/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/050921.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, September 21, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 187 Headlines ACTION PERFORMANCE: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in NM ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR: Court Mulls Stock Suit Dismissal Appeal AMERICAN MERCHANT: Settles FTC Franchise Rule Violations Charges BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Shareholders Sue V. Rubicon Acquisition in DE BRI-MAR MANUFACTURING: Recalls 123 Trailers Due to Crash Hazard BUFFALO MEAT: Possible Listeria Contamination Prompts Recall CELL THERAPEUTICS: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuits in WA CENTRAL ADMIXTURE: Recalls Injectable Products For Health Hazard CRYOLIFE INC.: SEC Files Suit v. Sales Employees, Spouses CRYOLIFE INC.: SEC Lodges Illegal Insider Trading Suit v. Couple ESS TECHNOLOGY: Trial in CA Securities Suit Expected Early 2007 GABLES RESIDENTIAL: Agrees To Settle Consumer Fraud Suit in FL GABLES RESIDENTIAL: Shareholders File MD Lawsuits V. ING Merger HEALTHPLAN SERVICES: Discovery Proceeds in Unfair Trade Lawsuit INFOUSA INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in NE LOUISIANA: Fishermen's Group Files Damage Suit V. Oil Companies LOWE'S HOME: Judge Grants Certification to Employee Wage Lawsuit MOTHERS WORK: Working To Resolve CT Employee Overtime Wage Suit NAVARRE CORPORATION: Shareholders File Securities Suits in MA NEBRASKA: Groups Launch Suit Over Inadequate Foster Care System NEW YORK: Group Launches Suit V. Brookhaven Town, Suffolk County NEW YORK: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in E.D. NY NEW YORK: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Lawsuit For ERISA Violations NTL EUROPE: NY Court Partially Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit PANTRY INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended FLSA Violations Suit in NC POST PROPERTIES: Shareholders Appeals Suit Settlement Approval PREMIERE GLOBAL: MD Consumer Launches TCPA Violations Lawsuit RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS LTD: Shareholders File Fraud Suits in NY ROAD RUNNER TRAILERS: Recalls 2005 Tri Axle Due to Crash Hazard SC&E ADMINISTRATIVE: Suit Settlement Hearing Set January 6, 2006 SHURGARD STORAGE: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Suit SHURGARD STORAGE: Plaintiffs Withdraw Securities Suit in W.D. WA VIRGINIA: Roanoke Sheriff Faces Lawsuit For Sexual Harassment WAL-MART STORES: Jury Trials Begins in CA Employee Litigation WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Phentermine HCl Product Litigation WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Appeal Suit Summary Judgment WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces New AWP Antitrust Litigation WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Lawsuit Dismissal WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces 90 Hormone Therapy Liability Suits WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Reaches Agreement to Settle 2002 ERISA Suit Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases DHB INDUSTRIES: Chitwood Harley Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY DHB INDUSTRIES: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in NY GENERAL MOTORS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY MANNATECH INC.: Glancy Binkow Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline PATTERSON COMPANIES: Glancy Binkow Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit Over UBS Mutual Funds ********* ACTION PERFORMANCE: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in NM ------------------------------------------------------------- Action Performance Companies, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers face a securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, entitled "The Cornelia Crowell, GST Trust v. Action Performance Companies, Inc., et al." The complaint alleges that the Company made false and misleading statements concerning its financial results and business during the period from July 23, 2003 to October 22, 2003, resulting in violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief. ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR: Court Mulls Stock Suit Dismissal Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to decide on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the securities class action filed against Alliance Semiconductor Corporation, Tower Semiconductor Ltd. (Tower), certain of Tower's directors (including N. Damodar Reddy), and certain of Tower's shareholders (including the Company). The lawsuit alleges that a proxy solicitation by Tower seeking approval from the Tower shareholders for a restructuring of a financing agreement between Tower and certain investors (including the Company) contained false and misleading statements and/or omitted material information in violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated there under, and also alleges that certain defendants (including N. Damodar Reddy and the Company) have liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The lawsuit was brought by plaintiffs on behalf of a putative class of persons who were ordinary shareholders of Tower at the close of business on April 1, 2002, the record date for voting on certain matters proposed in a proxy statement issued by Tower. On January 30, 2004, all the defendants, including the Company, filed motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On August 19, 2004, Judge Kimba Wood granted defendants' motions and dismissed the complaint in its entirety with prejudice. On September 29, 2004, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal will likely be decided some time in 2006. AMERICAN MERCHANT: Settles FTC Franchise Rule Violations Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) entered a stipulated final order settling charges against two defendants targeted in February 2005's "Project Biz Opp Flop" law enforcement initiative for allegedly violating the FTC's Franchise Rule. According to the Commission, the defendants sold consumers cashless ATM and Internet kiosk franchises without providing them with disclosures identifying prior franchisees or justifying purported earnings. The final order announced today settles the FTC's complaint and court action against defendants American Merchant Technologies, Inc. and the company's principal, Lawrence B. Albano, bars them from similar violations in the future, and requires them to pay an $11,000 civil penalty. According to the Commission, the defendants sold cashless ATM and Internet kiosk business opportunities in violation of the FTC's Franchise Rule. The complaint specifically alleged that they failed to provide prospective franchisees with a complete and accurate basic disclosure document about the business opportunity or an earning claim disclosure document as required by the Rule. The Department of Justice filed the complaint on behalf of the FTC in February 2005, as part of Project Biz Opp Flop, a multi-agency law enforcement sweep targeting fraudulent business opportunities. The court order settling the charges bans the defendants from selling franchises or business opportunities and contains other relief to ensure they do not violate the Franchise Rule in the future. In addition, it requires them to pay a civil penalty of $11,000 and includes an avalanche clause that would require the payment of $1.17 million if the defendants are found to have misrepresented their financial condition to the Commission. Finally, the order contains standard monitoring and compliance provisions to ensure the defendants' compliance with its terms. The Commission vote approving the stipulated final order was 4- 0. The order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and has been signed by the judge in this case. 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 Mitchell Katz, Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2161 or contact Michael Davis, Bureau of Consumer Protection by Phone: 202-326-2458 or visit the Website: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/09/bizzopflop.htm/ BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Shareholders Sue V. Rubicon Acquisition in DE ---------------------------------------------------------------- Boston Scientific Corporation faces a class action filed in the New Castle County Chancery Court for the State of Delaware, seeking to enjoin its proposed acquisition of Rubicon Medical Corporation's publicly-owned shares. The suit, filed on April 14, 2005, also names as defendants Rubicon, the directors of Rubicon, and Nemo I Acquisition Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. The suit generally alleges breach of fiduciary duties and seeks to enjoin the acquisition. The acquisition was completed on June 14, 2005. BRI-MAR MANUFACTURING: Recalls 123 Trailers Due to Crash Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- Bri-Mar Manufacturing, LLC, in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 123 units of 2005 Bri-Mar trailers due to crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V401000. According to the ODI, on certain dump, equipment haulers and hydraulic tilt trailers equipped with Global Direct Components (GDC) axles, the weld which fastened the axle spindle to the axle tube was improperly welded. The spindle could separate from the trailer increasing the risk of a crash. As a remedy, Bri-Mar is working with GDC to notify owners and have the axles replaced. For more details, contact Bri-Mar, Phone: 717-709-2009 and NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY) 1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov. BUFFALO MEAT: Possible Listeria Contamination Prompts Recall ------------------------------------------------------------ Buffalo Meat & Provision, a Linden, N.J., firm, is voluntarily recalling approximately 890 pounds of sausage products that may be cross contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced today. Products subject to recall include: (1) One- and 10-pound packages of "SOMOS HISPANOS, CHORIZO JALAPENO BRAND, EL CASERO." Each package bears the sell by date "111505." (2) 10-pound packages of "San Carlos Authentic Morcilla, Argentine Brand Blood Sausage." (3) 10-pound packages of "MORCILLA 'COOKED BLOOD PUDDING'." All products bear the establishment number "EST. 7847" inside the USDA seal of inspection. All shipping containers bear the packaging date "SEP 08 2005." The products were produced on September 7 and were distributed to restaurants and distribution centers in New Jersey and New York. The problem was discovered through FSIS microbiological sampling. FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of these products. Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease. Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis. However, listeriosis can cause high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and nausea. Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages and stillbirths, as well as serious and sometimes fatal infections in those with weakened immune systems, such as infants, the elderly and persons with HIV infection or undergoing chemotherapy. Consumers with questions about the recall should contact company Office Manager Stacy Armendariz at (908) 486-9610. Media with questions about the recall should contact company President Reno Armendariz at (908) 486-9610. Consumers with food safety questions can call the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at (888) 674-6854. The hotline is available in English and Spanish and can presently be reached 24 hours a day. CELL THERAPEUTICS: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuits in WA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cell Therapeutics, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleging violations of federal securities laws. The suit also names as defendants James Bianco and Max Link. The securities lawsuits assert claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on behalf of a class of purchasers of common stock during the period from June 7, 2004 to March 4, 2005, or the Class Period. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by, among other things, making false statements of material facts and/or omitting to state material facts to make the statements not misleading, in connection with the results of the Company's STELLAR clinical trials for its drug XYOTAX. The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled "F.L. Heywood, et al. v. Cell Therapeutic Inc., et al.," filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com (2) Chitwood & Harley, 7945 East Paces Ferry Road, 1400 Resurgens Plaza, Atlanta, GA, 30326, Phone: 404.266.1650, (3) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO, 80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E- mail: info@dyershuman.com (4) Keller, Rohrback L.L.P., 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA, 98101-3052 Av, Phone: 800.776.6044, Fax: 206.623.3384, E-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (Melville), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com (6) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119, Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail: info@milbergweiss.com (7) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax: 212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com (8) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com (9) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com (10) Schoengold & Sporn, P.C., 233 Broadway 39Th Floor, New York, NY, 10279, Phone: 212.964.0046, (11) Scott & Scott LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax: 860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com (12) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, 35 East State Street, Media, PA, 19063, Phone: 877.891.9880, E-mail: jshah@classactioncounsel.com (13) 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 CENTRAL ADMIXTURE: Recalls Injectable Products For Health Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is notifying healthcare professionals and hospitals about a product recall involving all injectable products manufactured by Central Admixture Pharmacy Services, Inc. of Lanham, Maryland (CAPS) due to concerns regarding the sterility of these injectable products. CAPS distributed the affected injectable products to hospitals in Maryland, Delaware, Washington, D.C., and Virginia. Gram negative rods have been identified in two lots of Cardioplegia solution manufactured by CAPS. Non-sterility of injectable products could represent a serious hazard to health that could lead to life-threatening injuries and death. The following products distributed up to September 16, 2005, are affected by this action: (1) Cardioplegia solutions including: Cardioplegia, Cold Cardioplegia, Warm Cardioplegia, Blood Cardioplegia 1, Blood Cardioplegia 2, Cardioplegia Base 1, Cardioplegia Base 2, Cardioplegia Base, Cardioplegia Reperfusion, Cardioplegia High Potassium, Cardioplegia Low Potassium, Cardioplegia #1, Cardioplegia #2 Cardioplegia #3; Maintenance Cardioplegia, Enriched Cardioplegia, Cardioplegia Hot Shot, Cardioplegia Base Enriched (2) Oxytocin injectable products including: Oxytocin Infusion, Oxytocin 20 units, Oxytocin 30 units, Oxytocin D5 � NS, Oxytocin in Lactated Ringers (3) Promethazine (4) Magnesium-containing injectable products including: Magnesium 1 GM, Magnesium 2 GM, Magnesium Sulfate 2 GM, Magnesium 4 GM, Hydration-Magnesium in D5W, Magnesium Infusion, Magnesium in Lactated Ringers (5) Heparin Replacement (6) Antibiotic Irrigation Bag and Bottle (7) Bupivicaine 0.25 % and 0.5%, Pain Bags (Bupivicaine 0.25 %) (8) Dialysate solutions including: Citrate Dialysate, Heparin Dialysate, Pediatric Dialysate, Hydration Dialysate #1, Hydration Dialysate #2, CRRT Dialysate, CVVHD (Dialysate) 300, CVVHD (Dialysate) 342, CVVHD Pediatric Formula (Normocarb), CVVHD Formalin #1, CVVHD Formalin #2, CVVHD Formalin #3, CVVHD Non-Standard, CVVHD D5W, CVVHD � NS, CVVHD NS (9) Total Parenteral Nutrition (TPN) products including: TPN-Day, TPN-Day 1 Neonatal Stock Solution (10) Diltiazem (Cardizem) (11) Norepinephrine (Levophed) (12) Cefazolin Although CAPS has directly notified known hospital customers of the recall, hospitals, physicians, and health care workers are urged to examine their supplies for any CAPS of Lanham, MD injectable products and immediately discontinue their use and quarantine the products. CRYOLIFE INC.: SEC Files Suit v. Sales Employees, Spouses --------------------------------------------------------- The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against six individuals for engaging in illegal insider trading in the securities of CryoLife, Inc. CryoLife is a Georgia company that preserves and sells implantable human tissue. The six defendants are Rodney R. Drinen, a CryoLife salesman prior to being promoted to a regional manager; Gerald R. Holmes, a CryoLife salesman; Thomas P. McHugh, a CryoLife salesman and his wife, Nancy M. McHugh; Prescott B. Nash a manager for CryoLife's Mountain Region until September 2002 and his wife Christina H. Nash. The complaint, alleges that in August 2002, the defendants learned that CryoLife had placed a nationwide "quality assurance" hold on a significant amount of tissue shipments. CryoLife imposed this hold shortly after the FDA issued a Recall Order, which required CryoLife to retain, recall and destroy the majority of its human tissue products. The complaint alleges that, before this information was disseminated to the public, the defendants dumped substantially all of their CryoLife stock, sold additional shares "short" and purchased put options. The complaint alleges that, cumulatively, the defendants' losses avoided and ill-gotten gains from the insider trading totaled approximately $136,334. The Commission's complaint alleges that defendants' conduct violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Simultaneously with the filing of the Commission's action, each of the defendants agreed, without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining each of them from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Additionally, the six defendants consented cumulatively to disgorge $136,334 of losses avoided and ill- gotten gains, plus pay prejudgment interest of $19,583 and a one-time penalty on their profits of $136,334. The suit is styled, SEC v. Rodney R. Drinen, Gerald R. Holmes, Thomas P. McHugh, Nancy M. McHugh, Prescott B. Nash, and Christina H. Nash, Civil Action No., 05-CV-8015, S.D.N.Y. (LR-19378). CRYOLIFE INC.: SEC Lodges Illegal Insider Trading Suit v. Couple ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against two individuals for engaging in illegal insider trading in the securities of CryoLife, Inc., a Georgia company that preserves and sells implantable human tissue. The two defendants are James J. Farley, a former salesman for CryoLife and his wife, Shelley J. Farley, both of Medford, New Jersey. The complaint, alleges that in August 2002, the defendants learned that CryoLife had placed a nationwide "quality assurance" hold on a significant amount of tissue shipments. CryoLife imposed this hold shortly after the FDA issued a Recall Order, which required CryoLife to retain, recall and destroy the majority of its human tissue products. The complaint alleges that, before this information was disseminated to the public, the defendants dumped substantially all of their CryoLife stock. The complaint alleges that, cumulatively, the defendants' losses avoided and ill-gotten gains from the insider trading totaled approximately $56,832. The Commission's complaint alleges that defendants' conduct violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint seeks permanent injunctions and an order seeking disgorgement of $56,832, representing their losses avoided, plus prejudgment interest and civil penalties. The suit is styled, SEC v. James J. Farley and Shelley J. Farley, Defendants, Civil Action File No. 05-CV-8016, S.D.N.Y. (LR- 19379). ESS TECHNOLOGY: Trial in CA Securities Suit Expected Early 2007 --------------------------------------------------------------- Trial in the consolidated securities class action filed against ESS Technology, Inc. and certain of its present and former officers and directors is set for early 2007 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On September 12, 2002, following the Company's downward revision of revenue and earnings guidance for the third fiscal quarter of 2002, a series of putative federal class action lawsuits were filed against the Company. The complaints alleged that the Company and certain of its present and former officers and directors made misleading statements regarding its business and failed to disclose certain allegedly material facts during an alleged class period of January 23, 2002 through September 12, 2002, in violation of federal securities laws. These actions were consolidated and are proceeding under the caption "In re ESS Technology Securities Litigation." The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of the putative class. Plaintiffs amended their consolidated complaint on November 3, 2003, which the Company then moved to dismiss on December 18, 2003. On December 1, 2004, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss, and struck from the complaint allegations arising prior to February 27, 2002. On December 22, 2004, based on the Court's order, the Company moved to strike from the complaint all remaining claims and allegations arising prior to September 10, 2002. On February 22, 2005, the Court granted the Company's motion in part and struck all remaining claims and allegations arising prior to August 1, 2002 from the complaint. Plaintiffs have moved to certify the class. The court is awaiting class certification discovery and briefing before ruling on that motion. Discovery is now proceeding in the case. The suit is styled "In re ESS Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation, case no. 02-CV-4497," filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge Ronald M. Whyte. Representing the Company are Meredith N. Landy and Joshua D. Baker of O'Melveny & Myers, 2765 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025-7019, Phone: 650.473.2600, Fax: 650.473.2601, E-mail: mlandy@omm.com or jbaker@omm.com. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 206.749.5544, Fax: 206.749.9978, E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com (2) 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, (3) 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 GABLES RESIDENTIAL: Agrees To Settle Consumer Fraud Suit in FL -------------------------------------------------------------- Gables Residential Trust reached a settlement for a class action filed against it in Florida State Circuit Court alleging that fees charged when residents terminate their leases prior to the end of term or terminate without sufficient notice are not in compliance with state law. The Company has appealed the Court's December 2004 Order certifying the class. In the first quarter of 2005, the Company recorded $1.8 million of expected costs associated with a preliminary agreement to settle the lawsuit. The preliminary agreement to settle the class action lawsuit is subject to court approval once finalized between the parties and published to the class. The charge of $1.8 million represents an estimate and is comprised of two components - expected plaintiffs' attorneys fees and other costs of the settlement of approximately $1.2 million, payable upon court approval of the settlement, and an estimate of $0.6 million for the amount of contested fees the Company expects to be substantiated by eligible class members who elect to make a claim, payable if and when proven according to procedures included in the settlement. The proposed settlement caps contested fees at $3.0 million, with no minimum and requires that $0.35 million be initially placed into an escrow account controlled by the Company to pre-fund the payment of expected claims. GABLES RESIDENTIAL: Shareholders File MD Lawsuits V. ING Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Gables Residential Trust faces two class actions filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in Maryland, opposing an agreement and plan of merger pursuant to which a newly formed affiliate of ING Clarion Partners, LLC, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of ING Groep, N.V. will acquire the Company and its subsidiaries through the mergers of Gables Residential Trust and Gables Realty Limited Partnership with merger subsidiaries of the ING Groep, N.V. On June 10, 2005, an alleged shareholder of the Trust filed the suit, naming as defendants the company, each member of the Board of Trustees and Clarion. The suit principally alleges that the merger and the acts of the trustees constitute a breach of the company's and its Board of Trustees' duties to its shareholders. The plaintiff in the lawsuit seeks, among other things, a declaration that the merger agreement was entered into in a breach of the defendants' duties and is therefore unenforceable and unlawful, to enjoin the merger unless and until the Company adopts and implements a process to obtain the highest possible price for the company, to rescind the merger agreement to the extent already implemented, an order directing the defendants to exercise their duties to obtain a transaction which is in the best interests of the shareholders until the process for the sale or auction of the company is completed, unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys' and experts' fees. On June 20, 2005, a purported second class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City in the State of Maryland. This complaint names as defendants the company, each member of its Board of Trustees and Clarion and alleges the same or substantially similar causes of action and seeks the same or substantially similar relief as the first complaint. HEALTHPLAN SERVICES: Discovery Proceeds in Unfair Trade Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against HealthPlan Services, Inc. (HPS), Fidelity Group, Inc. (Fidelity), HPS, Third Party Claims Management, and others, for unspecified damages. The complaint stems from the failure of a Fidelity insurance plan, and alleges, against Fidelity, and the Company, which is its contracted administrator: (1) unfair and deceptive trade practices; (2) negligent undertaking; (3) fraud; (4) negligent misrepresentation; (5) breach of contract; (6) civil conspiracy; and (7) Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) violations Two principals of the Fidelity plan have been convicted of insurance fraud and sentenced to prison in a separate proceeding. The class has been certified. INFOUSA INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in NE -------------------------------------------------------------- infoUSA Inc. and its directors were named as defendants in two purported class action lawsuits filed in the District Court of Douglas County, Nebraska, entitled "Eileen Tyrrell vs. infoUSA, Inc., et al." (filed in June 2005) and "Robert Bartow vs. infoUSA, Inc., et al." (filed in July 2005). The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of the Company in connection with Vinod Gupta's proposal to acquire the outstanding common stock of the Company not held by Mr. Gupta. The complaints seek the certification of a class of the Company's stockholders, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from proceeding with Mr. Gupta's proposal, an accounting or compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief. LOUISIANA: Fishermen's Group Files Damage Suit V. Oil Companies --------------------------------------------------------------- A group of commercial fishermen sued several oil companies over suspected fisheries damage caused by millions of gallons of oil that spilled into coastal waters after Hurricane Katrina, The 2theadvocate.com reports. The class action lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Houma, seeks unspecified damages from Shell Pipeline Co., Chevron Corp., Bass Enterprises Production Co. and Sundown Energy. The suit was filed on behalf of "all commercial fishermen whose livelihoods depend upon the estuaries and waterways of southeastern Louisiana" that were affected by the spills. According to the suit, hurricane damage to the companies' facilities resulted in more than 5 million gallons of oil spilling into coastal waters. In addition, the suit alleges that the companies "did not design their facilities to withstand the known hazards posed by . hurricanes or to protect the environmentally sensitive estuaries which surrounded their facilities." Though the U.S. Coast Guard has estimated that about 6.7 million gallons spilled as Katrina flooded and damaged oil facilities, the full impact of the spills on fisheries has yet to be determined. Among the three named plaintiffs in the suit is George Barasich, who is a St. Bernard Parish fisherman and the president of the United Commercial Fisherman's Association. LOWE'S HOME: Judge Grants Certification to Employee Wage Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys are preparing to notify as much as 75,000 employees of Lowe's Home Centers that they may be able to participate in suing the company for back pay in a Kansas federal lawsuit, which alleges that the company failed to pay overtime compensation, The Kansas City Business Journal reports. U.S. District Judge Carlos Murguia recently certified the employees as a class, thus expanding a lawsuit with about 30 plaintiffs into a class action suit with potentially thousands of plaintiffs. Originally filed in October 2002 and amended in November 2003, the suit alleged that Lowe's Home Center stores in Shawnee and Olathe: (1) Switched employees' method of payment from salaried to hourly. (2) Failed to pay for "off the clock" work. (3) Failed to pay overtime when employees' pay mode was converted from salaried to hourly. (4) Maintained an improper sick leave policy. (5) Failed to pay for "comp time." Three Kansas City-area law firms are among the five handling the plaintiffs' case: The Law Office of Michael Brady of Overland Park, The Law Office of Thomas Brill of Mission Hills and The Popham Law Firm PC of Kansas City. In a written statement regarding the class certification, Mr. Brady said, "We are satisfied with Judge Murguia's decision and are making plans to carry out the notification process. This class represents a vast number of employees, and we are working with our co-counsel around the country to facilitate the process and bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion." The company though continues to maintain that it did not violate the Fair Labor Standards Act and argues that Lowe's had abided by agreements it made with plaintiffs regarding the terms of their payment. Polsinelli Shalton Welte Suelthaus PC is local counsel for Lowe's in the case. The suit is styled, Hammond, et al v. Lowe's Home Centers, Case No. 2:02-cv-02509-CM-GLR, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, Judge Carlos Murguia, presiding. James R. Becker, Jr. and Alan G. Crone of Crone & Mason, PLC, 5100 Poplar Avenue, Suite 3200, Memphis, TN 38137, Phone: 901-683-1850, Fax: 901-683-1963, E-mail: jbecker@cronemason.com or acrone@cronemason.com; Michael F. Brady, 5350 College Blvd.-Ste. 118, Overland Park, KS 66211- 1621, Phone: 913-696-0925, Fax: 913-696-0468, E-mail: mbrady@kc.rr.com; Thomas H. Brill of The Office of Thomas H. Brill, 6552 Sagamore Road, Mission Hills, KS 66208-3712, Phone: 913-677-2004, Fax: 913-677-2152, E-mail: brillkc@aol.com; Stephen J. Dennis or Dennis E. Egan of The Popham Law Firm, P.C., 323 West 8th St.-Ste. 200, Kansas City, MO 64105-1679, Phone: 816-221-2288, Fax: 816-221-3999, E-mail: sdennis@pophamlaw.com or degan@pophamlaw.com; James Nelson Thomas of Dolin, Thomas & Solomon, LLP, 693 East Ave., Rochester, NY 14607, Phone: 585-272-0540, Fax: 585-272-0574, E- mail: nthomas@theemploymentattorneys.com; and James J. Webb, Jr. Crone & Mason, PLC, 5100 Poplar Ave., Suite 3200, Memphis, TN 38137, Phone: 901-683-1850, Fax: 901-683-1963, E-mail: jwebb@cronemason.com, are representing the Plaintiff/s. Richard R Fritz or Anthony J. Romano of Polsinelli Shalton Welte Suelthaus, P.C. -- KC, 700 West 47th Street, Suite 1000, Kansas City, MO 64112-1802, Phone: 816-753-1000, Fax: 816-753-1536, E- mail: rfritz@pswslaw.com or aromano@pswslaw.com; Keith Hult, Marko J. Mrkonich or John A. Ybarra of Littler Mendelson, PC -- Chicago, 200 North LaSalle, Suite 2900, Chicago, IL 60601-1014, Phone: 312-795-3206 or 312-372-5520, Fax: 312-372-7880 or 312-372-7880, E-mail: khult@littler.com, mmrkonich@littler.com or JYbarra@Littler.com; Andrew J Voss of Littler Mendelson, PC - - Minneapolis, 33 South 6th St., Suite 3110, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: 612-313-7605, Fax: 512-630-9626, E-mail: avoss@littler.com; and Matthew R. O'Connor of Cosentio's Service Corporation, 8700 E. 63rd St., Kansas City, MO 64133, Phone: 816-358-6511, E-mail: moconnor@pswslaw.com. MOTHERS WORK: Working To Resolve CT Employee Overtime Wage Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Mothers Work, Inc. is working to resolve the class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against it, alleging that under applicable federal and state law, certain former and current employees should have received overtime compensation. The plaintiffs in this case are seeking unspecified actual damages, penalties and attorneys' fees. At this stage in these proceedings, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this case, which the Company is vigorously defending. The Company is engaged in efforts to resolve these claims. The suit is styled "Gillmore v. Mothers Work Inc. et al., case no. 3:03-cv-01900-JCH," filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, under Judge Janet C. Hall. Representing the plaintiffs is Anthony J. Pantuso, III of Hayber & Pantuso, 221 Main Street, Ste 400 Hartford, CT 06106, Phone: 860-522-8888, Fax: 860-240-7945, E-mail: apantuso@hayberandpantuso.com. Representing the Company are Howard K. Levine and Ann H. Rubin of Carmody & Torrance, 195 Church St., PO Box 1950, 18th Floor, New Haven, CT 06509-1950, Phone: 203-784-3102, Fax: 203-784-3199, E-mail: hlevine@carmodylaw.com or arubin@carmodylaw.com NAVARRE CORPORATION: Shareholders File Securities Suits in MA ------------------------------------------------------------- Navarre Corporation faces three securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. These actions were commenced in June 2005. The allegations in each of these lawsuits are virtually identical, and essentially claim that the Company and certain of its officers and/or directors violated federal securities laws and regulations because the Company's financial results were materially inflated and not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The complaints allege that these accounting irregularities benefited Company insiders including the individual defendants. The Complaints further allege that the Company failed to properly recognize executive deferred compensation and improperly recognized a deferred tax benefit as income. Plaintiffs allege violation of Sec. 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5), promulgated under the Act, and as to the individual defendants only, violation of Sec. 20(a) of the Act. Plaintiffs seek certification of the actions as class actions, compensatory but unspecified damages allegedly sustained as a result of the alleged wrongdoing, plus costs, counsel fees and experts fees. The actions are identified as follows: (1) AVIVA Partners, Ltd. v. Navarre Corp., et al., case no. 05-1151 (PAM/RLE) (2) Vivian Oh v. Navarre Corp., et al., case no. 05-01211 (MJD/JGL) (3) Matthew Grabler v. Navarre Corp., et al., case no. 05- 1260 (DWF/JSM) Defendants entered into a stipulation with counsel for plaintiffs in each of these cases to postpone the time for bringing a motion to dismiss until after a lead plaintiff and lead counsel are appointed by the Court, and an amended consolidated complaint is filed. Prospective lead plaintiffs must file their motions for appointment by August 12, 2005, following which the Court will rule, and the designated lead plaintiff will prepare and file the amended consolidated complaint. All of this will take a considerable period of time. NEBRASKA: Groups Launch Suit Over Inadequate Foster Care System --------------------------------------------------------------- A recently filed federal lawsuit alleges that the state of Nebraska is endangering children with an "understaffed, under funded and unresponsive" foster care system, The Associated Press reports. Filed in U.S. District Court in Lincoln, the class action suit was brought by New York-based Children's Rights, the Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest and several private law firms on behalf of the 6,000 children in the state's foster-care system. The suit contends, "Defendants' failure to protect Nebraska's foster children and provide them with legally required services subjects these children to significant and ongoing harm, deprives them of a chance for a safe and stable childhood, and violates their rights under the United States Constitution and various federal statutes." Kathie Osterman, spokeswoman for the state Health and Human Services System, told The Associated Press that she had not seen the lawsuit and could not comment. She stressed though that the state has a plan in place to address concerns about the system. NEW YORK: Group Launches Suit V. Brookhaven Town, Suffolk County ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Manhattan-based Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund launched a federal class action suit against Brookhaven Town and Suffolk County, accusing them of illegally targeting Latinos in a housing crackdown that already led to the eviction of at least 100 tenants in Farmingville this summer, Newsday.com reports. Filed in federal court in Brooklyn by the Latino rights group, the suit states that all the residents in 11 houses shut down recently were Latinos, although Latinos make up only 8 percent of Brookhaven's population. Additionally, the suit also alleges that a town-housing inspector used an expletive and a racial slur against a day laborer during a confrontation last month. The lawsuit seeks to order the town to give the tenants sufficient notice to find other housing when carrying out the evictions. George Hoffman, a spokesman for Brookhaven Town denied the allegations and told Newsday.com, "The Town's principal responsibility is to make sure it enforces its fire and building codes." He added that the Puerto Rican Fund has tried and failed several times in state supreme court to sue the town over the housing crackdown. Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy also told Newsday.com, "The day that municipalities are barred from enforcing housing codes will mark the end of suburbia as we know it." In a recent preliminary hearing on the case in federal court in Central Islip, a special counsel hired by Brookhaven, Jeltje DeJong, described tenants illegally cramming houses, living in attics and operating propane barbecues in makeshift kitchens in basements. "It's clear that the tenants were not there legally," she said. Foster Maer, an attorney for the Puerto Rican Fund, said the group isn't opposed to safe housing, but that tenants were being told on the same day by authorities that they had to leave the houses that night. Irma Solis, an organizer at the nonprofit Hempstead-based Workplace Project, testified at the recent hearing that some of the displaced tenants have been living in tents in the backyard at 196 Berkshire Dr., since it was shut down on August 10. In an incident August 25 in Farmingville, the suit alleges that town investigator Patrick Campbell yelled an expletive and a racial slur at a Workplace Project volunteer, and later threatened to have Ms. Solis arrested after she arrived at the scene. Mr. Hoffman though dismissed the allegation, saying, "I would think that is highly unlikely any of our employees would do that." NEW YORK: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in E.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------- New York Community Bancorp, Inc. faces several securities class actions brought in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, alleging violations of federal securities laws on behalf of persons and entities, other than the defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities during the period June 27, 2003 to July 1, 2004, or such shorter period as defined in some of the actions. The lawsuits are all related to the same sets of facts and circumstances and all but one allege that the Company violated Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10 and 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated pursuant to Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's merger with Roslyn Bancorp, Inc. and other documents and statements made by executive management were inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and concealed and failed to adequately disclose material facts. The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled "Toby Olsen, et al. v. New York Community Bancorp, Inc., et al., case no. 04-CV-4165," filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com (2) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax: 212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com (3) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com (4) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com NEW YORK: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Lawsuit For ERISA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- New York Community Bancorp, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York to dismiss the class action filed against it, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act on behalf of a putative class of participants in the New York Community Bank Employee Savings Plan. On February 8, 2005, the Company's Board of Directors received a letter, dated January 31, 2005, from a law firm purporting to represent a shareholder of the Company that repeats many of the allegations made in the putative class actions, and demands that the Board take a variety of actions allegedly required to address those allegations. The suit is in its preliminary stages. The defendants moved to dismiss the action, but no defendant has answered or otherwise responded to any of the putative securities class action complaints. NTL EUROPE: NY Court Partially Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part NTL Europe, Inc.'s (now known as PTV) motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against it, NTL Europe, Inc and some of its former officers, including Barclay Knapp, the Company's former president and chief executive officer. Several suits were initially filed, generally alleging that the defendants failed to disclose NTL Europe's financial condition, finances and future prospects accurately in press releases and other communications with investors prior to filing its Chapter 11 case in federal court. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the actions and, on July 31, 2003, the court entered an order dismissing the complaint in the individual action without prejudice to filing an amended complaint and deferred its decision on the complaint in the class action lawsuits. On August 20, 2003, the plaintiff in the individual action filed an amended complaint. The Company then asked the court to dismiss the suit. On December 7, 2004, the court denied in part and granted in part the defendants' motions to dismiss all actions. The court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss claims based on factual allegations that NTL Europe failed to disclose material difficulties it faced in integrating acquired companies, failed to disclose material practices that inflated subscriber numbers (with respect to some defendants), and failed to disclose the cash flow status of its largest acquisition during the relevant period (with respect to some defendants). The court found no factual support for the plaintiffs' other allegations. While PTV has been released from monetary liability (other than PTV's insurance coverage) in these actions as a result of the completion of the Plan, the case remains pending against PTV and the individuals named as defendants. The suit is styled "In Re: Ntl, Inc. Securities Litigation, case no. 1:02-cv-03013-LAK-AJP," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Lewis A. Kaplan. Representing the Company is Seth Marc Schwartz, Skaddden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (NYC), Four Times Square, New York, NY 10036, Phone: 212-735-3000, Fax: 917-777-2710, Email: sschwart@skadden.com. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Cary L. Talbot, Daniel Bernard Scotti, Steven G. Schulman, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212) 594-5300, Fax: (212) 868-1229, Email: dscotti@milberg.com and sschulman@milbergweiss.com (2) David Arthur Scott, Michael A. Swick, Scott & Scott, L.L.C., P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT 06415, Phone: (860) 537-5537 (3) Nadeem Faruqi, Farrell & Thurman, PC, P.O. Box 671, Princeton, NJ 08542, Phone: (212)983-9330, Fax: (212) 983-9331, Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com (4) Samuel Howard Rudman, Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367- 1173, Email: srudman@lerachlaw.com PANTRY INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended FLSA Violations Suit in NC --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Pantry, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, styled "Constance Barton, Kimberly Clark, Wesley Clark, Tracie Hunt, Eleanor Walters, Karen Meredith, Gilbert Breeden, LaCentia Thompson, and Mathesia Peterson, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of classes of those similarly situated vs. The Pantry, Inc." The suit, filed in June 2004, seeks class action status and asserts claims on behalf of the Company's North Carolina present and former employees for unpaid wages under North Carolina Wage and Hour laws. The suit also seeks an injunction against any unlawful practices, damages, liquidated damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The suit originally was filed in the Superior Court for Forsyth County, State of North Carolina. On August 17, 2004, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina and on July 18, 2005, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint asserting certain additional claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of present and former store employees in the southeastern United States and adding one additional named plaintiff, Chester Charneski. POST PROPERTIES: Shareholders Appeals Suit Settlement Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- An alleged Post Properties, Inc. appealed the Superior Court of Fulton County, Atlanta, Georgia's approval of the settlement of the shareholder derivative and purported class action lawsuits filed against members of the Company's board of directors and the Company (as a nominal defendant). This complaint alleged various breaches of fiduciary duties by the board of directors of the Company and sought, among other relief, the disclosure of certain information by the defendants. This complaint also sought to compel the defendants to undertake various actions to facilities a sale of the Company. On May 7, 2003, the plaintiff made a request for voluntary expedited discovery. On May 13, 2003, the Company received notice that a similar shareholder derivative and purported class action lawsuit was filed against certain members of the board of directors of the Company and against the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Atlanta, Georgia on May 12, 2003 and alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control and corporate waste by the defendants. The plaintiff sought monetary damages and, as appropriate, injunctive relief. These lawsuits were settled, and in October 2004, the Superior Court of Fulton County entered an order approving the settlement and related orders dismissing the litigation. The estimated legal and settlement costs, not covered by insurance, associated with the expected resolution of the lawsuits were recorded in the second quarter of 2003 as a component of a proxy contest and related costs charge. An alleged Company shareholder, who has filed a separate purported derivative and direct action against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, has appealed from the Superior Court's orders approving the settlement, overruling the shareholder's objection to the settlement, denying the shareholder's motion to intervene, and dismissing the litigation with prejudice. PREMIERE GLOBAL: MD Consumer Launches TCPA Violations Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- One of Premiere Global Services, Inc.'s subsidiaries, Xpedite, faces a class action filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Paul Worsham filed the suit on February 22, 2005, alleging that Xpedite transmitted pre-recorded telephone calls advertising Data Communications services to telephone numbers in Maryland, including to Mr. Worsham's telephone number, in violation of the TCPA, as amended, and applicable Federal Communication Commission (FCC) rules. The complaint also alleges violations of federal caller identification requirements under FCC rules and violations of the Maryland Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The complaint seeks statutory damages under the federal and Maryland statutes for each of four alleged violations of the two statutes and injunctive relief. The case is proceeding in state court with initial discovery likely. RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS LTD: Shareholders File Fraud Suits in NY --------------------------------------------------------------- Renaissancere Holdings, Ltd. faces several securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by purchasers of the Company's common stock, alleging violations of federal securities laws. The suits also name as defendants certain of the Company's present and former executive officers and directors. The complaints allege that the Company and the other defendants violated the federal securities laws by making material misstatements and failing to state material facts about the Company's business and financial condition, among other things, in securities act filings and public statements. Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount to compensate an alleged class of persons who purchased the Company's stock between January 24, 2002 and July 25, 2005. One of the actions also includes claims on behalf of purchasers of the Company's 6.08% Series C perpetual preference shares. ROAD RUNNER TRAILERS: Recalls 2005 Tri Axle Due to Crash Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- Road Runner Trailers, Inc., in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 1 unit of 2005 Adrenaline and 2005 Road Runner Tri Axle due to crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V402000. According to the ODI, on one boat trailer equipped with Tredit wheels, the rims may have poor weld quality and insufficient press fit between the wheel rim and disc. The center of the wheel could separate from the rim. The wheel may wobble and cause a vibration or the mounted tire could lose air causing the tire to go flat, resulting in a loss of control of the vehicle and increasing the risk of a crash. As a remedy, Road Runner is working with Tredit tire to notify the owner and have the rims replaced. The recall is expected to begin during October 2005. For more details, contact Road Runner, Phone: 972-492-0285 and NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY) 1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov. SC&E ADMINISTRATIVE: Suit Settlement Hearing Set January 6, 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The District Court of the State of Nevada for the County of Clark will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter, Reuben J. Rocker, et al. v. SC&E Administrative Services, Case Nos. A-458551 & A-470558. (Consolidated), on behalf all persons who bought or possessed a Vehicle Service Contract "VSC" for which the obligations of the issuer were insured by National Warranty Insurance Risk Retention Group (NWIG) that was purchased directly or indirectly from SC&E, APA or Triad prior to June 6, 2003 pursuant to which there is an unreimbursed claim incurred during the term of the VSC, or for which there remained an unexpired term on June 6, 2003, or otherwise purchased their VSC from one of the Settling Car Dealers. The settling Defendants are Painters Autoland, Amigo Autosales, Honda West, Nevada Dodge, Bill Heard Chevrolet Corporation NW, Bill Heard Chevrolet Corporation NW Las Vegas, City Oldsmobile, Inc., Courtesy Cars, Inc., Courtesy Oldsmobile, Inc., Courtesy North, LLC, Courtesy Imports, Foothills Motors, Norm Baker Motors (settling car dealers), Triad Marketing, LLC, SC&E Administrative Services, Inc., American prime Asset, Inc., A.M. Best Company and Yamagata Enterprises, Inc. The Nevada State Court has scheduled a hearing on January 6, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. before the Honorable Valerie Adair in the District Court of the State of Nevada for the County of Clark, Dept. No. XXI, located at 8th Judicial District Court, Dept. XXI, Clark County Court House, 200 South Third Street, Las Vegas, NV 89101, to consider whether to grant final approval of the settlement. For more details, contact SC&E Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 8060, San Rafael, CA 94912-8060, before November 2, 2005 OR Norman B. Blumenthal of Blumenthal and Markham, Phone: 858-551-1223. SHURGARD STORAGE: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action filed against it in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California styled as "Patricia Scura et al. v. Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. (Case No. C 02-5246-WDB)." The complaint alleges that the Company required its hourly store employees to perform work before and after their scheduled work times and failed to pay overtime compensation for work performed before and after hours and during meal periods. The lawsuit seeks class action status and seeks damages, injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment against the Company under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and California statutory wage and hour laws and laws relating to unlawful and unfair business practices. In December 2004, the Company reached a tentative agreement to settle this lawsuit. The basis terms of the proposed agreement are reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding which was incorporated into a definitive settlement agreement that was submitted for approval by the District Court. The District Court established October 7, 2005, as the date for final approval of the settlement agreement. Any class member who objects to the settlement agreement must file objections on or before September 23, 2005. The suit is styled "Scura et al v. Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc., case no. 3:02-cv-05246," filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge Charles R. Breyer. Representing the plaintiffs are J.E.B. Pickett and Matthew Rigetti of Righetti Wynne, 456 Montgomery Street Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-983-0900 E- mail: jebp@righettilaw.com, or matt@righettilaw.com. Representing the Company is Clemens H. Barnes and James D. DeRoche of Perkins Coie LLP, 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: 206-359-3861 E-mail: jderoche@perkinscoie.com. SHURGARD STORAGE: Plaintiffs Withdraw Securities Suit in W.D. WA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a second securities class action filed against Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On January 19, 2005, David Gross filed a purported class action suit styled as "David Gross v. Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc., Charles K. Barbo, and Harrell L. Beck. (Case No. CV05-0098)." The suit alleges violations of federal securities law. Mr. Gross claimed that the Company made material misleading misstatements and omissions relating to the Company's financial statements in various public statements and filings, which Mr. Gross alleges led to the artificial inflation of our stock price. On March 9, 2005, the Company received a copy of a Notice of Dismissal without Prejudice filed by the law firms that had represented the plaintiffs. On March 15, 2005, the law firms in the Gross matter filed a class action suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington styled as "Stephen Zak, et al. v. Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc., Charles K. Barbo, and Harrell Beck (Case No. CV05-0417C)." The suit alleges violations of federal securities law and makes substantially similar claims to those in the Gross complaint above. The suit seeks unspecified damages including attorneys' fees and costs. On May 26, 2005, the Company received a copy of a notice of Dismissal without Prejudice filed by the law firms that had represented the plaintiffs. A dismissal without prejudice does not preclude plaintiffs from re-filing the claim in the future. The remaining suit is styled "Zak v. Shurgard Storage Centers Inc et al., case no. 2:05-cv-00417-JCC," filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, under Judge John C. Coughenour. Representing the Company is Stellman Keehnel, DLA PIPER RUDNICK GRAY CARY US LLP, 701 Fifth Avenue, Ste 7000, Seattle WA 98104-7044 Phone: 206-839-4800 E- mail: stellman.keehnel@dlapiper.com. Representing the plaintiffs is Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 5th Ave. Ste 2900, Seattle WA 98101 Phone: 206-623-7292 E- mail: steve@hagens-berman.com VIRGINIA: Roanoke Sheriff Faces Lawsuit For Sexual Harassment ------------------------------------------------------------- A former deputy who is suing Roanoke Sheriff George McMillan for sexual harassment is seeking class action status for her lawsuit as three more former employees of the department came forward to back her up, The Roanoke Times reports. According to Terry Grimes, the attorney for former deputy Lespia J. King, if a federal judge certifies class action status in the case against the sheriff, it would allow the lawsuit to proceed on behalf of any woman in the country who says Sheriff McMillan has sexually harassed her. Court records revealed that former deputies Kristin Darnell and Malinda Bland, along with former public information officer Jennifer Donovan, have made statements in support of the motion, saying Sheriff McMillan, harassed them too. Mr. Grimes told The Roanoke Times that several other women have also reported harassment, although he could not provide a number. When asked about the motion, Sheriff McMillan, 53, told The Roanoke Times that he had not heard about it and added, "I don't know the allegations and I don't know who the women might be. All I can still say is I know it's political because I know that my opponent and some of her supporters have been calling some women who used to work for me." Sheriff McMillan's Republican opponent in the November election, Octavia Johnson, told The Roanoke Times that her campaign had nothing to do with the lawsuit. Mr. Grimes as well denied having any contact with Ms. Johnson or her campaign saying, "It has nothing to do with his election," and pointed out, "The purpose of this lawsuit is to try to obtain justice for the apparently large number of women who have been sexually harassed." Ms. King filed a complaint against Sheriff McMillan and his office in August, alleging gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and assault and battery. She began working for the department in August 2000, but the complaint covers a period of time between January 2003 and her resignation in March 2004. Sheriff McMillan, who has held his position since 1997, also told The Roanoke Times that he has not yet been served with the original complaint and has not been appointed an attorney by the State Division of Risk Management, which insures elected officials. Mr. Grimes told The Roanoke Times that his office has 120 days to serve the complaint against Sheriff McMillan and has held off, in part, because women were contacting his office. He added that the sheriff would likely be served with the complaint within the next week. In her complaint, Ms. King claims that Sheriff McMillan embraced her and groped her buttocks, asked her to sit on his lap and questioned her about her personal life and relationships. In recently filed declarations along with a memorandum in support of the motion, Ms. Donovan, Ms. Bland and Ms. Darnell allege similar behavior. According to her declaration, Ms. Donovan claims that during her job interview, Sheriff McMillan said "the public information officer was like his mistress" and that they would "become best friends" and be "closer than spouses." During her employment from January through October 2002, Ms. Donovan claims, Sheriff McMillan touched her inappropriately. After the sheriff touched her lower back one-day, she complained to him, at which point he hinted she would be fired, her statement says. She soon resigned. Court records also revealed that Ms. Darnell was 18 years old when she was hired as a deputy. She alleges the sheriff told her he was a very "touchy, feely person," called her pretty and hinted that they could have sex. She worked at the department from January 2001 until August 2002, when she resigned. Ms. Bland's declaration includes claims that Sheriff McMillan told her "that he knew that my mother had voted for Octavia Johnson (I do not know how the sheriff knew this), and he said something like, 'you better know - the jail is all about politics - you have to vote for me,' or words to that effect." She claims that the sheriff found frequent ways to call her into his office, where he would grab her buttocks or say, "that he liked big breasts." Mr. Grimes told The Roanoke Times that the court documents include some possible rationales for the women's decisions to work for Sheriff McMillan despite the alleged harassment. Those include their youth, their desire to work in law enforcement and, in Ms. Bland's case, money. Her declaration states that McMillan started her out at a salary of $33,000 - far more than she was making at the time - and once even slipped a $100 bill into her pants pocket, saying he would provide her money "as long as you will come into my office and let me feel you up from time to time." Ms. Johnson, Sheriff McMillan's opponent, was an employee of the sheriff's office for 25 years before retiring last year. She declined to comment when asked about the specifics of the lawsuit, or if she'd heard similar accusations while she was a sheriff's department employee. But she did say that the sheriff is in an "unfortunate" predicament. She also told The Roanoke Times, "This is his personal tragedy. I will pray for him, his family and the department. I am not going to judge George McMillan." However, McMillan wondered whether the lawsuit would even be pursued after the November election saying, "None of this is true. This is just hogwash." WAL-MART STORES: Jury Trials Begins in CA Employee Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys representing approximately 116,000 former and current Wal-Mart Stores Inc. employees in California told a jury that the world's largest retailer systematically and illegally denied workers lunch breaks, The Associated Press reports. Attorney Fred Furth told the 12 jurors and four alternates that the workers in the class action lawsuit, which was filed in Alameda County Superior Court, are owed more than $66 million plus interest. "I will prove the reason they did this was for the God almighty dollar," he said in his opening statement. The case, which needs nine jurors to side with it to prevail, concerns a 2001 state law, which is among the nation's most worker friendly. That state law stipulates that employees who work at least six hours must have a 30-minute, unpaid lunch break. If they do not get that, the law requires they be must paid for an additional hour of pay. The suit covers former and current employees in California from 2001 to 2005. Wal-Mart declined to give an opening statement, reserving its right to give one later. Its lawyers also declined comment. According to court documents, the Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailer claims that workers did not demand penalty wages on a timely basis and added that it did pay some employees their penalty pay and, in 2003, most workers agreed to waive their meal periods as the law allows. In addition, Wal-Mart also pointed out that some violations were minor, such as demanding employees punch back in from lunch and work during their meal breaks. In essence, workers were provided a shorter meal period than the law allows. The case, which does not claim that employees were forced to work off the clock during their lunch breaks, was brought in 2001 by a handful of San Francisco-area former Wal-Mart employees and took four years of legal wrangling to get to trial. During that time, Wal-Mart produced internal audits that plaintiffs' lawyers maintain showed the company knew it was not granting meal breaks on thousands of occasions. That 2000 audit was given to top-level executives, according to evidence submitted to jurors. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Phentermine HCl Product Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its affiliates face approximately 50 suits in various state and federal courts, alleging personal injury as a result of using phentermine hydrochloride products. The suits also name other pharmaceutical firms. Most of the cases involve multiple plaintiffs, and several were filed or certified as class actions. The Company believes it will be fully indemnified by Rugby's former owner, Aventis Pharmaceuticals (Aventis, formerly known as Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., and now known as Sanofi-Aventis) for the defense of all such cases and for any liability that may arise out of these cases, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Aventis is currently controlling the defense of all these matters as the indemnifying party under its agreements with the Company. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Appeal Suit Summary Judgment --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the consolidated antitrust litigation filed against Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and other pharmaceutical firms appealed the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York's ruling granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Beginning in July 2000, a number of suits have been filed against the Company, Rugby Group and other company affiliates in various state and federal courts, alleging violations of federal antitrust laws, related to its Ciprofloxacin hydrochloride product. The suits allege claims under various federal and state competition and consumer protection laws. Several plaintiffs have filed amended complaints and motions seeking class certification. The defendants have opposed these class certification motions, which remain pending, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (April 11,2005) states. As of March 7, 2005, approximately 42 cases had been filed against the Company, Rugby and other Watson entities. Twenty-two of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, styled "In re: Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 001383." In May 2003, the court hearing the consolidated action granted the Company's motion to dismiss and made rulings limiting the theories under which plaintiffs can seek recovery against Rugby and the other defendants. Portions of that decision are expected to be appealed. On May 28, 2004, the defendants, including the Company and certain of its affiliates, filed motions for summary judgment in the consolidated action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, seeking dismissal of several of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs, including claims alleging violation of the antitrust laws. On July 9, 2004, the plaintiffs filed oppositions to the defendants' summary judgment motions, and the direct purchasers filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on their claims. A hearing on these motions took place on February 28, 2005. On May 7, 2005, three groups of plaintiffs from the consolidated action, including the direct purchaser plaintiffs, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs, and plaintiffs Rite Aid and CVS Corporation, filed Notices of Appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing, among other things, the March 31, 2005 Order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The suit is styled "In Re: Ciprofloxin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, case no. 1:00-md-01383-DGT-SMG," filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge David G. Trager. Representing the Company is David E. Everson of Stinson, Mag & Fizzell, P.C., 1201 Walnut, Suite 2900, Kansas City, MO 64106, Phone: 816-842-8600, Fax: 816-691-3495, E-mail: deverson@stinsonmoheck.com. Representing the plaintiffs are Robert S. Schachter, Joseph S. Tusa of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, 41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor, New York, NY 10010, Phone: 212-223-3900, Fax: 212-371-5969, E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces New AWP Antitrust Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries face new litigation, alleging improper or fraudulent reporting practices related to the reporting of average wholesale prices of certain products. Several suits were filed in June and July of 2005, including actions by six counties in New York State, styled: (1) County of Columbia v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Case No. 05-CV-0867-GLS/RFTl; (2) County of Cortland v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Case No. 05-CV-0881-NAM/GJD; (3) County of Dutchess v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 05-CV-06458-ESJ/KNF; (4) Essex County v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Case No. 05-CV-0878-TJM/DRH; (5) County of Lewis v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Case No. 05-CV-0839-DNH/GHL; and (6) County of Orleans v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Western District of New York, Case No. 05-CV-06371-MAT). In the Consolidated Action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, styled "In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1456, Civil Action No. 01-CV-12257-PBS," on June 15, 2005, a separate consolidated complaint was filed that adds six other New York counties (County of Jefferson, County of Madison, County of Niagra, County of Putnam, County of Steuben, and County of Suffolk) to those that had earlier sued the Company and certain subsidiaries. On July 20, 2005, an action was filed against the Company and a subsidiary by the Attorney General for the State of Florida, styled "The State of Florida ex rel. Ven- A-Care of the Florida Keys, Inc. et al. v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 98-3032G," in the Florida Leon County Court. As of August 8, 2005, in addition to the Consolidated Action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, there were approximately 45 plaintiffs in 40 cases pending against the Company or its subsidiaries and other third parties, including actions by eight State Attorneys General, the City of New York, and 36 counties in New York State. The defendants have removed several of these actions (originally filed in state court) to federal court, and are seeking eventual transfer of these cases into the Consolidated Action. However, the plaintiffs have filed motions to remand several of the cases back to state court. The Company has been served in several of the actions filed by New York counties. Additional actions are anticipated. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Lawsuit Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs appeal the United States District Court for the Central District of California's dismissal of a consolidated securities class action filed against Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its present and former officers and directors. Beginning in November 2003, several securities class action lawsuits were commenced, and on February 9, 2004, the federal court issued an order consolidating all of the federal actions, under the caption "In re: Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV-03-8236 AHM." In addition to the federal consolidated actions, two shareholder derivative actions were filed in California Superior Court for the County of Riverside, styled "Philip Orlando v. Allen Chao, et al., Case No. 403717;" and "Charles Zimmerman v. Allen Chao, et al, Case No. 403715." These federal and state cases all relate to the drop in the price of the Company's common stock in November 2001, and allege generally that the Company failed to timely advise investors about matters such as falling inventory valuations, increased competition and manufacturing difficulties, and therefore, the Company's published financial statements and public announcements during 2000 and 2001 were false and misleading. The shareholder derivative actions were dismissed without prejudice on November 16, 2004. On August 2, 2004, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the federal consolidated action, and allowed plaintiffs until August 30, 2004 to file an amended complaint. On August 30, 2004, the lead plaintiff in the federal consolidated action notified the court that it did not intend to file an amended complaint in response to the court's order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss. On September 2, 2004, the court entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of the defendants. On October 1, 2004, one of the non- lead plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal of the action with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, styled "Pension Fund v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., USCA Docket No. 04-56791." The court has set a briefing schedule for the appeal, but has not yet set a date for oral argument on the appeal. On May 31, 2005, the appellants filed their reply brief. The appellate court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the appeal. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces 90 Hormone Therapy Liability Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its affiliates face approximately ninety cases in various state and federal courts, representing claims by approximately 800 plaintiffs, in relation to alleged personal injury caused by the Company's hormone replacement therapy products. The suits also name other pharmaceutical firms as defendants. Many of the cases seek certification as class actions. These actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows, the company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission. WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Reaches Agreement to Settle 2002 ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Williams Companies, Inc. (NYSE: WMB) reached an agreement to settle class action litigation filed in 2002 under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against the company, its board of directors as well as members of the company's investment and benefits committees. The plaintiffs are individuals who participated in the company's 401(k) retirement plan during a period that began July 24, 2000. In the lawsuit, plaintiffs alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to 401(k) plan participants related to investments in the common stock of Williams and Williams' former subsidiary, Williams Communications Group. The settlement, which is subject to court approval and certain other conditions, provides for Williams to pay $55 million to plaintiffs. Of that amount, $50 million is covered and will be paid by insurance. As part of the settlement, plaintiffs will release all defendants from claims related directly or indirectly to the suit and company's 401(k) plan. The company's 401(k) retirement plan that is, in part the subject of today's announced settlement continues to be under investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor. Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- 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 DHB INDUSTRIES: Chitwood Harley Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons (the "Class") who purchased the securities of DHB Industries, Inc., (Amex: DHB) ("DHB" or the "Company") during the period April 21, 2004 and August 29, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Defendants are DHB Industries, Inc., David H. Brooks, Sandra Hatfield, Cary L. Chasin, Jerome Krantz, Barry Berkman, Gary Nadelman and Dawn Schlegel. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, DHB violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, SEC Rule 10b-5. The Complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period positive representations regarding DHB's fast-growing business, disseminated in press release and SEC filings, were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose that a material portion of the Company's bulletproof vests contained a material amount of Zylon fibers whose effectiveness at stopping bullets degraded over time. By the beginning of the Class Period, the Complaint alleges, defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that vests containing Zylon could potentially fail to stop bullets because of fiber degradation, and that serious concerns about their use in body armor was growing in the law enforcement community. Defendants, however, failed to warn investors of the palpable and substantial risk that its Zylon products posed to the Company's business. The Complaint charges, inter alia, that: (1) DHB's body armor products were unsafe and defective; (2) despite knowledge of this, the Company continued to falsely represent that its body armor products were safe and of high quality; (3) Defendants knew and/or recklessly disregarded that continued sales of its unsafe and defective body armor products could have a material adverse effect on DHB's finances; and (4) DHB lacked adequate internal controls and, therefore, failed to determine the true financial impact of withdrawal of any of its products. During the Class Period, defendants sold millions of dollars worth of stock in the Company, despite knowledge of the foregoing. On August 30, 2005, the truth began to emerge. DHB announced that it would take a charge of up to $60 million in the third quarter to discontinue production of certain bullet-proof vests because of safety concerns. Following this announcement, shares of DHB, on August 30, 2005, fell $1.56 per share, or 23.42 percent, to close at $5.10 per share on unusually heavy trading volume. For more details, contact Lauren S. Antonino, Esq. or Katie King, Esq. of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, Phone: 1-888-873-3999 ext. 6888 or 1-888-873-3999 ext. 6826, E-mail: lantonino@chitwoodlaw.com or kking@chitwoodlaw.com. DHB INDUSTRIES: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in NY ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, initiated a Federal Securities fraud class action suit on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of DHB Industries, Inc. ("DHB" or the "Company") (AMEX:DHB) acquiring the stock between April 29, 2004 and August 29, 2005, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action, entitled, Cohutt v. DHB Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. (not yet assigned), is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and names as defendants, the Company, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, David H. Brooks, its Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer, Treasurer and Secretary, Dawn Marie Schlegel, its Chief Operating Officer, Sandra Hatfield, and the following directors: Cary Lawrence Chasin, Jerome Krantz, Barry Berkman is and has been a director of the Company since February 2003. Defendant Berkman and Gary Nadelman. The Complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants' positive representations regarding DHB's fast-growing business, disseminated in press releases and SEC filings, were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose that a material portion of the Company's bulletproof vests contained a material amount of Zylon fibers whose effectiveness at stopping bullets degraded over time. By the beginning of the Class Period, defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that vests containing Zylon could potentially fail to stop bullets because of fiber degradation, and that serious concerns about their use in body armor was growing in the law enforcement community. Defendant, however, failed to warn investors of the palpable and substantial risk that its Zylon products posed to the Company's business. While the price of the Company's securities was artificially inflated, and before its collapse, DHB insiders, including defendants Brooks, Schlegel and Hatfield, sold a total of 11,288,789 million shares of DHB common stock, reaping gross proceeds of over $220 million. Of that amount, defendant Brooks sold over 10.4 million shares for proceeds exceeding $204 million. The average price at which insiders sold their DHB stock was $19.51. On August 30, 2005, before the open of ordinary trading, DHB issued a press release announcing that it stopped using Zylon in its body armor after the National Institute of Justice revoked its certification of Zylon-containing body armor. In addition, the Company announced that it would replace all Zylon vests in the field. This replacement program would result in an estimated $60 million charge in the third quarter of 2005. On this news, the price of DHB common stock fell by 23 percent in one day, from $6.66 per share on August 29, 2005 to $5.10 per share on August 30, 2005, on unusually heavy trading volume. DHB's tock price continued to decline, falling to $4.58 by the close of August 31, 2005. The insiders who sold their shares during the Class Period, at the average price of $19.51 per share, avoided tremendous losses. For more details, contact Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq. of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Ave., 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (877) 935-7400, E-mail: jmn@whesq.com, Web site: http://www.whesq.com. GENERAL MOTORS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired $1-2/3 par value common stock (the "common stock") and/or debt securities of the General Motors Corporation ("GM" or the "Company") (NYSE: GM) between February 25, 2002 and March 16, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The complaint alleges, inter alia, that defendants issued or caused to be issued materially false and misleading statements to the investing public with respect to the Company's financial performance and condition during the relevant time. In addition, during the fourth quarter of 2004 and the first quarter of 2005, defendants, with knowledge or reckless disregard of facts then in their possession, disseminated materially false and misleading projections, lacking in reasonable basis, with respect to GM's first-quarter and year 2005 revenues, earnings and cash flow. During the Class Period, when the Company's debt ratings were materially inflated by defendants' materially false and misleading statements and omissions, defendants caused GM to issue more than $18 billion in debt securities. When the true facts finally began to come out at the end of the Class Period, the price of GM stock, which had closed at $32.71 on March 15, 2005, declined by $4.57 per share, or 14%, to close at $28.14 per share on March 16, 2005. The prices of the Company's debt securities also declined in the market. The action, numbered 05-CV-8088, is pending before the Honorable Richard M. Berman in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendants GM; GM's wholly-owned subsidiary, General Motors Acceptance Corporation ("GMAC"); Peter R. Bible (GM's Chief Accounting Officer); Walter G. Borst (GM's Treasurer); John M. Devine (GM's CFO and Vice Chairman); and G. Richard Wagoner Jr. (GM's CEO and Chairman). For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman or Andrei V. Rado 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. MANNATECH INC.: Glancy Binkow Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, which is representing shareholders of Mannatech, Inc., states that there are only 28 days remaining to move to be a lead plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit. All persons and institutions who purchased securities of Mannatech, Inc. ("Mannatech" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:MTEX) between August 10, 2004 and May 8, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), may move the Court not later than October 17, 2005, to serve as lead plaintiff; however, you must meet certain legal requirements. The Complaint charges Mannatech and Samuel L. Caster with violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff claims defendants issued false or misleading statements concerning the Company's business and operations, which caused Mannatech's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. Mannatech operates in the field of "glyconutrients" and designs and develops proprietary nutritional supplements, topical products and weight management products, sold primarily by purportedly independent sales associates and members through a network-marketing system -- commonly known as "multilevel marketing." The Complaint alleges Mannatech failed to adequately supervise and/or monitor the conduct of its associates, including those who maintain websites that prominently display misleading testimonials and/or falsely suggest that Mannatech products are effective in the treatment and prevention of certain specific diseases. The Complaint alleges that, unbeknownst to public investors, the true facts which defendants knew and/or recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose to the investing public during the Class Period, included: (1) that the Company's internal controls were inadequate, and failed in several key aspects, resulting in inadequate monitoring and supervision of the Company's associates; (2) as a consequence of defendants' failure to supervise, Mannatech associates made false and unfounded claims concerning the efficacy of the Company's products; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements with respect to Mannatech's operations, performance and prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. On May 9, 2005, an article published in Barron's revealed the misleading nature of claims made on certain Mannatech associates' websites. This news shocked the market, causing the price of Mannatech shares to plummet more than 26 percent in one day, thereby damaging investors. The next day, May 10, 2005, Mannatech shares fell an additional 19 percent as a result of this news. For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy or Michael Goldberg of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com. PATTERSON COMPANIES: Glancy Binkow Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, which is representing shareholders of Patterson Companies, Inc. stated that interested parties have only up to October 10, 2005 to move to be a lead plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit. The suit is on behalf of all persons and institutions that purchased securities of Patterson Companies, Inc. ("Patterson" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:PDCO) between February 24, 2005 and May 25, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Filed in the in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, the Complaint charges Patterson and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Patterson distributes dental, companion-pet veterinary and rehabilitation supplies, and offers, among other things, consumable dental supplies, infection control products and dental accessories for dentists and other healthcare professionals. The Complaint alleges defendants' Class Period representations concerning Patterson's operations and performance were materially false and misleading when made for the following reasons: (1) demand for the Company's dental products, consumable dental supplies and printed office products had significantly declined; (2) due to a decline in overall sales, Patterson had offered incentives to its dental segment personnel to push sales, which resulted in higher expenses for the Company; (3) the Company's Canadian dental operations were experiencing a steep decline in equipment sales caused by severe operational difficulties within the dental supply division; (4) the Company experienced difficulties in integrating its multiple recent acquisitions; and (5) as a consequence of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements concerning Patterson's growth and progress were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. On May 26, 2005, the Company reported that Patterson had missed its fourth quarter 2005 earnings projections, and that it would need to dramatically reduce its expectations for the first quarter of 2006. This news shocked the market, causing the price of Patterson shares to fall $7.50 per share, or 14.16 percent, to close on May 26, 2005 at $45.46 per share. For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy or Michael Goldberg of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com. UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit Over UBS Mutual Funds ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UBS-AG (NYSE: UBS) and its affiliated entities ("UBS"), on behalf of those who purchased UBS mutual funds from UBS between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The UBS mutual funds and their respective trading symbols are as follows: UBS Absolute Return Bond A (NASDAQ: BNRAX) UBS Absolute Return Bond C (NASDAQ: BNRCX) UBS Absolute Return Bond Y (NASDAQ: BNRYX) UBS Dynamic Alpha A (NASDAQ: BNAAX) UBS Dynamic Alpha B (NASDAQ: BNABX) UBS Dynamic Alpha C (NASDAQ: BNACX) UBS Dynamic Alpha Y (NASDAQ: BNAYX) UBS Global Allocation A (NASDAQ: BNGLX) UBS Global Allocation B (NASDAQ: BNPBX) UBS Global Allocation C (NASDAQ: BNPCX) UBS Global Allocation Y (NASDAQ: BPGLX) UBS Global Bond A (NASDAQ: BNGBX) UBS Global Bond B (NASDAQ: BNDBX) UBS Global Bond Y (NASDAQ: BPGBX) UBS Global Equity A (NASDAQ: BNGEX) UBS Global Equity B (NASDAQ: BNEBX) UBS Global Equity C (NASDAQ: BNECX) UBS Global Equity Y (NASDAQ: BPGEX) UBS High Yield A (NASDAQ: BNHYX) UBS High Yield B (NASDAQ: BNHBX) UBS High Yield C (NASDAQ: BNHCX) UBS High Yield Y (NASDAQ: BIHYX) UBS International Equity A (NASDAQ: BNIEX) UBS International Equity B (NASDAQ: BNIBX) UBS International Equity C (NASDAQ: BNICX) UBS International Equity Y (NASDAQ: BNUEX) UBS PACE Global Fixed-Income A (NASDAQ: PWFAX) UBS PACE Global Fixed-Income B (NASDAQ: PWFBX) UBS PACE Global Fixed-Income C (NASDAQ: PWFCX) UBS PACE Global Fixed-Income P (NASDAQ: PCGLX) UBS PACE Global Fixed-Income Y (NASDAQ: PWFYX) UBS PACE Government Secs Fix-Income A (NASDAQ: PFXAX) UBS PACE Government Secs Fix-Income B (NASDAQ: PFXBX) UBS PACE Government Secs Fix-Income C (NASDAQ: PFXCX) UBS PACE Government Secs Fix-Income P (NASDAQ: PCGTX) UBS PACE Government Secs Fix-Income Y (NASDAQ: PFXYX) UBS PACE Intermediate Fixed-Inc A (NASDAQ: PIFAX) UBS PACE Intermediate Fixed-Inc B (NASDAQ: PIFBX) UBS PACE Intermediate Fixed-Inc C (NASDAQ: PIICX) UBS PACE Intermediate Fixed-Inc P (NASDAQ: PCIFX) UBS PACE Intermediate Fixed-Inc Y (NASDAQ: PIFYX) UBS PACE International Em Mkts Eq A (NASDAQ: PWEAX) UBS PACE International Em Mkts Eq B (NASDAQ: PWEBX) UBS PACE International Em Mkts Eq C (NASDAQ: PWECX) UBS PACE International Em Mkts Eq P (NASDAQ: PCEMX) UBS PACE International Em Mkts Eq Y (NASDAQ: PWEYX) UBS PACE International Equity A (NASDAQ: PWGAX) UBS PACE International Equity B (NASDAQ: PWGBX) UBS PACE International Equity C (NASDAQ: PWGCX) UBS PACE International Equity P (NASDAQ: PCIEX) UBS PACE International Equity Y (NASDAQ: PWIYX) UBS PACE Large Company Growth Eq A (NASDAQ: PLAAX) UBS PACE Large Company Growth Eq B (NASDAQ: PLABX) UBS PACE Large Company Growth Eq C (NASDAQ: PLACX) UBS PACE Large Company Growth Eq P (NASDAQ: PCLCX) UBS PACE Large Company Growth Eq Y (NASDAQ: PLAYX) UBS PACE Large Company Value Equity A (NASDAQ: PCPAX) UBS PACE Large Company Value Equity B (NASDAQ: PCPBX) UBS PACE Large Company Value Equity C (NASDAQ: PLVCX) UBS PACE Large Company Value Equity P (NASDAQ: PCLVX) UBS PACE Large Company Value Equity Y (NASDAQ: PLVYX) UBS PACE Municipal Fixed-Income A (NASDAQ: PMUAX) UBS PACE Municipal Fixed-Income B (NASDAQ: PFIBX) UBS PACE Municipal Fixed-Income C (NASDAQ: PMUCX) UBS PACE Municipal Fixed-Income P (NASDAQ: PCMNX) UBS PACE Municipal Fixed-Income Y (NASDAQ: PMUYX) UBS PACE Small/Medium Company Gr Eq A (NASDAQ: PQUAX) UBS PACE Small/Medium Company Gr Eq B (NASDAQ: PUMBX) UBS PACE Small/Medium Company Gr Eq C (NASDAQ: PUMCX) UBS PACE Small/Medium Company Gr Eq P (NASDAQ: PCSGX) UBS PACE Small/Medium Company Gr Eq Y (NASDAQ: PUMYX) UBS PACE Small/Medium Company Vl Eq A (NASDAQ: PEVAX) UBS PACE Small/Medium Company Vl Eq B (NASDAQ: PEVBX) UBS PACE Small/Medium Company Vl Eq C (NASDAQ: PEVCX) UBS PACE Small/Medium Company Vl Eq P (NASDAQ: PCSVX) UBS PACE Small/Medium Company Vl Eq Y (NASDAQ: PVEYX) UBS PACE Strategic Fixed-Income A (NASDAQ: PBNAX) UBS PACE Strategic Fixed-Income B (NASDAQ: PBNBX) UBS PACE Strategic Fixed-Income C (NASDAQ: PBNCX) UBS PACE Strategic Fixed-Income P (NASDAQ: PCSIX) UBS PACE Strategic Fixed-Income Y (NASDAQ: PSFYX) UBS S&P 500 Index A (NASDAQ: PSPIX) UBS S&P 500 Index C (NASDAQ: PWSPX) UBS S&P 500 Index Y (NASDAQ: PSPYX) UBS U.S. Allocation A (NASDAQ: PWTAX) UBS U.S. Allocation B (NASDAQ: PWTBX) UBS U.S. Allocation C (NASDAQ: KPAAX) UBS U.S. Allocation Y (NASDAQ: PWTYX) UBS U.S. Bond A (NASDAQ: BNBDX) UBS U.S. Bond B (NASDAQ: BNOBX) UBS U.S. Bond C (NASDAQ: BNOCX) UBS U.S. Bond Y (NASDAQ: BPBDX) UBS U.S. Large Cap Equity A (NASDAQ: BNEQX) UBS U.S. Large Cap Equity B (NASDAQ: BNQBX) UBS U.S. Large Cap Equity C (NASDAQ: BNQCX) UBS U.S. Large Cap Equity Y (NASDAQ: BPEQX) UBS U.S. Large Cap Growth A (NASDAQ: BNLGX) UBS U.S. Large Cap Growth B (NASDAQ: BNWBX) UBS U.S. Large Cap Growth C (NASDAQ: BNWCX) UBS U.S. Large Cap Growth Y (NASDAQ: BLGIX) UBS U.S. Large Cap Value Equity A (NASDAQ: BNVAX) UBS U.S. Large Cap Value Equity B (NASDAQ: BNVBX) UBS U.S. Large Cap Value Equity C (NASDAQ: BNVCX) UBS U.S. Large Cap Value Equity Y (NASDAQ: BUSVX) UBS U.S. Small Cap Growth A (NASDAQ: BNSCX) UBS U.S. Small Cap Growth B (NASDAQ: BNMBX) UBS U.S. Small Cap Growth C (NASDAQ: BNMCX) UBS U.S. Small Cap Growth Y (NASDAQ: BISCX) The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its affiliated entities. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to aggressively push UBS sales personnel to steer clients into purchasing certain UBS Funds and funds that participated in the UBS revenue sharing program (collectively, Shelf Space Funds) that provided financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The complaint alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments were not in the clients' best interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted violations of federal securities laws. The action also includes a subclass of people who held any shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset Management, created further undisclosed material conflicts of interest by entering into revenue-sharing agreements with UBS financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds, regardless of whether such investments were in the investors' best interests. The investment advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been invested in the underlying portfolio. In doing so, they breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders investment returns. The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS Financial Plans include, but are not limited to, UBS Personalized Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts, and/or a resource management accounts. For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull & Brody, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212-490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com, Web site: http://www.ssbny.com. ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors. Copyright 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 * * *