/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/051012.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, October 12, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 202 Headlines ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: WA Court OKs Wardrobing Lawsuit Settlement ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Lawsuit ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suits in S.D. OH ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: MN Court Hears Suit Certification Motion ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Appeal MN Lawsuit Dismissal ADVANCED EQUITIES: Suit Settlement Hearing Set January 5, 2006 AGILE SOFTWARE: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set April 24,2006 AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: NY Suit Fairness Hearing Set April 2006 APPLIED SIGNAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in N.D. CA AUTHENTIDATE HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY BEA SYSTEMS: Faces Investor Fraud Suit V. Plumtree Acquisition BOOKHAM TECHNOLOGY: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement BROWN SHOE: CO Court Yet To Rule On Appeal of $1M Award in Suit CALIFORNIA: Complaint V. Eel River Sawmills Heads to Court Soon CARREKER CORPORATION: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Suit CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE: Non-Profit Group to Hold Conference on Suit CELLSTAR CORPORATION: DE Court Junks Lawsuit V. Asia Transaction DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Recalls 256,409 Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard DAIMLERCHRYSLER COMMERCIAL: Recalls 123 Buses Due to Fire Hazard EXTREME NETWORKS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement FINISAR CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006 H&R BLOCK: Working To Resolve Consumer Lawsuits V. RAL Program H&R BLOCK: Discovery Proceeds in IL Peace-of-Mind Program Suit ILLINOIS: Fairview Heights Files Suit V. Internet Travel Sites ILLINOIS: County Sheriff's Deputies Re-File Suit in State Court KIA MOTORS: Recalls 74,276 Sedona EX Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard LIGHTSPAN INC.: NY Court Yet To Rule on Suit Dismissal Appeal MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Suit Fairness Hearing Set April 2006 in NY MERCK & CO.: Firm Lodges Vioxx Suit On Behalf of Dutch Consumers MICHAELS STORES: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA NISSAN NORTH: Recalls 12.5T 2005 Xterra SUVs Due to Crash Hazard OHIO: Attorney General Files Lawsuit V. USA Baby Stores, Owner PEP BOYS: Faces Possible Complaint From Nikota USA Inc. Receiver PEP BOYS: Appeals Court Vacates PR Consumer Fraud Suit Dismissal PERRIGO CO.: Working To Settle Ibuprofen Customer Antitrust Suit SCHOOL SPECIALTY: Faces Shareholder Suits in WI Over Bain Merger SEARS ROEBUCK: Trial in IL Securities Fraud Suit Set June 2006 SEARS ROEBUCK: Discovery Proceeds in IL ERISA Violations Lawsuit SYNOPSYS INC.: Parties Agree To Dismiss CA Securities Fraud Suit SYNOVIS LIFE: MN Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit in KY, Denies Allegations TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: FL Court Dismisses Suit V. Subsidiary UNITED RETAIL: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit UTI WORLDWIDE: Continues To Face Gulf War Personal Injury Suit Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Spector Roseman Files Securities Suit in OH AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Stock Suit in VA AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Lodges VA Fraud Suit BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in MA DANA CORPORATION: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in OH DANA CORPORATION: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH TEMPUR-MEDIC: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in KY TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Schatz & Nobel Files KY Fraud Suit ********* ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: WA Court OKs Wardrobing Lawsuit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Washington Superior Court of King County preliminarily approved the settlement of the class action filed against Abercrombie & Fitch Co. in the Washington Superior Court of King County, over the Company's alleged "wardrobing" policy, styled "Shelby Port, et al v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc." In 2003, an action was filed on behalf of a purported class of employees and former employees of the Company alleging that the Company required its employees to purchase and wear specified clothes during specified times in violation of Washington law and seeking, on behalf of the purported class, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of economic and liquidated damages. The Company has filed an answer in this legal proceeding. The plaintiffs filed, and the Company opposed, a motion to certify a class of employees in the State of Washington. The trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion and the Company has commenced a discretionary appeal thereof. The parties have agreed to a settlement of this matter, which must be approved by the trial court. The parties filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on or about June 6, 2005. The court preliminarily approved the settlement on June 13, 2005 and a final approval hearing was held on September 19, 2005. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Parties reached a settlement for the class action filed against Abercrombie & Fitch Co. in the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County, alleging violations of overtime wage laws, styled "Bryan T. Kimbell, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated and on Behalf of the Public v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc." The plaintiffs, on behalf of their respective purported class, seek injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of economic and liquidated damages. The plaintiffs allege that California general and store managers were entitled to receive overtime pay as "non-exempt" employees under California wage and hour laws. An answer was filed in the Kimbell case on September 4, 2002 and the parties are in the process of discovery. The trial court has ordered a class of store managers in California certified for limited purposes. The parties have agreed to a settlement of the matter, which must be approved by the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County. The parties filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on August 26, 2005. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suits in S.D. OH --------------------------------------------------------------- Abercrombie & Fitch Co. faces several securities class actions filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock and other securities of the Company (NYSE: ANF) between June 2, 2005 and August 16, 2005, inclusive. The suits are pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The Complaints allege that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period, thereby artificially inflating the price of Abercrombie securities. No class has yet been certified in the suits. ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: MN Court Hears Suit Certification Motion ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota heard plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification for the lawsuit filed against ADC Telecommunications, Inc. and several of its current and former officers, employees and directors. This lawsuit was brought on behalf of a class of participants in our Retirement Savings Plan who purchased the Company's common stock as one of the investment alternatives under the plan from February 2000 to present. The lawsuit alleges a breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). On February 2, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit, which was denied by the court. This case is now in the discovery phase. A hearing has been held regarding whether the class should be certified. A decision from that hearing is currently pending. The suit is styled "In Re: ADC Telecommunications ERISA Litigation," filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, under Judge Ann D. Montgomery. Lawyers for the Company are Andrew John Holly, Heather J. Klaas, Stephen P. Lucke of Dorsey & Whitney - Mpls, 50 6th St S Ste 1500, Mpls, MN 55402-1498, Phone: 612-340-8830, Fax: 612-340-8800 or by E- mail: holly.andrew@dorsey.com, klaas.heather@dorsey.com, or lucke.steve@dorsey.com. Lead plaintiff is Lorraine L. Osborne. Law firms for the plaintiffs are: (1) Scott & Scott, PO Box 192 Colchester, Ct 06415, Phone: 860-537-5537, Fax: 1-860-537-4432 (2) Schiffrin & Barroway, 3 Bala Plz E Ste 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: (610) 667-7706 E-mail: jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com (3) Emerson Poynter LLP, 2228 Cottondale Ln Ste 100, Little Rock, AR 72202-2037, Phone: 501-907-2555, Fax: 501-907- 2556 (4) Russell M. Spence, Jr of Spence Law Firm, 10 S 5th St Ste 700, Mpls, MN 55402, Phone: 612-375-1555 E-mail: rspence@spencelawfirm.com ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Appeal MN Lawsuit Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the consolidated securities class action filed against ADC Telecommunications, Inc., styled "In Re ADC Telecommunications, Inc. Securities Litigation." On March 5, 2003, the Company was served with a shareowner lawsuit brought by Wanda Kinermon that was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaint named the Company, William J. Cadogan, its former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Robert E. Switz, its Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer, as defendants. After this lawsuit was served, the Company was named as a defendant in 11 other substantially similar lawsuits. The consolidated lawsuit purports to bring suit on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities from August 17, 2000 to March 28, 2001. The complaint alleged that the Company violated the securities laws by making false and misleading statements about our financial performance and business prospects during this period. On November 24, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit, and the court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice on May 17, 2004. Plaintiffs appealed this ruling. The suit is styled "In Re: ADC Telecommunications, Inc. Securities Litigation, case no. 0:03-cv-01194-JNE-JGL," filed in the United States District Court in Minnesota," under Judge Joan N. Ericksen. Lawyers for the defendants are Daniel James Brown, John Rock, Mitchell Widell Granberg, Peter W. Carter of Dorsey & Whitney, 50 6th St S Ste 1500, Mpls, MN 55402-1498, Phone: 612-340-2600, Fax: 6123408800, E-mail: brown.daniel@dorsey.com, rock.john@dorsey.com, granberg.mitchell@dorsey.com, carter.peter@dorsey.com. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, (2) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com (3) Chitwood & Harley, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2900 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone: 888.873.3999, (4) Glancy and Binkow, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com (5) Kirby, McInerney & Squire LLP, 830 Third Avenue 10th Floor, New York Ave, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.317.2300, (6) Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield, Attorneys at Law, E- 1000 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN, 55101, Phone: 800.465.1592, Fax: 651.297.6543, E-mail: info@ralawfirm.com (7) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.545.4600, Fax; 212.686.0114, E-mail: newyork@whafh.com ADVANCED EQUITIES: Suit Settlement Hearing Set January 5, 2006 -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky - Louisville Division will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter: George W. Lawson, et al., v. Advanced Equities, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 3:00 CV 382, on behalf of all purchasers of Pixelion, Inc. Series A convertible preferred stock from April 1, 1998 through March 5, 2001. The hearing will be held on January 5, 2006, at 1:30 p.m. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, United States Courthouse, Louisville, KY 40202 to determine: (1) whether a proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-entitled class action with Kring & Brown LLP and Shefsky & Froelich Ltd. for Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($800,000.00) in cash plus accrued interest (the "Settlement Fund") should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved; and (3) whether the action should be dismissed with prejudice. For more details, contact Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq. of Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365, Phone: (215) 875-3000; J. Bruce Miller, Esq. of J. Bruce Miller Law Group, 605 W. Main St., Louisville, KY 40202, Phone: (502) 587-0900; and Kenneth L. Sales, Esq. of Sales, Tillman, Wallbaum, Catlett & Satterley, 1900 Waterfront Plaza, 325 W. Main Street, Louisville, KY 40202, Phone: (502) 589-5600. AGILE SOFTWARE: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set April 24,2006 ------------------------------------------------------------- Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Agile Software Corporation, Bryan D. Stolle and Thomas P. Shanahan and others including underwriters Morgan Stanley and Deutsche Bank Securities, is set for April 24,2006 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case is now captioned "In re Agile Software, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 01 CIV 9413 (SAS)," related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)." On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs electronically served an amended complaint. The amended complaint is brought purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from August 19, 1999 through December 6, 2000. It names as defendants the Agile Defendants; and several investment banking firms that served as underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and secondary offering. The complaint alleges liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the registration statement for the offerings did not disclose that: (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices. The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were issued. No specific damages are claimed. The Company is aware that similar allegations have been made in other lawsuits filed in the Southern District of New York challenging over 300 other initial public offerings and secondary offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000. Those cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes before the Honorable Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. On July 15, 2002, the Agile Defendants (as well as all other issuer defendants) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on the motions to dismiss. The Court denied the motions to dismiss claims under the Securities Act of 1933 in all but 10 of the cases. In the case involving the Company, these claims were dismissed as to the initial public offering, but not the secondary offering. The Court denied the motion to dismiss the claim under Section 10(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and 184 other issuer defendants, on the basis that the amended complaints in these cases alleged that the respective issuers had acquired companies or conducted follow-on offerings after the initial public offerings. As a consequence, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the Section 20(a) claims against the individual defendants. The motion to dismiss the Section 10(a) claims was granted with prejudice as to the individual defendants. The Company has decided to accept a settlement proposal presented to all issuer defendants. In this settlement, plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against the Agile Defendants, in exchange for a contingent payment by the insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all of the IPO cases, and for the assignment or surrender of control of certain claims the Company may have against the underwriters. The Agile Defendants will not be required to make any cash payments in the settlement, unless the "pro rata" amount paid by the insurers in the settlement exceeds the limits of the insurance coverage, a circumstance which the Company does not believe will occur. The settlement will require approval of the Court, which cannot be assured, after class members are given the opportunity to object to the settlement. On February 15, 2005, the Court issued an order providing preliminary approval of the settlement except insofar as the settlement would have cut off contractual indemnification claims that underwriters may have against securities issuers, such as the Company. The suit is styled "In re Agile Software, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 01 CIV 9413 (SAS)," related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York, NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065, Phone: 212.594.5300, (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax: 212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax: 310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail: newyork@whafh.com AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: NY Suit Fairness Hearing Set April 2006 ------------------------------------------------------------- Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Agilent Technologies, Inc., styled "Kassin v. Agilent Technologies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-10639," is set for April 24,2006 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit was filed against certain investment bank underwriters for the Company's initial public offering (IPO), the Company and various of its officers and directors at the time of the IPO. On February 19, 2003, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the claims against it based on Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, but denied its motion to dismiss the claims based on Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The Company and more than 200 other issuer defendants have reached an agreement in principle for a settlement with plaintiffs. Under the settlement, plaintiffs' claims against the Company and its directors and officers would be released, in exchange for a contingent payment (which, if made, would be paid by the Company's insurer) and an assignment of certain potential claims. On June 14, 2004, papers formalizing the settlement among the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and insurers were presented to the court. The settlement remains subject to court approval. On February 15, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement contingent upon specified modifications, including modification of a proposed bar order against future claims by the underwriter. Plaintiffs continue to prosecute their claims against the underwriter defendants, and discovery is now underway. On February 15, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement contingent upon specified modifications, including modification of a proposed bar order against future claims by the underwriters. On August 31, 2005, the Court entered an order confirming its preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement remains subject to final Court approval. A hearing is scheduled for April 24, 2006, to determine whether the settlement is fair and adequate and should be approved. Plaintiffs continue to prosecute their claims against the underwriter defendants, and discovery is now underway. The suit is styled ""Kassin v. Agilent Technologies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-10639," related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York, NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065, Phone: 212.594.5300, (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax: 212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax: 310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail: newyork@whafh.com APPLIED SIGNAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in N.D. CA --------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Signal Technology, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed on March 11 and April 19, 2005 in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, styled "Berson v. Applied Signal Technology Inc., No. 4:05-cv-1027 (SBA) (N.D. Cal.)" and "Sameyah v. Applied Signal Technology Inc., No.4:05-cv-1615 (SBA) (N.D. Cal.)." The complaints, which are substantially identical, are brought on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased the Company's securities during a class period of May 25, 2004 through February 22, 2005. The complaints name the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer as defendants, and allege that false and misleading statements regarding the Company were issued during the class period. These statements were materially false and misleading because the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company lacked the staffing necessary to execute on current projects while bidding for new business; (2) that the Company struggled to maintain adequate levels of backlog; and (3) that as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about managing the Company's workflow and growth while maintaining profitability were lacking material basis when made. A putative class member has moved for appointment as lead plaintiff, and the litigation is in the preliminary stage. The first suit in this litigation is styled "Brent Berson, et al. v. Applied Signal Technology, Inc., et al., case no. 05-CV- 01027," filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong. Plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Baron & Budd, P.C., 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100, Dallas, TX, 75219, Phone: 800-946-9646, E-mail: info@baronbudd.com (2) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax: 610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com (3) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com (4) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com (5) Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com AUTHENTIDATE HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY -------------------------------------------------------------- AuthentiDate Holdings Corporation faces several shareholder class actions filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired its securities (Nasdaq:ADAT), between September 29, 2003 and May 27, 2005, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The suits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. According to the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period. The complaints allege that the Company entered into a purportedly lucrative agreement with the United States Postal Service ("USPS") to serve as the preferred provider of the USPS Electronic Postmark(R) ("EPM"). Defendants did not fully disclose, however, that the USPS Agreement required AuthentiDate to attain certain performance and minimum revenues over a specified period of time. On September 8, 2004, defendants revealed that the Company had failed to generate sufficient revenues under the agreement. Defendants, however, assured investors that the Company and USPS had reached an agreement in principle to amend its performance under the agreement, and that the amendment would be finalized shortly. On February 8, 2005, in an earnings conference call, defendant John J. Waters stated that, "We did a few things recently which we think put us back in compliance..." On April 29, 2005, defendants issued a press release announcing that they had engaged a special counsel to assist the Company's audit committee in "resolving certain internal controls and corporate governance issues raised by the Chief Financial Officer." On May 27, 2005, the last day of the Class Period, defendants issued a press release after the market had closed revealing that the Company had received a second notice from USPS stating that the Company had failed to attain the minimum revenue during the period February 2005 through April 2005. Defendants also disclosed that the USPS might exercise its right to terminate the USPS Agreement if AuthentiDate was unable to cure the default. In reaction to this news, the price of AuthentiDate stock fell $0.54, or 15.5%, from its closing price of $3.48 on May 27, 2005 to close at $2.94 on the following trading day, May 31, 2005, on unusually high trading volume of 1.28 million shares. The suits allege that the defendants were motivated to engage in the alleged misconduct in order for Company insiders, including defendants Dennis H. Bunt and John T. Botti, to sell 156,000 shares of their personally-held AuthentiDate stock at artificially inflated prices, reaping proceeds of $1.7 million. In addition, defendants were able to complete a private placement of AuthentiDate stock at artificially inflated prices for net proceeds of $69 million. BEA SYSTEMS: Faces Investor Fraud Suit V. Plumtree Acquisition -------------------------------------------------------------- Bea Systems, Inc., Plumtree Software, Inc., which the Company acquired in August 2005, and Plumtree's board of directors face two similar class actions, opposing the acquisition. On August 23, 2005, a class action lawsuit titled "Globis Partners, L.P. v. Plumtree Software, Inc. et al., CA No. 1577- N," was filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County. The suit alleges, among other claims, that the consideration to be paid in the proposed acquisition of Plumtree by the Company is unfair and inadequate. The complaint seeks an injunction barring consummation of the merger and, in the event that the merger is consummated, a rescission of the merger and an unspecified amount of damages. On August 24, 2005, a class action lawsuit titled "Keitel v. Plumtree Software, Inc., et al., No. CGC 05-444355" was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco. The complaint names Plumtree and all member of Plumtree's board of directors as defendants alleging similar complaints and seeking similar damages as the class action brought by Globis Partners, L.P. BOOKHAM TECHNOLOGY: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York preliminarily approved the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Bookham Technology plc, Goldman, Sachs & Co. and FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., two of the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering in April 2000, and Andrew G. Rickman, Stephen J. Cockrell and David Simpson, each of whom was an officer and/or director at the time of the initial public offering. On November 7, 2001, a Class Action Complaint was filed against the Company and others in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaints assert claims under certain provisions of the securities laws of the United States. They allege, among other things, that the prospectuses for the Company's and New Focus, Inc.'s initial public offerings were materially false and misleading in describing the compensation to be earned by the underwriters in connection with the offerings, and in not disclosing certain alleged arrangements among the underwriters and initial purchasers of ordinary shares, in the case of the Company, or common stock, in the case of New Focus, from the underwriters. The Amended Complaints seek unspecified damages (or in the alternative rescission for those class members who no longer hold ordinary shares, in the case of the Company or common stock, in the case of New Focus), costs, attorneys' fees, experts' fees, interest and other expenses. In October 2002, the individual defendants were dismissed, without prejudice, from the action. In July 2002, all defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaints. The motion was denied as to the Company and New Focus in February 2003. Special committees of the board of directors authorized the companies to negotiate a settlement of pending claims substantially consistent with a memorandum of understanding negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants and their insurers. Plaintiffs and most of the issuer defendants and their insurers have entered into a stipulation of settlement for the claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company. Under the stipulation of settlement, the plaintiff will dismiss and release all claims against participating defendants in exchange for a payment guaranty by the insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in the related cases, and the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer defendants may have against the underwriters. On February 15, 2005, the Court issued an Opinion and Order preliminarily approving the settlement providing that the defendants and plaintiffs agree to a modification narrowing the scope of the bar order set forth in the original settlement agreement. The parties agreed to the modification narrowing the scope of the bar order, and on August 31, 2005, the court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement and setting a public hearing on its fairness for April 24, 2006. BROWN SHOE: CO Court Yet To Rule On Appeal of $1M Award in Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Colorado has yet to rule on plaintiffs' appeal of a $1 million damage award granted to them by a Colorado jury in the class action they filed against Brown Shoe Co., Inc., related to the operations of its Redfield, Colorado site. The Company is re-mediating, under the oversight of Colorado authorities, the groundwater and indoor air at the Redfield site and residential neighborhoods adjacent to and near the property that have been affected by solvents previously used at the facility. Plaintiffs alleged claims for trespass, nuisance, strict liability, unjust enrichment, negligence and exemplary damages arising from the alleged release of solvents contaminating the groundwater and indoor air in the areas adjacent to and near the site. In December 2003, the jury hearing the claims returned a verdict finding the Company's subsidiary negligent and awarded the class plaintiffs $1.0 million in damages. The Company recorded this award along with estimated pretrial interest on the award and estimated costs related to sanctions imposed by the court related to a pretrial discovery dispute between the parties. In the first quarter of 2005, the federal court hearing a cost recovery suit against other responsible parties approved a settlement agreement between the Company, its co-defendant in the class action lawsuit and an insurer which resolved all remaining sanctions issues related to the class action. Accordingly, the Company reversed into income $0.7 million related to accrued sanctions. The suit is styled "Cherry Creek Tennis v. Brown Group Retail, et al., case no. 1:03-cv-02505-ABJ-PAC," filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, under Judge Alan B. Johnson. Representing the plaintiffs is Elizabeth Tormoen Hickey of Alpern, Myers, Stuart, Scheuerman & Mathers, 14 North Sierra Madre, #A, Colorado Springs, CO 80903, U.S.A., Phone: 719-471-7955. Representing the Company is Paul E. Collins of Treece, Alfrey, Musat & Bosworth, P.C., 999 18th Street, #1600, Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A., Phone: 303-292-2700, Fax: 303-295-0414, E-mail: pcollins@tamblaw.com. CALIFORNIA: Complaint V. Eel River Sawmills Heads to Court Soon --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed against Eel River Sawmills and some of its current and former officers and directors will head to court before March 23, according to an attorney for the plaintiffs, The Eureka Reporter reports. Bill Bertain, state law requires that civil cases go to trial within five years, pointing out that March 23, 2001, represents the date the case was originally filed in Humboldt County Superior Court. Mr Bertain told The Eureka Reporter, "If the promise had been kept, the employees would have had a majority ownership of the company and the dollar value of the company at the time of (owner Mel McLean's) death appears to have been well in excess of $25 million." According to background information in the lawsuit's fourth amended complaint, Mr. McLean and his wife Grace had no children and in or around 1988 they created an Employee Stock Ownership Plan. The suit stated that through the plan, the couple intended and promised to pass the majority ownership of Eel River Sawmills to its employees. The goal of the lawsuit is to fulfill the promise and obtain a monetary award for the employees, Mr. Bertain pointed out. Eel River Sawmills President Dennis Scott though previously told The Eureka Reporter, "The stock had to be purchased, not given," adding, "The money to purchase the stock had to come out of company profits but because we were running out of logs, the stocks could not be purchased. We had to curtail our operations because of lack of logs. The company could not generate enough profit to buy any stock." Mr. Scott pointed out that the stock is basically worthless because the timber industry has basically gone out of business in California because of a lack of logs. Since 1989, 82 mills in California have closed and more than 60,000 sawmill jobs have been lost in California during this period, he said. In addition, Mr. Scott pointed out that right now there are five major mills in the North Coast and all of them import logs. Some of the mills import more than half of their logs from Washington, Oregon and British Columbia, he adds. Eel River Sawmills once employed roughly 550 people, but closed down its operations in July, since according to Mr. Scott, "The Company that purchased our mill closed down." Mr. Scott explains that without logs a sawmill cannot continue to operate. He further explains, "If we had the timber supply we had in the past we'd be operating with full employment like we had in the past and there would be no change in our operations." Now what is left of the company is being dissolved. According to him, "We have about approximately 8,000 acres of timberlands left to sell before we dissolve the corporation." There was a substantial amount of value in the company when Mel died, Mr. Bertain told The Eureka Reporter. He pointed out that a key bit of evidence that the promise had been made is in a letter that Mr. Scott wrote to employees and families of Eel River Sawmills in June 1999 a couple of weeks after Mel's death. In a section of the letter provided by Mr. Bertain, Mr. Scott wrote, "Many people have asked me what will happen to the company now that Mel is gone. Mel's death does not cause a change in our operation or philosophy. Even though Mel owned the majority of the stock in Eel River Sawmills, there is a plan in place that will transfer the majority of the voting stock to the employees over time. The Mel and Grace McLean Foundation now owns Mel's shares. Eventually, some company shares owned by the Foundation will have to be sold to meet certain regulatory requirements. We have ample time to accomplish this." Additionally, in an October 2000 letter written and provided by Mr. Scott to Eel River Sawmill's employees and their families, he wrote, "Over the years, we have seen many changes in our operations. Almost all of these changes have been necessary because of the continuing reduction in available raw material that is required to run our operations. In 1996, our company sawed 85 million board feet of logs. For the recently completed 2000 fiscal year, our sawmills processed 47 million board feet, a 45 percent reduction in four years. We were aware that increased harvest plan regulations, political pressures and the loss of our biggest log supplier, Louisiana-Pacific, would have an adverse impact on our operations. . Crew meetings are being held today to notify employees who will be affected by reorganization. All operations at Mill B will be curtailed and Mill D will be closed, effective Dec. 31. This reorganization involves layoffs as well as employee transfers. . Our industry continues to face hurdles and obstacles that threaten our existence." Mr. Bertain told The Eureka Reporter that depositions and discovery in the case would take place over the next few weeks with Sonoma County Judge Lloyd Von der Mehden presiding. In tern of progress in the case, Mr. Bertain told The Eureka Reporter that there have been several fortunate developments in the case for employees. According to him, those include the plaintiffs acquiring representation by the addition of two more law firms and the fact that Judge Von der Mehden overruled the defendant's demurrers and allowed causes of action to proceed against the defendants for fraud and deceit, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and professional negligence. The plaintiffs could also receive punitive damages for some of the causes of action if the ruling is in their favor, Mr. Bertain added. In legal fees, the lawsuit has cost Eel River Sawmills $250,000 so far and Mr. Scott estimates that it will cost at least another $500,000. He told The Eureka Reporter, "At the end of the day when all this money is paid for legal fees the company will be forced into bankruptcy and nobody will get anything from Eel River Sawmills because the shares will be worthless." CARREKER CORPORATION: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Carreker Corporation asked the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division to dismiss the consolidated amended securities class action filed against it and: (1) John D. Carreker Jr., (2) Ronald Antinori, (3) Terry L. Gage and (4) Ernst & Young, the Company's auditors, Several suits were initially filed and later consolidated in an action styled "In re Carreker Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 303CV0250-M." On October 14, 2003 the plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The complaint, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between May 20, 1998 and December 10, 2002, inclusive, alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants, and violation of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act against Mr. Carreker and Mr. Antinori. The complaint also alleges, among other things, that defendants artificially inflated the value of Company stock by knowingly or recklessly misrepresenting the Company's financial results during the purported class period. On March 22, 2005 the Court dismissed the action without prejudice and allowed the plaintiffs 60 days in which to file an amended complaint. Also the Court dismissed, with prejudice, all claims by shareholders prior to July 31, 1999. On May 31, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July 30, 1999 and December 10, 2002, inclusive, which reiterates the allegations in the first complaint, and alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants (the Company, Mr. Carreker, Mr. Antinori and Mr. Gage), violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants, and violations of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act against defendants Mr. Carreker, and Mr. Antinori. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified amounts of compensatory damages, interest and costs, including legal fees. On July 29, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, primarily based on various provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The court has not yet ruled on this motion. The suit is styled "In re Carreker Corporation Securities Litigation, case no. 3:03-cv-00250," filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, under Judge Jane J. Boyle. Representing the Company is Roger F Claxton of Claxton & Hill, 3131 McKinney Ave, Suite 700 LB 103, Dallas, TX 75204-2471, Phone: 214/969-9029, Fax: 214/953-0583, E-mail: claxtonhill@airmail.net. Representing the plaintiffs are: (i) Mary L O'Connor, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld - Dallas, 1700 Pacific Ave, Suite 4100 Dallas, TX 75201- 4618, Phone: 214/969-2800, Fax: 214/969-4343, E-mail: moconnor@akingump.com; (ii) Barry C. Barnett, Susman Godfrey - Dallas, 901 Main St Suite 4100 Dallas, TX 75202-3775, Phone: 214/754-1900, Fax: 214/754-1933, E-mail: bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com; (iii) Kenneth S. Marks, Susman Godfrey - Houston, 1000 Louisiana St, Suite 5100, Houston, TX 77002-5096, Phone: 713/651-9366, E-mail: kmarks@susmangodfrey.com; (iv) Fred T. Isquith, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, 270 Madison Ave, Ninth Floor, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212/545-4600, E-mail: isquith@whafh.com (v) Jeffrey W. Chambers, Ware Snow Fogel & Jackson, America Tower, 2929 Allen Parkway, 42nd Floor, Houston, TX 77019, Phone: 713/659-6400, Fax: 713/659-6262, (vi) Thomas E Bilek, Hoeffner & Bilek, 1000 Louisiana St, Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713/227-7720, Fax: 713/227-9404, E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE: Non-Profit Group to Hold Conference on Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consejo de Latinos Unidos, a non-profit organization that aids and educates uninsured Latinos and others, will host a news conference discussing the class action lawsuit against Catholic Healthcare West's alleged hospital price gouging and unfair trade practices against the uninsured on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. PDT at Ramona Hall Community Center, 4580 North Figueroa Street, in the Highland Park area of Los Angeles. Besides the price gouging allegations, Catholic Healthcare West is accused of "dumping" patients on Los Angeles County's public hospitals. Archie Lamb, nationally recognized healthcare trial attorney who is spearheading the lawsuit, will be attending the news conference. Three uninsured families impacted by egregious hospital behavior by Catholic Healthcare West will also be attending the event. Consejo was credited by The Wall Street Journal with "a big win" after forcing the nation's second largest hospital chain, Tenet Healthcare, to change its aggressive billing practices against the uninsured by signing a "Compact With the Uninsured." The Consejo has released five national reports in the past four years that show hospitals price gouge the uninsured. Typically, hospitals charge the uninsured three or four times more than what a hospital would accept as payment in full from an insurance company. The aggressive practices by hospitals impacts Latinos more greatly. One in three Latinos is uninsured. For more details, contact Audrey Mullen, Phone: +1-703-548-1160, or K.B. Forbes, Phone: +1-202-320-1212, both for the Consejo de Latinos Unidos. CELLSTAR CORPORATION: DE Court Junks Lawsuit V. Asia Transaction ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Delaware Court of Chancery for New Castle County dismissed the class action filed against CellStar Corporation, styled "Ruth Everson v. CellStar Corporation, James L. Johnson, John L. Jackson, Jere W. Thompson, Dale V. Kesler and Terry S. Parker." The Everson Suit alleged breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste in connection with the Company's proposal, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in March 2003 through a preliminary proxy statement, to divest up to 70% of the Greater China Operations, which would have included an initial public offering (IPO) of its Greater China Operations on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong (SEHK). The Suit sought injunctive and other equitable relief, recissory and/or compensatory damages and reimbursement of attorney's fees and costs. The Company announced on September 20, 2004, that it would not proceed with the CellStar Asia Transaction at issue in the suit due to changes in the People's Republic of China's economic environment and handset industry. On May 25, 2005, the Court entered a final order and judgment dismissing the suit without prejudice as moot and awarding plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $250,000 plus post-judgment interest. DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Recalls 256,409 Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- DaimlerChrysler Corporation in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 256,409 units of 2005 Chrysler / 300, 2005 Dodge / Dakota, 2005 Dodge / Durango, 2005 Dodge / Magnum, 2005 Jeep / Liberty and 2005 Jeep/ Wrangler vehicles due to crash hazard. According to ODI, on certain pickup trucks, sports utility and passenger vehicles equipped with 42RLE automatic transmissions, the cup plug that retains the park pawl anchor shaft may be improperly installed. If the shaft moves out of position, the vehicle may not be able to achieve "park" position. If this occurs and the parking brake is not applied, the vehicle may roll away and cause a crash without warning. As a remedy, dealers will inspect the transmissions and install a bracket to ensure the park pawl anchor shaft is retained in the proper position. The recall is expected to begin during November 2005. For more details, contact DaimlerChrysler, Phone: 1-800-853-1403 OR the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov. DAIMLERCHRYSLER COMMERCIAL: Recalls 123 Buses Due to Fire Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- DaimlerChrysler Commercial Buses, Inc. in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 123 units of 2001-02 DaimlerChrysler / SLF buses due to fire hazard. According to the ODI, on certain busses equipped with Sure Power battery equalizers, P/N 52210 24V/12V 100 AMP Series 1, the equalizers may experience a failure mode. These equalizers used an inductor with the coils protected by insulation. Over time, the inductor insulation may degrade creating a short. The shorted inductor may cause the battery equalizer to smoke or burn, and possibly result in a fire. As a remedy, Sure Power will notify DaimlerChrysler's customers and replace the equalizers free of charge. For more details, contact Sure Power, Phone: 1-800-845-6269 EXT. 113 OR the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov. EXTREME NETWORKS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Extreme Networks, Inc. on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from April 8, 1999 through December 6, 2000. It also names as defendants six of the Company's present and former officers and/or directors, including its CEO and several investment banking firms that served as underwriters of its initial public offering and October 1999 secondary offering. Subsequently, plaintiffs and one of the individual defendants stipulated to a dismissal of that defendant without prejudice. The complaint alleges liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the registration statement for the offerings did not disclose that the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices. The Securities Act allegations against the Extreme Networks Defendants are made as to the secondary offering only. The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were issued. No specific damages are claimed. Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over 300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000. The cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes. On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on all defendants' motions to dismiss. The Court denied the motions to dismiss the claims in the Company's case under the Securities Act of 1933. The Court denied the motion to dismiss the claim under Section 10(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and 184 other issuer defendants, on the basis that the complaints alleged that the respective issuers had acquired companies or conducted follow-on offerings after their initial public offerings. The Court denied the motion to dismiss the claims under Section 10(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the remaining Extreme Networks Defendants and 59 other individual defendants, on the basis that the respective amended complaints alleged that the individuals sold stock. The Company executed a settlement agreement presented to all issuer defendants. In this settlement, plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against the Extreme Network Defendants, in exchange for a contingent payment by the insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all of the IPO cases, and for the assignment or surrender of control of certain claims the Company may have against the underwriters. The Extreme Networks Defendants will not be required to make any cash payments in the settlement, unless the pro rata amount paid by the insurers in the settlement exceeds the amount of the insurance coverage, a circumstance which the Company does not believe will occur. The settlement will require approval of the Court, which cannot be assured. On February 15, 2005, the Court issued an order providing preliminary approval of the settlement, except insofar as the settlement would have cut off contractual indemnification claims that underwriters may have against securities issuers, such as the Company. The Court has scheduled a hearing for January 9, 2006 to consider final approval of the settlement. The suit is styled "IN RE EXTREME NETWORKS, INC. INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION," filed in relation to "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York, NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065, Phone: 212.594.5300 (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax: 212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax: 310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail: newyork@whafh.com FINISAR CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006 -------------------------------------------------------------- Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Finisar Corporation is set for April 24,2006 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit also names as defendants: (1) Jerry S. Rawls, President and Chief Executive Officer, (2) Frank H. Levinson, Chairman of the Board and Chief Technical Officer, (3) Stephen K. Workman, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and (4) an investment banking firm that served as an underwriter for the Company's initial public offering in November 1999 and a secondary offering in April 2000. The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from November 17, 1999 through December 6, 2000. The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the prospectuses incorporated in the registration statements for the offerings failed to disclose, among other things, that the underwriter had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the underwriter allocated to those investors material portions of the shares of the Company's stock sold in the offerings and the underwriter had entered into agreements with customers whereby the underwriter agreed to allocate shares of the Company's stock sold in the offerings to those customers in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional shares of the Company's stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. No specific damages are claimed. Similar allegations have been made in lawsuits relating to more than 300 other initial public offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, which were consolidated for pretrial purposes. In October 2002, all claims against the individual defendants were dismissed without prejudice. On February 19, 2003, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. In July 2004, the Company and the individual defendants accepted a settlement proposal made to all of the issuer defendants. Under the terms of the settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against participating defendants in exchange for a contingent payment guaranty by the insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all the related cases, and the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer defendants may have against the underwriters. Under the guaranty, the insurers will be required to pay the amount, if any, by which $1 billion exceeds the aggregate amount ultimately collected by the plaintiffs from the underwriter defendants in all the cases. If the plaintiffs fail to recover $1 billion and payment is required under the guaranty, the Company would be responsible to pay its pro rata portion of the shortfall, up to the amount of the self-insured retention under its insurance policy, which may be up to $2 million. The timing and amount of payments that the Company could be required to make under the proposed settlement will depend on several factors, principally the timing and amount of any payment by the insurers pursuant to the $1 billion guaranty. The settlement is subject to final approval of the Court, which cannot be assured. On February 15, 2005, the Court issued an order providing preliminary approval of the proposed settlement except insofar as the settlement would have cut off contractual indemnification claims that underwriters may have against securities issuers, such as the Company. On April 13, 2005, the Court held a further conference to determine the final form, substance and program of class notice and set a hearing for April 24, 2006 to consider final approval of the settlement. H&R BLOCK: Working To Resolve Consumer Lawsuits V. RAL Program -------------------------------------------------------------- H&R Block, Inc. is working to resolve litigation filed against it throughout the country, regarding its refund anticipation loan (RAL) programs. Plaintiffs in the RAL Cases have alleged, among other things: (1) that disclosures in the RAL applications were inadequate, misleading and untimely; (2) that the RAL interest rates were usurious and unconscionable; (3) that the Company did not disclose that it would receive part of the finance charges paid by the customer for such loans; (4) that Company breached state laws on credit service organizations; (5) that the Company committed a breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair and deceptive acts or practices and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; and (6) that the company owed, and breached, a fiduciary duty to its customers in connection with the RAL program. In many of the RAL Cases, the plaintiffs seek to proceed on behalf of a class of similarly situated RAL customers, and in certain instances the courts have allowed the cases to proceed as class actions. In other cases, courts have held that plaintiffs must pursue their claims on an individual basis, and may not proceed as a class action. The amounts claimed in the RAL Cases have been very substantial in some instances. The Company has successfully defended against numerous RAL Cases, although several of the RAL Cases are still pending. Of the RAL Cases that are no longer pending, some were dismissed on the Company's motions for dismissal or summary judgment and others were dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiffs after denial of class certification. Other cases were settled, with one settlement resulting in a pretax expense of $43.5 million in fiscal year 2003. A suit, styled "Lynne A. Carnegie, et al. v. Household International, Inc., H&R Block, Inc., et al., (formerly Joel E. Zawikowski, et al. v. Beneficial National Bank, H&R Block, Inc., Block Financial Corporation, et al.), Case No. 98 C 2178," is still pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. In March 2004, the court either dismissed or decertified all of the plaintiffs' claims other than part of one count alleging violations of the racketeering and conspiracy provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. On May 9, 2005, the parties agreed to a settlement, subject to court approval. The settlement agreement provided for the defendants to pay $110 million in cash and $250 million face value in freely transferable rebate coupons and all persons who applied for and obtained a RAL through an H&R Block office or certain lenders from January 1, 1987 through April 29, 2005 (the "Carnegie Settlement Class") to release all claims against the Company regarding RALs or certain services provided in connection with RALs. The settlement agreement also specified required business practices, procedures, disclosures and forms for use in making RALs and barred members of the Carnegie Settlement Class from commencing any other claims or actions against us regarding RALs made pursuant to such practices, procedures, disclosures and forms. On May 26, 2005, the court denied approval of the proposed settlement. This class action case is scheduled to go to trial on February 2006. Another suit, styled "Sandra J. Basile, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al, April Term 1992 Civil Action No. 3246," is pending in the Court of Common Pleas, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County, instituted on April 23, 1993. The court decertified the class on December 31, 2003. Plaintiffs appealed the de-certification, and the Pennsylvania appellate court denied the plaintiff's appeal. The Pennsylvania appellate court subsequently granted plaintiff's motion for "en banc" review of its earlier denial of plaintiff's appeal. Re- argument is expected to occur in September 2005. Another suit, styled "Levon and Geral Mitchell, et al. v. H&R Block and Ruth R. Wren, Case No.CV-95-2067," was filed in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama, on June 13, 1995. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted, and defendants appealed the certification. The appeal is pending before the Alabama Supreme Court. Another suit, styled "Deandra D. Cummins, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., Case No. 03-C-134," was filed in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, on January 22, 2003. This class action case is scheduled to go to trial on October 17, 2005. Another suit, styled "Lynn Becker v. H&R Block, Case No. CV- 2004-03-1680, was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Summit County, Ohio, on April 15, 2004. The case was removed to federal court, and plaintiffs moved to remand the case back to state court. The case currently is stayed pending the U.S. District Court's ruling on plaintiff's motion to remand and defendant's motion to compel arbitration. Another suit, styled "Joyce Green, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., Block Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 97195023," was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, on July 14, 1997. This case is awaiting trial. No trial date has been set. H&R BLOCK: Discovery Proceeds in IL Peace-of-Mind Program Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against H&R Block, Inc. in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, styled "Lorie J. Marshall, et al. v. H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., et al., Civil Action 2003L000004." The court granted the suit class certification on August 27, 2003. Plaintiffs' claims consist of five counts relating to the peace-of-mind (POM) program under which the applicable tax return preparation subsidiary assumes liability for additional tax assessments attributable to tax return preparation error. The plaintiffs allege that the sale of POM guarantees constitutes: (1) statutory fraud by selling insurance without a license, (2) an unfair trade practice, by omission and by "cramming" (i.e., charging customers for the guarantee even though they did not request it or want it), and (3) a breach of fiduciary duty In August 2003, the court certified the plaintiff classes consisting of all persons who from January 1, 1997 to final judgment: (i) were charged a separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a defendant "H&R Block" class member; (ii) reside in certain class states and were charged a separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a defendant "H&R Block class member" not licensed to sell insurance; and (iii) had an unsolicited charge for POM posted to their bills by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R Block class member. Persons who received the POM guarantee through an H&R Block Premium office and persons who reside in Alabama are excluded from the plaintiff class. The court also certified a defendant class consisting of any entity with names that include "H&R Block" or "HRB," or are otherwise affiliated or associated with H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., and that sold or sells the POM product. The trial court subsequently denied the defendants' motion to certify class certification issues for interlocutory appeal. Discovery is proceeding. No trial date has been set. There is one other putative class action pending against the Company in Texas that involves the Peace of Mind guarantee. This case is being tried before the same judge that presided over the Texas RAL Settlement and involves the same plaintiffs attorneys that are involved in the Marshall litigation in Illinois and substantially similar allegations. No class has been certified in this case. ILLINOIS: Fairview Heights Files Suit V. Internet Travel Sites -------------------------------------------------------------- The City of Fairview Heights initiated a class action lawsuit in St. Clair County Circuit Court against companies that operate Internet travel sites for failing to reimburse it for taxes on gross receipts, The Madison County Record reports. The suit names as defendants: (1) Priceline.com, (2) Orbitz, (3) Hotels.com, (4) Hotwire, (5) Cheap Tickets, (6) Expedia, (7) Travelnow.com, (8) Travelocity.com, (9) Travelweb, (10) LowestFare.com and (11) Site 59.com The defendants are accused of charging consumers taxes based on retail room rates, while only paying taxes on wholesale room rates and then pocketing the difference. The suit, filed on October 5, 2005, states, "Defendants have sold hotel rooms to the public and collected taxes on those rooms, but failed to pay the taxes due and owing to the City of Fairview Heights and other class members on these transactions." In its suit, Fairview Heights claim that the defendants are charging and collecting taxes from consumers that are not being remitted to the appropriate municipal class members. The city also claims that in addition to the rental price of the hotel rooms, the occupants are required to pay a transient occupancy tax. Additionally, the complaint states that the defendants contract with hotels for rooms and sell the rooms to members of the public and charge and collect taxes from occupants based on the marked up rooms rates, but only remit tax amounts based on the lower negotiated rate, unlawfully retaining the difference. "All taxing authorities in the State of Illinois authorized to impose a tax upon persons engaging in the business of renting, leasing or letting rooms in a hotel or motel on the gross rental receipts from such renting, leasing or letting," are eligible to join the class, the complaint states. Finally, the complaint states, "Defendants acted willfully, wantonly, with oppression, and with a conscious disregard of the rights of plaintiff and class, such that plaintiff requests that the trier of fact, in the exercise of sound discretion, award plaintiff and the class additional damages for the sake of example and in sufficient amount to punish defendants for their conduct." Kevin Hoerner of Becker, Paulson, Hoerner & Thompson of Belleville, Paul Weiss and William Sweetnam of Freed & Weiss of Chicago, Bradley Lakin and Richard Burke of the Lakin Law Firm in Wood River, William Harte of Chicago and Karl Barth of Lovell Mitchell & Barth in Seattle will represent Fairview Heights and the class. ILLINOIS: County Sheriff's Deputies Re-File Suit in State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Retired Winnebago County sheriff's deputies whose federal lawsuit over health insurance costs was dismissed recently re- filed their suit in state court, The Rockford Register Star reports. Though they're using the same argument as last time - that the county stiffed its retired employees in violation of state law - they hope this time it will stick. Retired sheriff's employees John Germano, Angelo Guirlando and Larry Claytor on behalf of all retired deputies filed the suit, which is seeking class action status for the case as well as damages in excess of $100,000, attorney's fees and reduced health insurance costs. First Deputy State's Attorney Chuck Prorok told Rockford Register Star that the county hasn't determined how it will respond to the lawsuit. Though he did say that he expects to submit a response by this week. "Right now, I really don't know how it's going to work out," said Mr. Germano, whose suit against the county began in 2001. The retired crime scene technician told The Rockford Register Star that he's seen his monthly insurance premiums jump from $302 in 1998, a year after he left the department, to $668 this year. At issue is a provision in the state's insurance code that says retired deputies including those on disability will be provided with the same insurance coverage as employed deputies "and no distinction or discrimination in the amount of rate of premiums or in any waiver of premium or other benefit shall be made." After being told about the state's code by a friend, Mr. Germano, talked to attorney Thomas Greenwald and filed suit in federal court. The case was given class action status, which meant that he could represent all retired deputies. However, Mr. Germano lost, not necessarily because his case was flawed, but because he filed it in the wrong jurisdiction. On July 2, 2004, U.S. District Judge Philip Reinhard dismissed the case without prejudice, saying the proper jurisdiction for actions concerning state law is state court. Mr. Germano's group went on to appeal and met with the same result in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals: The case was dismissed because it was filed in the wrong place. Despite its dismissal, Judge Michael S. Kanne, writing for the three-justice panel, included an opinion that seems to bolster Mr. Germano's argument. In the opinion filed June 20, Judge Kanne wrote, "There is no doubt that the Winnebago County policy is in violation of state law." He added, "The statute creates a claim of entitlement to retired deputies; therefore, the county's actions deprived Mr. Germano and his class of a constitutionally protected property interest." Mr. Prorok though pointed out that Judge Kanne's writings don't mean Mr. Germano has a case now. "That's what we call dictum, which is not a ruling or a precedent," he said. "It may or may not be accurate." Still, Mr. Germano told The Rockford Register Star that he has a good case and is willing to fight it to the end. He said, "I went to almost all the federal court hearings and I figure I'll do the same now. We got this started, and we might as well finish it." KIA MOTORS: Recalls 74,276 Sedona EX Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kia Motors, Inc. in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 74,276 units of 2002-04 Kia Sedona EX passenger vehicles due to fire hazard. According to the ODI, on certain vehicles equipped with power seats, the wiring under the front seats could be misrouted, allowing contact with metal seat components. This could eventually result in a short circuit condition that may result in a short circuit condition that may then result in a fire in the junction box area of the vehicle. As a remedy, dealers will inspect and re-route the wires under the power seats, if necessary, as well as install protective seaming welts around those wires to better insulate them. The recall is expected to begin during November 2005. For more details, contact Kia, Phone: 1-800-333-4542 OR the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov. LIGHTSPAN INC.: NY Court Yet To Rule on Suit Dismissal Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to rule on plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the dismissal of a securities class action filed against Credit Suisse First Boston and several of its clients, including Lightspan, Inc., captioned "Liu, et al. v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., et al." The complaint alleges that Credit Suisse First Boston, its affiliates, and the securities issuer defendants (including the Company) manipulated the price of the issuer defendants' shares in the post-initial public offering market. The securities issuer defendants (including the Company) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in September 2004 on the grounds of multiple pleading deficiencies. On April 1, 2005, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice. On April 15, 2005, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. The court has not yet ruled on that motion. The suit is styled "Liu v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, case no. 1:04-cv-03757-SAS," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Representing the plaintiffs is John G. Watts, Yearout & Traylor, P.C. 800 Shades Creek Parkway, Ste 500 Birmingham, Al 35209 Phone: (205)-414-8160. Representing the Company is Michael L. Hirschfeld, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, L.L.P. 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 530-5000 Fax: (212) 530-5219. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Suit Fairness Hearing Set April 2006 in NY -------------------------------------------------------------- A public hearing for the fairness of the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Marvell Technology Group, Inc., certain of its officers and the underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO) is tentatively set for April 24,2006 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On July 31, 2001, a putative class action suit was filed against two investment banks that participated in the underwriting of the Company's IPO on June 29, 2000. That lawsuit, which did not name the Company or any of its officers or directors as defendants, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that the underwriters received "excessive" and undisclosed commissions and entered into unlawful "tie-in" agreements with certain of their clients in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Thereafter, on September 5, 2001, a second putative class action was filed in the Southern District of New York relating to the Company's IPO. In this second action, plaintiffs named three underwriters as defendants and also named as defendants Marvell and two of the Company's officers, one of whom is also a director. Relying on many of the same allegations contained in the initial complaint in which Marvell was not named as a defendant, plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated various provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In both actions, plaintiffs seek, among other items, unspecified damages, pre-judgment interest and reimbursement of attorneys' and experts' fees. These two actions relating to the Company's IPO have been consolidated with hundreds of other lawsuits filed by plaintiffs against approximately 40 underwriters and approximately 300 issuers across the United States. Defendants in the consolidated proceedings moved to dismiss the actions. In February 2003, the trial court issued its ruling on the motions, granting the motions in part, and denying them in part. Thus, the cases may proceed against the underwriters and the Company as to alleged violations of section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Claims against the individual officers have been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by agreement with plaintiffs. On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs announced that a settlement among plaintiffs, the issuer defendants and their directors and officers, and their insurers has been structured, a part of which provides that the insurers for all issuer defendants would guarantee up to $1 billion to investors who are class members, depending upon plaintiffs' success against non-settling parties. The Company's board of directors has approved the proposed settlement, which will result in the plaintiffs' dismissing the case against the Company and granting releases that extend to all of its officers and directors. Definitive settlement documentation was completed in early June 2004 and first presented to the court on June 14, 2004. On February 15, 2005, the court issued an opinion preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, contingent upon certain modifications being made to one aspect of the proposed settlement - the proposed "bar order". The court ruled that it had no authority to deviate from the wording of the Plaintiff's Securities Law Reform Act of 1995 and that any bar order that may issue should the proposed settlement be finally approved must be limited to the express wording of 15 U.S.C. section 78u-4(f)(7)(A). The court scheduled a further conference for April 13, 2005, for the purposes of making a final determination as to the form, substance and program of class notice, and scheduling a Rule 23 public hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement. On May 2, 2005 the issuer defendants and plaintiffs jointly submitted an amendment to the settlement agreement conforming the language of the settlement agreement with the court's February 15, 2005 ruling regarding the bar order. The court on August 31, 2005 issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement and setting a public hearing on its fairness for April 24, 2006 due to difficulties in mailing the required notice to class members. The suit is styled "IN RE MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION," filed in relation to "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York, NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065, Phone: 212.594.5300 (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax: 212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax: 310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail: newyork@whafh.com MERCK & CO.: Firm Lodges Vioxx Suit On Behalf of Dutch Consumers ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, Ltd. initiated the first class action lawsuit on behalf of all citizens of the Netherlands who allegedly died or were seriously injured by the pain medication Vioxx. The suit accuses United States pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. of failing to properly research the known risks of Vioxx and warn Dutch consumers of potentially fatal side effects. "Vioxx should never have been marketed in the first place," said Kenneth B. Moll, whose firm filed the first worldwide class action regarding Vioxx last fall. On September 30, 2004, Merck withdrew Vioxx from all worldwide markets after studies showed a three-fold risk of heart attack and stroke. "Merck's decision to withdraw Vioxx from the market came years after the company first learned of the health risks," said Mr. Moll. "Countless individuals in the Netherlands and around the world have suffered severe and fatal injuries which could have been avoided if Merck had acted responsibly." On August 19, 2005, a Texas jury awarded $253.5 million to a widow of a man who died after taking Vioxx. "The verdict clearly shows Merck's culpability in their decision to put profits ahead of the safety of their consumers," said Mr. Moll. For more details, contact Tiffany Donnelly of Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, Ltd., Phone: 312-558-6444, Fax: 312-558-1112, Web site: http://www.kbmoll.com. MICHAELS STORES: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA ------------------------------------------------------------- Michaels Stores, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior Court of California, San Diego County on behalf of all current and former hourly retail employees employed in California from July 13,2005 to the present. On July 13, 2005, Michael Clark, a former assistant manager and Lucinda Prouty, a former department manager in San Diego, California, filed the suit, alleging that the Company failed to pay overtime wages, provide meal and rest periods (or compensation in lieu thereof), and provide itemized employee wage statements. The Clark suit also alleges that this conduct was in breach of California's unfair competition law. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, damages for unpaid overtime pay, meal break penalties, waiting time penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Under the Class Action Fairness Act, the Company intends to remove the case to federal court. NISSAN NORTH: Recalls 12.5T 2005 Xterra SUVs Due to Crash Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nissan North America, Inc. in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 12,500 units of 2005 Nissan / Xterra sports utility vehicles due to crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V458000. According to the ODI, on certain SUVs equipped with a Nissan Accessory tow hitch, in adequate quality of some welded joints in the hitch assembly may result in separation of the hitch from the vehicle when being used to tow. This could result in a trailer separating from the vehicle and cause a crash without warning. As a remedy, dealers will replace the tow hitches. The recall is expected to begin on October 24, 2005. For more details, contact Nissan, Phone: 1-800-647-7261 OR the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov. OHIO: Attorney General Files Lawsuit V. USA Baby Stores, Owner -------------------------------------------------------------- Attorney General Jim Petro filed a lawsuit against Jim Lankey of Perrysburg, Ohio, and three USA Baby stores that he operates, charging that the stores provided substandard customer service, violating state consumer protection laws. Consumer complaints filed with Mr. Petro's office stated the stores failed to deliver merchandise and failed to provide refunds on undelivered items. According to Mr. Petro, "Since August 2003 our office has received more than 70 complaints about these stores. The stores worked with our office to resolve some of them but continued to show a pattern and practice of violating Ohio consumer laws." In the suit Mr. Petro also alleges that Mr. Lankey's businesses also accepted money for baby furniture and accessories knowing they were in a precarious financial position which could result in the consumers not receiving their purchased goods. Mr. Petro asked the court to order Mr. Lankey to pay restitution to consumers who made purchases at his USA Baby stores but did not get their merchandise or a refund. He also is asking for civil penalties of $25,000 per violation. In addition, Mr. Petro also asked that the judge order Mr. Lankey to cease doing business until all fines to the state and restitution to the consumers are paid in full. The case was filed in Lucas County Common Pleas Court. Petro's suit names the following as defendants: (1) James P. Lankey, Individually, 28923 Simmons Rd., Perrysburg, Ohio 43551-3643 (2) NEO Baby, Inc., 7654 West Bancroft St., Toledo, Ohio 43614 d/b/a USA Baby at 25027 Center Ridge Rd., Westlake, Ohio 44145 (3) Sunshiny Day, Inc., 28923 Simmons Rd., Perrysburg, Ohio 43551 d/b/a/ USA Baby at 2919 State St., Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio 44223 (4) Baby Bucks, Inc., 5630 N. Main St., Sylvania, Ohio 43560 d/b/a USA Baby at 5549 Monroe St., Sylvania, Ohio 43560 The attorney general also alleged that Mr. Lankey failed to provide goods and services to consumers out of the now-closed USA Baby store formerly located at 4010 Powell Rd., Powell, Ohio. For more details, contact Michelle Gatchell, Attorney General's Office, Phone: (614) 466-3840 or 1-800-282-0515, Web site: http://www.ag.state.oh.us/. PEP BOYS: Faces Possible Complaint From Nikota USA Inc. Receiver ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pep Boys Manny Moe & Kack received a letter from counsel to the court-appointed receiver of Nikota USA, Inc. (a former merchandise vendor since 2003), which ceased operations in March 2005 after a lender foreclosed on a loan. The letter proposed a meeting between the Company and the counsels for the receiver and the lender to discuss an ongoing dispute between the Company and the receiver regarding the Company's accounts payable balance and certain returned defective merchandise. The letter included sweeping allegations with respect to the Company's business practices and was accompanied by a draft complaint against the Company and certain of its employees that alleges breach of contract, unfair business practices under the California Commercial Code, accounting fraud and violations of the Rackeeter Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and purports to seek class action relief for all merchandise vendors to the Company. The Company believes that these allegations are entirely without merit and that the transactions questioned by the receiver's counsel were properly documented, accounted for and immaterial to the Company's financial position and results of operations at all times, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission. PEP BOYS: Appeals Court Vacates PR Consumer Fraud Suit Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico's summary judgment and dismissal of the class action field against Pep Boys Corporation, styled "Tomas Diaz Rodriguez; Energy Tech Corporation v. Pep Boys Corporation; Manny, Moe & Jack Corporation Puerto Rico, Inc. d/b/a Pep Boys" The suit was previously instituted against the Company in the Court of First Instance of Puerto Rico, Bayamon Superior Division on March 15, 2002. The action was subsequently removed to, and is currently pending in, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Plaintiffs are distributors of a product that claims to improve gas mileage. The plaintiffs alleged that the Company entered into an agreement with them to act as the exclusive retailer of the product in Puerto Rico that was breached when the Company determined to stop selling the product. On March 29, 2004, the Company's motion for summary judgment was granted and the case was dismissed. The plaintiff appealed and, on June 3, 2005, the United States Court of Appeal for the First Circuit vacated the summary judgment order and remanded the case to the Court of First Instance of Puerto Rico, Bayamon Superior Division for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. PERRIGO CO.: Working To Settle Ibuprofen Customer Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Perrigo Co. is attempting to settle three suits, two of which are class actions that have been consolidated with one another, filed on behalf of Company customers (i.e., retailers) and the other consisting of four class action suits filed on behalf of indirect Company customers (i.e., consumers), alleging that the plaintiffs overpaid for children's ibuprofen suspension product as a result of the Company's agreement with Alpharma, Inc. While the Company has been defending these claims, it has also participated in settlement negotiations with the plaintiffs. The most recent negotiations lead the Company to believe it may settle all of the lawsuits for a combination of cash payments and product donations, the aggregate value of which the Company anticipates will approximate $4,500. The Company recorded a charge of $4,500 in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2005 as its best estimate of the combined expected cost of the settlements. SCHOOL SPECIALTY: Faces Shareholder Suits in WI Over Bain Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- School Specialty, Inc. faces shareholder suits filed following the Company's May 31, 2005 announcement that it had signed a definitive merger agreement to be acquired by an affiliate of Bain Capital Partners, LLC ("Bain"). The two suits were filed in the Circuit Court for Outagamie County, Wisconsin, styled "Neal Auman v. School Specialty, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV- 765" and "Adams Family Trust v. School Specialty, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-771." The complaint in each action purports to have been filed by a shareholder of the Company who seeks to maintain the suit as a class action on behalf of all holders of Company stock, excluding those related to or affiliated with any of the defendants. In addition to the Company, each complaint names the Company's directors and Bain as defendants. The complaints assert claims arising out of the Company's May 31, 2005 announcement and allege that the Company and its directors breached fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by negotiating and agreeing to the Transaction at a price that the plaintiffs claim to be inadequate. Between both actions the plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin or to rescind the Transaction, other injunctive relief and/or damages and other monetary relief. SEARS ROEBUCK: Trial in IL Securities Fraud Suit Set June 2006 -------------------------------------------------------------- Trial for the consolidated securities class action filed against Sears, Roebuck and Co., is set for June 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Several actions were initially filed on and after October 18, 2002 against the company and certain of its current and former officers, alleging that certain public announcements by the Company concerning its credit card business violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Court has consolidated the actions and certified the consolidated action as a class action. Discovery is underway. SEARS ROEBUCK: Discovery Proceeds in IL ERISA Violations Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated class action filed against Sears Roebuck and Co., certain of its officers and directors and alleged fiduciaries of its 401(k) Savings Plan, seeking damages and equitable relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). On and after November 15, 2002, several actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of participants in the Plan. The suits alleged breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA in connection with the Plan's investment in the Company's common shares and alleged communications made to Plan participants regarding the Company's financial condition. The Court has consolidated these actions and certified the consolidated action as a class action. Discovery is underway. No trial date has been set. SYNOPSYS INC.: Parties Agree To Dismiss CA Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Parties agreed to dismiss the amended securities class action against Synopsys, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California this month. On August 25, 2004, a class action complaint entitled "Kanekal v. Synopsys, Inc., et al., No. C-04-3580," was filed against the Company and certain of its officers alleging violations of the Exchange Act. The complaint purports to be a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of persons who acquired Synopsys stock during the period of December 3, 2003 through August 18, 2004. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants caused Synopsys to make false and misleading statements about Synopsys' business, forecasts, and financial performance, and that certain Synopsys officers or employees sold portions of their stock holdings while in the possession of adverse, non-public information. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought. In November 2004, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff in the case. Discovery has not commenced in the case and no trial date has been established. In January 2005, the lead plaintiff, the Wu Group, filed an amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and a motion for sanctions in March 2005. In August 2005, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, but denied its motion for sanctions, and allowed the plaintiff 30 days to amend their complaint. The Parties have since stipulated, subject to final Court approval, to a dismissal with prejudice, with each side bearing its own fees and costs. SYNOVIS LIFE: MN Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed against Synovis Life Technologies, Inc. and certain of its executive officers by individual shareholders who seek to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from October 16, 2003 to May 18, 2004. The complaints generally allege that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false or misleading statements about the Company's business and prospects, which artificially inflated the price of the Company's securities. No damages have been specified. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants concealed the following materially adverse facts: (1) that the Company's surgical business was not on track for year-to-year growth and was actually declining; (2) that the performance of the Company's surgical business lagged because of disappointing sales of its Peri- Strips product; (3) that the performance of the Company's interventional business had little to zero growth prospects and was suffering because Synovis' largest customers were not placing orders due to inventory build-up; and (4) that as a result, the Company's projections of fiscal 2004 EPS of $0.56-$0.60 and revenue of $75-$79 million had no reasonable basis and were false and misleading. Defendants' misrepresentations were revealed on May 19, 2004, when Synovis issued a press release reporting its revenue and earnings for fiscal 2004 which were drastically below its previously touted 2004 guidance. These lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into a single case, which expanded the class period from May 21, 2003 through May 18, 2004. The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false or misleading statements about the Company's business and prospects, which artificially inflated the price of the Company's securities. On August 25, 2005, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend the consolidated complaint and granted the Company's motion to dismiss these consolidated lawsuits, with prejudice, after finding that the amended consolidated complaint failed to plead plaintiffs' claims with sufficient particularity, as required under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit in KY, Denies Allegations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. (NYSE: TPX), the market-leading manufacturer, marketer and distributor of premium mattresses and pillows worldwide, reports the filing of a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The complaint is a purported class action and names the Company and certain of its officers and directors as defendants. It alleges violations of federal securities laws, and the central allegation is that certain of the Company's public disclosures between April 22, 2005 and September 19, 2005 were false or misleading. The Company adamantly denies that any of its public disclosures have violated any federal securities law. The Company believes that this lawsuit is baseless, and it intends to vigorously defend against all claims asserted in the case. For more details, contact Dale Williams, Chief Financial Officer of Tempur-Pedic International, Inc., Phone: 1-800-805-3635; or Jody Burfening or Harriet Fried, both of Lippert-Heilshorn & Association, Phone: +1-212-838-3777, for Tempur-Pedic International, Inc.; Web site: http://www.tempurpedic.com. TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: FL Court Dismisses Suit V. Subsidiary ------------------------------------------------------------- TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. (Nasdaq: TQNT) reports that the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed with prejudice the class action complaint filed against Sawtek, Inc. ("Sawtek"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of TriQuint since 2001, and former officers of Sawtek. The complaint originated from several nearly identical putative civil class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Sawtek and former officers of Sawtek. The cases were consolidated into one action, and an amended complaint was filed in the consolidated action on July 21, 2003. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on September 3, 2003, and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice on October 6, 2005. For more details, contact TriQuint Semiconductor, Phone: 503-615-9000, Fax: 503/615-8900, Web site: http://www.triquint.com. UNITED RETAIL: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- United Retail Incorporated reached a settlement for the overtime wage suit filed in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, styled "Erik Stanford vs. United Retail Incorporated." A former store manager in California filed the suit on behalf of certain current and former associates in California in the previous four years. The suit asserts state wage and hour claims. The Stanford case was settled at a cost of $1.8 million. In anticipation of the settlement, compensation of store managers employed by the Company in California had been converted from salaries to hourly wages in January 2005. UTI WORLDWIDE: Continues To Face Gulf War Personal Injury Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- UTi Worldwide, Inc. continues to face a consolidated class action filed in the District Court of Brazaria County, Texas (23rd Judicial District), where it is alleged that various defendants sold chemicals that were utilized in the 1991 Gulf War by the Iraqi army which caused personal injuries to U.S. armed services personnel and their families, including birth defects. The suit names 82 other defendant companies. Two class action lawsuits which were originally filed on September 19, 1995 and subsequently consolidated. The lawsuits were brought on behalf of the military personnel who served in the 1991 Gulf War and their families and the plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $1 billion in damages. To date, the plaintiffs have not obtained class certification. The company believes it is a defendant in the suit because an entity that sold the company assets in 1993 is a defendant. The Company believes it will prevail in this matter because the alleged actions giving rise to the claims occurred prior to the Company's purchase of the assets, the Company said in a regulatory filing. The company further believes that it will ultimately prevail in this matter since it never manufactured chemicals and the plaintiffs have been unable to thus far produce evidence that the company acted as a freight forwarder for cargo that included chemicals used by the Iraqi army. Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- 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 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, Phoenix 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 9, 2005 C-8/PFOA SCIENCE, RISKS & LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Four Seasons Resort, Santa Barbara, CA 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 INSURANCE AND REINSURANCE CORPORATE COUNSEL CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess 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 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 5-6, 2005 ADVANCED NATIONAL FORUM ON ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE COVERAGE AND CLAIMS American Conferences The Waldorf Astoria, New York, NY Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563 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 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 ------------------------ October 01-31, 2005 HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com October 01-31, 2005 CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com October 01-31, 2005 HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com October 01-31, 2005 IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS: CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY? CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com October 01-31, 2005 BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE -- FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE & CONSUMER LAW UPDATES CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com 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 06, 2005 CATASTROPHIC LOSS TELECONFERENCE: HURRICANE KATRINA 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 RELATED DISEASES TELECONFERENCE: LUNGS 101, UNDERSTANDING PULMONOLOGY AND ANALYSIS OF MESOTHELIOMA Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 26, 2005 WORKPLACE MISCONDUCT LITIGATION 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 02, 2005 VIOXX(R) THE ERNST JURORS SPEAK Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 16, 2005 HRT Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 17, 2005 FOOD LIABILITY--ADVERTISING PRACTICES Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 17, 2005 ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY TUTORIAL Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 30, 2005 PESTICIDES Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 30, 2005 ASBESTOS SCREENINGS Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 6, 2005 WELDING RODS Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 7, 2005 PERCHLORATE Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 8, 2005 SSRI's TELECONFERENCE Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 14, 2005 FINITE RISK REINSURANCE Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 14, 2005 CLASS CERTIFICATION--HOW TO GET A CLASS CERTIFIED OR DEFEAT CERTIFICATION Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 15, 2005 D&O TELECONFERENCE Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 15, 2005 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ISSUES Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1 CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2 CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3 CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1 CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2 CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3 CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINAITON CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN DISCOVERY CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com PAXIL LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION? LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE LawCommerce.Com Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO SALES AND ADVERSTISING American Bar Association Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org _______________________________________________________________ The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. New Securities Fraud Cases ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Spector Roseman Files Securities Suit in OH ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., initiated a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Abercrombie & Fitch Co. ("Abercrombie" or the "Company") (NYSE:ANF) between May 17, 2005 through August 16, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements contained in press releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made statements that were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose the following facts, among others: (1) demand for Abercrombie's products was slowing, resulting in material amounts of unsold products and rising inventories; (2) contrary to defendants' representations that the denim products were "non-risk" from an inventory standpoint, meaning they would not be marked down if demand was poor, unsold denim products presented a material risk to the Company's profitability; and (3) the Company's profit margins were being negatively impacted by markdowns on unsold products. For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., Phone: 888-844-5862, E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com, Web site: http://www.srk-law.com. AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Stock Suit in VA --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock and other securities of AMERIGROUP Corporation (NYSE: AGP) ("AMERIGROUP" or the "Company") between April 27, 2005 and September 28, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period, thereby artificially inflating the price of AMERIGROUP securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esq. or Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 877-LEGAL-90, E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com. AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Lodges VA Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against AMERIGROUP Corporation (NYSE: AGP). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from April 27, 2005 through September 28, 2005. For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in MA ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Boston Scientific Corporation ("Boston Scientific" or the "Company") (NYSE:BSX), between March 31, 2003 and August 23, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges Boston Scientific and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Boston Scientific develops, manufactures and markets medical devices and technologies used in interventional medical specialties -- including cardiology, oncology, endoscopy, urology and gynecology -- and also offers a variety of other less-invasive medical products. The Complaint alleges Boston Scientific provided highly explicit false and misleading assurances of the Company's ability to satisfy FDA regulations governing its medical device product quality, as well as affirmative representations concerning the Company's knowledge and expertise with respect to the design, development, marketing approval, and sales of its medical devices. The complaint further alleges that during the Class Period certain of the defendants sold millions of shares of Boston Scientific stock, resulting in proceeds of approximately $400 million. On August 23, 2005, based on the cumulative impact of three separate FDA Warning Letters, investors learned of defendants' broad based concealment of Boston Scientific's defective and deficient internal controls and corporate compliance processes and the risks the Company faced. As a result of this news, Boston Scientific's stock price dropped $1.23, or 4.5 percent, on volume of 15.8 million shares, to close at $25.92 per share - - which was $19.89, or 43.4 percent, below its Class Period high of $45.81 on April 5, 2004. For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy or Michael Goldberg of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com. DANA CORPORATION: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in OH -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., initiated a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Dana Corporation ("Dana" or the "Company") (NYSE:DCN) between March 23, 2005 through September 14, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements contained in press releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that on September 15, 2005, Dana announced that it would restate its second quarter 2005 financial results and lowered its 2005 earnings guidance from $1.30 - $1.45 per share, to $0.60 - $0.70 per share. On this news, Dana stock fell from a close of $12.78 per share on September 14, 2005, to close at $9.86 per share on September 15, 2005. On October 10, 2005, the Company announced that it will restate its financial results for fiscal 2004 and the first half of fiscal 2005 because it failed to properly account for issues involving customer pricing and transactions with suppliers in Dana's commercial vehicle business. The Company further stated that it will also delay the release of its third-quarter earnings results, originally scheduled for Oct. 19 and that it will write off U.S. deferred tax assets, which as of June 30 totaled about $740 million. For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., Phone: 888-844-5862, E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com, Web site: http://www.srk-law.com. DANA CORPORATION: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of Dana Corporation ("Dana " or the "Company") (NYSE:DCN) between March 23, 2005 and September 14, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges that Dana violated federal securities laws by making false or misleading public statements. On September 15, 2005, Dana announced that it would restate its second quarter 2005 financial results and lowered its 2005 earnings guidance from $1.30 - $1.45 per share, to $0.60 - $0.70 per share. On this news, Dana stock fell from a close of $12.78 per share on September 14, 2005 to close at $9.86 per share on September 15, 2005. For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com, Web site: http://www.ssbny.com. TEMPUR-MEDIC: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in KY ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. (NYSE: TPX) between April 22, 2005 and September 19, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky against defendant Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and one or more of its officers and/or directors. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., The World Trade Center - Baltimore, 401 East Pratt St., Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410-986-0036, E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com. TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Schatz & Nobel Files KY Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., filed a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of Tempur- Pedic International, Inc. (NYSE:TPX) ("Tempur-Pedic") between April 22, 2005 and September 19, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Tempur-Pedic violated federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading public statements. Specifically, defendants reiterated aggressive sales and earnings guidance for 2005, even after Tempur-Pedic had begun to experience a slowdown. During the Class Period, defendants' failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (1) demand for Tempur-Pedic's products was slowing as competitors were gaining a foothold in the visco- elastic market; (2) defendants' repeated express assurances that the competition was not having a materially negative, or any impact on the Company, even in response to express concerns raised by analysts, were untrue and provided false comfort to investors while inflating the price of Tempur-Pedic stock; and (3) in light of increasing competition that was already having a noticeable effect on the Company's business, defendants' guidance, reiterated on July 21, 2005, lacked any reasonable basis. During the Class Period, insiders and entities associated with insiders, sold a total of 5,620,591 shares of Tempur-Pedic common stock, for proceeds of $131,910,207. On September 19, 2005, Tempur-Pedic issued lower guidance for 2005, which it attributed to a number of factors, including competition that it had said was not and would not have a negative impact, at least not one large enough to cause it to lower its 2005 guidance. On this news, Tempur-Pedic common stock plummeted 28.5 percent to $11.70 per share on July 20, 2005. For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net. ********* 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 * * *