles ("GAAP").
Beginning in mid-2004, numerous companies involved in the
reinsurance industry began receiving subpoenas regarding their
business practices, and inquiring about their use and sale of
reinsurance contracts. On February 22, 2005, RenaissanceRe
announced that it planned to restate its financial statements
for 2001, 2002 and 2003 to correct "accounting errors associated
with reinsurance ceded by the Company." In addition,
RenaissanceRe announced that it "had discovered an error in the
timing of the recognition of premium on multi-year ceded
reinsurance contracts for the first three quarters of 2004." On
July 11, 2005, the Company issued a press release announcing
that it had received and accepted the resignation of Michael W.
Cash, Senior Vice President of Specialty Reinsurance for the
Company, after he voluntarily refused to accept the subpoenas of
the SEC calling for his testimony in its investigation of the
Company's restatement. On July 25, 2005, the Company announced
that Defendant Standard had received a "Wells Notice" from the
SEC in regard to the agency's investigation of the Company's
financial statements. In reaction to this development, shares of
RenaissanceRe dropped $4.25 per share to close at $42.98, from
its close of $47.23 on July 22, 2005, on extraordinarily heavy
volume.
For more details, contact Christopher Keller Esq. of Goodkind
Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP, Phone: 800-321-0476, Web site:
http://www.glrslaw.com/get/?case=RenaissanceRe.
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Ademi & O'Relly Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Ademi & O'Relly, LLP, initiated a class action
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. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf
of all purchasers of Symbol securities during the Class Period.
The plaintiff is represented by Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, which has
expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive
experience in actions involving financial fraud.
For more details, contact Guri Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP,
Phone: (866) 264-3995, E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com, Web site:
http://www.ademilaw.com/cases/Symbol.php.
*********
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 * * *