/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/051121.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, November 21, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 230 Headlines AIMCO PROPERTIES: Faces FLSA Violations Suit in CA State Court AQUILA INC.: Securities Settlement Hearing Set February 3, 2006 BRIDGESTONE FIRESTONE: Faces Suit V. Liberia Slave, Child Labor COLORADO: ACLU Files Lawsuit V. Law Barring Parolees From Voting COOPER HAND: Recalls 890 Heating Elements Due to Injury Hazard CV THERAPEUTICS: Discovery Proceeds in CA Securities Fraud Suit DENTSPLY CORPORATION: Appeals Court Upholds Fraud Suit Dismissal DENTSPLY CORPORATION: 166 Dentists Join Class in CA Fraud Suit ENOGEX INC.: To Ask OK Court To Dismiss Gas Antitrust Litigation ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Shareholder Lodges DE Suit Over $386M Buyout FLORIDA: Suits Filed Over Damage Sustained From Hurricane Wilma HARRY & DAVID: Recalls Olive Tapenade Due to Health Hazard HOLLINGER INTERNATIONAL: IL Court Mulls Investor Suit Dismissal ILLINOIS: Supreme Court Dismisses Lawsuit Over Automobile Titles INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Pays $3.7M to Settle OH Mill Workers' Suit JUVENILE PRODUCTS: Recalls Vaporizers, Diffusers For Fire Hazard LANDSTAR SYSTEM: FL Court Grants Certification To OOIDA Lawsuit LOUISIANA: Orleans Parish Prisoners Detail Chaos After Katrina MARATHON OIL: Faces Several Injury Suits For MTBE Contamination MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Seeks Review of Refusal to Dismiss GA Suit NOVARTIS NUTRITION: Recalls Feeding Formula Due to Health Risks OVERTURE SERVICES: NY Settlement Fairness Hearing Set April 2006 PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Stock Suit ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Continues To Face Cabin Stewards "Tips" Lawsuit ROYAL CARIBBEAN: FL Court Dismisses Lawsuit For Deceptive Trade SPS TEMPORARIES: Settles Workers' Discrimination Suit For $580T STERICYCLE INC.: Reaches Settlement in 3CI Shareholder Lawsuit SYCAMORE KIDS: Recalls 3.2T Breeze Strollers Due to Injury Risk TEXAS: Mission Pollution Case Heard Before State Supreme Court TEXAS INSTRUMENTS: Workers Launch Lawsuit For FLSA Violations TRAVELERS PROPERTY: Asks MN Court To Dismiss Shareholder Suits UNITED STATES: Government May Scratch Salvadoran Protections UST INC.: FL Court Converts Tobacco Suit To Individual Action New Securities Fraud Cases BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Baron & Budd Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. TX BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX FIRST BANCORP: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY HCA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in TN INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in CA WELLS FARGO: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. CA ********* AIMCO PROPERTIES: Faces FLSA Violations Suit in CA State Court -------------------------------------------------------------- AIMCO Properties, L.P. and its subsidiary NHP Management Company faces a class action filed in the Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). A suit was initially filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the Company failed to pay maintenance workers overtime for all hours worked in excess of forty per week. The suit attempts to bring a collective action under the FLSA and seeks to certify state subclasses in California, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that the Company and NHPMN failed to compensate maintenance workers for time that they were required to be "on-call." Additionally, the complaint alleges the Company and NHPMN failed to comply with the FLSA in compensating maintenance workers for time that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. In June 2005, the court conditionally certified the collective action on both the on-call and overtime issues, which allows the plaintiffs to provide notice of the collective action to all non-exempt maintenance workers from August 7, 2000 through the present. Those employees will have the opportunity to opt-in to the collective action, and the Company and NHPMN will have the opportunity to move to decertify the collective action. Since the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify state subclasses, on September 26, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a class action with the same allegations in the Superior Court of California (Contra Costa County). AQUILA INC.: Securities Settlement Hearing Set February 3, 2006 --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $1,000,000 settlement in the matter: "Robert Carpe, et al. v. Aquila, Inc., et al., No. 02-0388-CV-W-FJG," which was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Class A common stock of Aquila, Inc. (NYSE ticker: ILA; CUSIP 918005109) during the period from April 24, 2001 to December 3, 2001, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (the "Class"). The hearing will be held before the Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. in the Charles Evans Whittaker Courthouse, 400 E. 9th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, at 8:30 a.m., on February 3, 2006 to determine whether the proposed settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to consider the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. For more details, contact Aquila, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, Post Office Box 9000 #6301, Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone: (800) 408-9856, Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com; Jeffrey M. Haber, Esq. of BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD & LIFSHITZ, LLP, 10 East 40th St., New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 779-1414; Robert A. Wallner, Esq. of MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (212) 594-5300; and Andrew Zivitz, Esq., SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: (610) 667-7706. BRIDGESTONE FIRESTONE: Faces Suit V. Liberia Slave, Child Labor --------------------------------------------------------------- Bridgestone Firestone faces a lawsuit in a California federal court for allegedly using slave labor and child labor on its huge rubber plantation in Harbel, Liberia, The Associated press reports. The suit contends workers live in a "gulag of misery," forced to work or face starvation. It also contends that workers labor 12- plus hours using primitive tools to tap the rubber trees, with impossible quotas and pay cuts if quotas aren't met. Organized by the Washington-based International Labor Rights Fund, the suit seeks class action status for 12 adult workers and 23 children. The lawsuit claims that the plaintiffs, identified only as John, James and Jane Roe, could not bring similar court actions in Liberia because of fear of retribution and corrupt court system. The Japanese company, with North American headquarters in Nashville, says its workers have a labor union and are highly paid. The company also pointed out that child labor is forbidden. Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire is a unit of Bridgestone Corporation. COLORADO: ACLU Files Lawsuit V. Law Barring Parolees From Voting ---------------------------------------------------------------- The American Civil Liberties Union launched a federal lawsuit challenges a Colorado law that bars thousands of people on parole from voting or registering to vote, The Associated Press reports. Norman Mueller, a volunteer attorney, told The Associated Press that the statute violates the state constitution, which according to him, bars prisoners from voting only if they are in prison. He also told The Associated Press, "The Colorado Supreme Court has said in several cases that when prisoners are released on parole, they have completed their term of imprisonment." The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of an estimated 6,000 people in Colorado who are on parole. The suit is now pending before Judge Robert E. Blackburn of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Under Colorado law, felons are allowed to vote only if they are no longer in prison and are not on parole. Last year, Secretary of State Donetta Davidson discovered 6,352 possible voter registration matches for felons, and county clerks were ordered to check the rolls for felons and flag them for poll judges. Mr. Mueller told The Associated Press that nationwide, as many as 5 million Americans are barred from voting by a variety of state laws that forbid convicted felons from voting for varying periods of time. Felons are kept from voting in every state but Maine and Vermont, though restrictions vary. The suit is styled, "Danielson et al v. Dennis, Case No. 1:05- cv-02331-REB," filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, under Judge Robert E. Blackburn. Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Ty Cheung Gee and Norman R. Mueller of Haddon, Morgan, Mueller, Jordan, Mackey & Foreman, PC, 150 East 10th Ave., Denver, CO 80203, U.S.A, Phone: 303-831-7364, Fax: 303-832-2628, E-mail: tgee@hmflaw.com and nmueller@hmflaw.com; and Jennifer Jung-Wuk Lee and Mark Silverstein of American Civil Liberties Union-Colorado, 400 Corona St., Denver, CO 80218, U.S.A, Phone: 303-777-5482, Fax: 303-777-1773, E-mail: jlee@aclu-co.org and msilver2@att.net. COOPER HAND: Recalls 890 Heating Elements Due to Injury Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Cooper Hand Tools, of Apex, North Carolina is voluntarily recalling about 890 units of Wellerr Brand Heating Elements. According to the company, the housing of the heating element can unexpectedly leak hot metal, posing a serious risk of a burn injury to the user. Cooper has received four reports of the housing of the heating element leaking hot metal. No injuries have been reported. The heating elements were sold for use in soldering irons. Only heating elements with the following model numbers and dates codes from May 2005 through August 2005 are included in this recall: 1140A, 1233S, 1235S, 1236S, 1237S, 1237SBK, 2AC08, 2AC09, 2AC10, 37UG, 37BK, 6A909, 6A910, SL325, SL325BK, SL335, SL345, 360, 361, 362, 363, 4033S, 4033SBK, 4035S, 4035SBK, 4037J, 4037S, 4037SBK, 4039S, 533S, 535S537S, 6A908. These soldering irons are used by stained glass hobbyists. Pictures of recalled products: (1) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06031a.jpg (2) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06031b.jpg Manufactured in Mexico, the elements were sold at art supply retail stores nationwide from May 2005 through August 2005 for between $10 and $40. Remedy: Consumers should stop using these soldering irons immediately and return the heating element to the store where purchased for a free replacement or refund. Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Cooper Hand Tools at (800) 476-3030 Ext. 1 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.cooperhandtools.com/recall. CV THERAPEUTICS: Discovery Proceeds in CA Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class action filed against CV Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Several suits were initially filed on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities, and request unspecified damages. As is typical in this type of litigation, several other purported securities class action lawsuits containing substantially similar allegations have since been filed against the defendants, and the Company expects that additional lawsuits containing substantially similar allegations may be filed in the future. In November 2003, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and in December 2003, the court consolidated all of the securities class actions filed to date into a single action captioned In re CV Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation." In January 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. The Company and the other named defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint in March 2004. In August 2004, these motions were granted in part and denied in part. The court granted the motions to dismiss by two individual defendants, dismissing both individuals from the action with prejudice, but denied the motions to dismiss by the company and the two other individual defendants. DENTSPLY CORPORATION: Appeals Court Upholds Fraud Suit Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeal upheld a lower court ruling dismissing the class actions filed against Dentsply Corporation on behalf of laboratories, and denture patients in seventeen states who purchased Trubyte teeth or products containing Trubyte teeth. The private party suits seek damages in an unspecified amount. The United States Department of Justice filed a complaint in the United States District Court in Wilmington, Delaware, alleging that the Company's tooth distribution practices violate the antitrust laws and seeking an order for the Company to discontinue its practices. Subsequent to the filing of the Department of Justice Complaint in 1999, several private party class actions were filed based on allegations similar to those in the Department of Justice case, on behalf of laboratories, and denture patients in seventeen states who purchased Trubyte teeth or products containing Trubyte teeth. These cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Delaware. The private party suits seek damages in an unspecified amount. The Court has granted the Company's Motion on the lack of standing of the laboratory and patient class actions to pursue damage claims. The Plaintiffs in the laboratory case appealed this decision to the Third Circuit and the Court has upheld the decision of the District Court in dismissing the Plaintiffs' damages claims, with the exception of allowing the Plaintiffs to pursue a damage claim based on a theory of resale price maintenance agreements between the Company and its tooth dealers. This was not an issue in the government case and it is unknown whether the Plaintiffs will pursue such a claim. DENTSPLY CORPORATION: 166 Dentists Join Class in CA Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- 166 dentists licensed to practice in California have opted-in to the class in the suit filed against Dentsply International, Inc. in Los Angeles County Superior Court in California. On March 27, 2002, a Complaint was filed in Alameda County, California (which was transferred to Los Angeles County) by Bruce Glover, D.D.S. alleging, inter alia, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud, unfair trade practices and negligent misrepresentation in the Company's manufacture and sale of Advance(R) cement. The Complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount for costs incurred in repairing dental work in which the Advance(R) product allegedly failed. The Judge has entered an Order granting class certification, as an Opt-in class (this means that after Notice of the class action is sent to possible class members, a party will have to determine they meet the class definition and take affirmative action in order to join the class) on the claims of breach of warranty and fraud. In general, the Class is defined as California dentists who purchased and used Advance(R) cement and were required, because of failures of the cement, to repair or reperform dental procedures. The Notice of the class action was sent on February 23, 2005 to the approximately 29,000 dentists licensed to practice in California during the relevant period and a total of 166 dentists have opted into the class action. As the result of a recent decision by a California Appellate Court, the plaintiffs have filed an appeal to convert the claim to an opt-out claim from its current status as an opt-in claim. The Advance(R) cement product was sold from 1994 through 2000 and total sales in the United States during that period were approximately $5.2 million. The Company's primary level insurance carrier has confirmed coverage for the breach of warranty claims in this matter up to their policy limits. The Advance(R) cement product was sold from 1994 through 2000 and total sales in the United States during that period were approximately $5.2 million. The Company's primary level insurance carrier has confirmed coverage for the breach of warranty claims in this matter. ENOGEX INC.: To Ask OK Court To Dismiss Gas Antitrust Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Enogex, Inc. intends to ask the District Court of Comanche County, Oklahoma to dismiss the putative class action filed against it by G.M. Oil Properties, Inc. The petition alleges that the Company exercises a monopoly power with respect to its gathering facilities within the state of Oklahoma. The petition further alleges that, due to the alleged monopoly power, the Company has caused damage to the plaintiff and other small gas producers and marketers. The Company is filing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Shareholder Lodges DE Suit Over $386M Buyout ---------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder initiated a class action lawsuit over a planned $386 million acquisition of Enterasys Networks by two private- equity firms, The Eagle Tribune reports. Under terms of the deal, the buyout firms will pay $13.92 per share for the Andover-based computer networking and software firm, a 32 percent premium over Enterasys' recent stock price. The deal was not enough for shareholder Harold Weber, who filed suit, alleging that Company officials failed to seek out the best possible price before signing the deal. Mr. Weber named the Company, along with the individual members of the company's board of directors, in the complaint filed in Chancery Court in Wilmington, Delaware. Additionally, Mr. Weber's suit also named as defendants, the Gores Group of Los Angeles and Santa Barbara, California-based Tennenbaum Capital Partners, the two private- equity firms leading the proposed buyout. Mr. Weber states in his complaint, "The terms of the proposed transaction were not the result of an auction process or active market check. They are intrinsically unfair and inadequate from the standpoint of the Enterasys shareholders." Mr. Weber, who is represented by Carmella Keener of Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess in Wilmington, Delaware, is also arguing that after several years of restructuring, Enterasys was now poised for rapid growth on its own and likely didn't need to sell at this time. Instead, the complaint continued, the buyout offer "allowed the price of Enterasys stock to be capped" and is depriving shareholders of potentially much larger payouts in the future. On a recent conference call with investors, Gerald M. Haines, executive vice president of strategic affairs at Enterasys said the deal followed several months of talks with potential suitors. He told investors, "This was a culmination of a rigorous process that's been ongoing for the past three quarters." He refused, however, to identify any other possible suitors for the company. Pending shareholder and regulatory approvals, the buyout is expected to close before the end of March. FLORIDA: Suits Filed Over Damage Sustained From Hurricane Wilma --------------------------------------------------------------- Two lawsuits, each angling for class action status and accusing three building companies of negligently installing roof tiles that blew off during Hurricane Wilma, were commenced in Broward Circuit Court in Florida, The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports. David Dohner, a Miami lawyer and Weston resident, filed one of those suits recently, on behalf of his neighbors, Anatoly and Inna Osnovsky. The suit alleges that Weston's developer, Arvida, violated building codes by inadequately applying the Osnoskys' roof tiles that ultimately were torn off by the storm. Mold from leaks damaged their home, according to the suit. Within days of filing the suit, Mr. Dohner told The South Florida Sun-Sentinel that a score of neighbors submitted their names as potential plaintiffs seeking recourse for similar damages. He also told The South Florida Sun-Sentinel that he wants to bring the homeowners together in a class action case, pending a judge's approval. He pointed out, "We're absolutely seeking class certification. I expect the numbers [of plaintiffs] to continue rising. I've been contacted by people in all the various other [Weston] communities." In the other suit by a homeowner whose roof tiles blew off during the hurricane, Mr. Dohner is co-lead counsel, along with attorney R. Timothy Vannatta of Boca Raton. The two represents Michael Ruckdeschel of Davie, who is seeking damages from Sea Ranch Properties of Fort Lauderdale and Latite Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. of Pompano Beach. Like the Osnoskys, Mr. Ruckdeschel also suffered a damaged roof and leaks. In his suit, Mr. Vannatta makes claims similar to those on Mr. Dohner's case. According to one of his lawyers, "The roof tiling was not applied in compliance with what the building code required." As with the Osnosky's suit, Mr. Vannatta also anticipates adding more names to his case. He told The South Florida Sun-Sentinel, "We have spoken to several other persons in that community. Our expectation is that we most likely at some point will try to certify a class action status." HARRY & DAVID: Recalls Olive Tapenade Due to Health Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------- Harry & David Operations Corporation, of Medford, Oregon, is recalling 200 jars of Black and Kalamata Olive Tapenade because they have the potential to be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium which can produce a toxin that can cause life-threatening illness or death. Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not look or smell spoiled. Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double- vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in breathing, weakness of muscles, abdominal distension and constipation may also be common symptoms. People experiencing these problems should seek immediate medical attention. The Black and Kalamata Olive Tapenade was distributed throughout the United States at Harry and David retail stores. The Black and Kalamata Olive Tapenade was distributed in 11 oz. glass jars. The lot code recalled is 23405-941H2. The lot code is ink jetted with black ink on the shoulder of the glass jar. The item number is located on an adhesive label on the bottom of the jar. The adhesive label states: "Harry and David 888905 Tapenade Olive" The date of distribution to the Harry and David retail store locations ranges from September 16 through September 26, 2005. No illnesses have been reported to date. The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product had an unstable pH, an indication of inadequate processing. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the co-packer's production and packaging processes. The product was produced by a co-packer, WDSR Foods, LLC, dba Hagerty Foods, now owned by Enterprise Custom Foods, Inc., Orange, CA, for Harry and David. Consumers who have the Black and Kalamata Olive Tapenade product should discard the product or return the product to the place of purchase for a refund. Consumers with questions may also contact the company at 1-800-345-5655. HOLLINGER INTERNATIONAL: IL Court Mulls Investor Suit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has yet to rule on Hollinger International, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the amended shareholder class action filed against it and certain of its officers and directors, styled "In re Hollinger Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 04C-0834." In February and April 2004, three alleged stockholders of the Company (Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana, Kenneth Mozingo, and Washington Area Carpenters Pension and Retirement Fund) initiated purported class actions suits against the Company, its former chief executive officer and founder Conrad Black, certain former executive officers and certain current and former directors of the Company, Hollinger Inc., Ravelston and certain affiliated entities and KPMG LLP, the Company's independent registered public accounting firm. On July 9, 2004, the Court consolidated the three actions for pretrial purposes. Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint on August 2, 2004, and a second consolidated amended class action complaint on November 19, 2004. The named plaintiffs in the second consolidated amended class action complaint are Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana, Washington Area Carpenters Pension and Retirement Fund, and E. Dean Carlson. They are purporting to sue on behalf of an alleged class consisting of themselves and all other purchasers of securities of the Company between and including August 13, 1999 and December 11, 2002. The second consolidated amended class action complaint asserts claims under federal and Illinois securities laws and claims of breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting in breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with misleading disclosures and omissions regarding certain "non-competition" payments, the payment of allegedly excessive management fees, allegedly inflated circulation figures at the Chicago Sun-Times, and other alleged misconduct. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, rescission, and an injunction against future violations. The suit is styled "In Re: Hollinger Intl Securities Litigation, case no. 1:04-cv-00834," filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge David H. Coar. 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) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com (4) Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100, Wilmington, DE, 19801, Phone: 302.622.7000, Fax: 302.622.7100, E-mail: info@gelaw.com (5) Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC, Chicago, IL, Phone: 800-470-6824, Fax: 312-621-1750, (6) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com ILLINOIS: Supreme Court Dismisses Lawsuit Over Automobile Titles ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Illinois Supreme Court dismissed a suit involving automobile titles being heard in the state, ruling that there was no legitimate reason to hash out a Louisiana dispute in an Edwardsville courtroom, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports. The ruling was hailed by business groups as a major victory against "venue shopping," the practice of filing national class action suits in targeted jurisdictions like Madison County. It was described as a jab at the county's court system, which has a national reputation for being friendly to plaintiffs. On the same day the ruling was handed down, in what proponents say was a coincidence, an Illinois Senate committee meeting in Chicago took testimony on legislation that would set strict new rules governing where suits can be filed in the state of Illinois. Business groups touted the recent Supreme Court ruling as proof of the necessity of the legislation. The venue-shopping bill is SB1724. Lynda Mounts, assistant general counsel for the American Insurance Association in Chicago, said in a written statement, "For many years, Illinois has had a reputation . . . for having a few overly friendly local courts that cater to out-of-state lawsuits and at times issue blatantly unfair rulings." She goes on to say, "The fact that this lawsuit went all the way to the state Supreme Court before venue was correctly decided reinforces the need for legislation that clearly delineates when and where forum is proper in civil cases." However, a major lawyers' group pointed out that the ruling actually demonstrates that new legislation is not needed. Keith Hebeisen, president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association told The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Our court system has done a very good job of correcting (cases of alleged venue shopping) within the existing rules." According to him, new legislation, like the recently discussed bill in Chicago, is unnecessary. "This case vindicates the current court system," he says of the recent ruling. The latest case involves allegations against State Farm Insurance by Louisiana resident Christopher Gridley, who bought a 1998 Volvo S70 from a Louisiana auction in November 1999. The title did not reveal that the car had been involved in an accident months earlier. Mr. Gridley sued State Farm, which had allegedly obtained a "clean title" that obscured the car's damage history. Even though Mr. Gridley is a Louisiana resident and the alleged fraud happened in Louisiana, the suit was filed in Madison County, Illinois. The intent was to have it certified as a national class action suit, with at least one Illinois resident to be included among the "class" - that is, the group of people allegedly harmed by State Farm's business practices. State Farm argued that there was no legitimate reason to file the case in Madison County, and that it should be heard in either Louisiana or in Bloomington, Illinois, where the company is based. However, a Madison County court denied that motion and allowed the case could stay in Edwardsville. The Supreme Court's recent ruling though overturns the circuit court decision and at the same time expels the case from the Illinois civil court system. Illinois law does allow class action suits to be filed in jurisdictions with only minor connections to the case, a controversial standard that some in the Legislature are trying to change. However, in a 14-page decision without dissent, the state's high court ruled that the Mr. Gridley suit didn't even meet that standard. In an opinion by Justice Robert Thomas, the court ruled, "We find that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying State Farm's motion" to move the case out of Madison County. Judge Thomas further wrote, "Louisiana has an interest in deciding this matter locally. In contrast, Illinois courts have an interest in not being burdened with applying foreign law in the absence of strong policy reasons and a strong connection to the case." John Hoffman of the Belleville law firm Korein Tillery, who is representing Mr. Gridley, defended the concept of filing suits in venues perceived as friendly. He pointed out, "I don't like the term 'venue shopping' . . . but as an attorney, part of my job is to file (cases) in a forum that I believe increases my client's chances for victory." Mr. Hoffman noted that the alternative courts suggested by State Farm included Bloomington, the company's national corporate headquarters. "If you ask me, that's '(venue) shopping'," Mr. Hoffman says of the suggested alternative. The Supreme Court's ruling in effect throws the case out of Illinois, leaving plaintiffs with the option of filing in Louisiana. Mr. Hoffman told The St. Louis Post-Dispatch that's what the firm probably would do. Justice Lloyd Karmeier, the Glen Carbon Republican elected after a bitter campaign last year that became a referendum on tort reform, didn't take part in the deliberations. The case was argued before he was elected. The case is the second such this fall in which the state Supreme Court appeared to side with critics of the downstate civil court system. Coincidentally, the previous case, also involved State Farm. In that case, plaintiffs filing in Marion, Illinois won a $1.06 billion national class action suit against the insurance company for using "after-market" parts in car repairs. The Supreme Court though in an opinion that one dissenting justice described as a slap at downstate courts, overturned that judgment in August. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Pays $3.7M to Settle OH Mill Workers' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Co. will pay $3.7 million to settle a class action lawsuit brought by some former salaried employees who worked at Hamilton's B Street mill in Ohio, a judge's ruling stated, The Hamilton Journal News reports. In the suit, workers claimed that they were unfairly denied severance payments offered in an IP company policy when they accepted jobs with SMART Papers after it bought the B Street mill in 2001. Dianne Noonan, who has worked at the mill through three different paper companies, filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati along with co-worker Scott Dalesandro on behalf of themselves and 147 others. Commenting on the ruling, which was handed down after months of negotiations between the parties, Ms. Noonan told The Hamilton Journal News, "I'm glad it's over. A lot of us have 25 years service with the company and above. We all deserve this money." Elements of the case date back to 2000, when Champion International merged with IP. In May of that year, just before the merger, the company issued a severance policy for workers terminated as a result of the companies' reorganization. After IP sold the B Street mill to SMART Papers, IP refused to pay severance benefits under that policy to workers who took jobs with the new company. Though IP representatives refused comment on the settlement, they contend in their court filings that the severance benefits were offered only to help those who were out of work because of the transition, not those who carried on at the mill working for a new company. Money aside, Cincinnati lawyer Theresa Groh, who represented the workers, told The Hamilton Journal News that ruling brought a satisfying conclusion to nearly five years of work. He pointed out, "You can't compare class action settlements on amounts. In terms of other elements, it was certainly more hard-fought than a lot that I've been involved with and I'm very pleased with this settlement." Although the class members will be getting less than they might have under a ruling earlier this year that was later appealed, Ms. Noonan told The Hamilton Journal News that she believed the settlement was fair and was the most money workers could have reasonably gotten from IP. In that earlier ruling, Judge Sandra Beckwith ordered IP to pay its former employees $4.2 million in severance payments, $323,532 for their attorneys' fees, $6,335 in costs and $628,823 in back interest for a total of $5.1 million. Both the paper company and the workers appealed. The final agreement that was approved recently deducts $917,500 in attorneys' fees, $20,000 in incentive payments to Mr. Dalesandro and Ms. Noonan and up to $25,000 in litigation costs from the $3.7 million settlement. That leaves about $2.7 million for the severance payments, which will be calculated according to a formula mailed to the workers. Court records show the final settlement payments will represent about 64 percent of what the employees would have gotten under the earlier ruling, according to Mr. Groh. He told The Hamilton Journal News that if the ruling is not appealed, members of the class should be paid by January. Those members have until January 3 to return paperwork mailed with their settlement notices in order to get paid, he adds. A fairness hearing was scheduled for November 16 at the U.S. District courthouse in Cincinnati with notices explaining the settlement having been already mailed to workers who are part of the class. Members of the class who object to the settlement must file their objections with the court before November 1, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (October 4, 2005) reports. The suit is styled, "Dalesandro, et al v. International Paper, Case No. 1:01-cv-00109-SSB," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, under Judge Sandra S. Beckwith. Representing the Plaintiff/s are Theresa L. Groh and John Charles Murdock of Murdock Goldenberg Schneider & Groh, LPA, 35 East Seventh St., Suite 600, Cincinnati, OH 45202-2015, Phone: 513-345-8291, E-mail: tgroh@mgsglaw.com and jmurdock@mgsglaw.com; and Myron Auer Wolf of Henderson, Deis & Wolf - 1, 120 North Second St., Hamilton, OH 45011, Phone: 513-863-0664, Fax: 513-863-0664. Representing the Defendant/s are: (1) Vincent J Miraglia of International Paper Company, Legal Department, 6400 Poplar Ave., Memphis, TN 38197, Phone: 901/419-3901, E-mail: vmiraglia@mcguirewoods.com; (2) Grant Spencer Cowan of Frost Brown Todd LLC - 1, 2200 PNC Center, 201 E 5th St., Cincinnati, OH 45202-4182, Phone: 513-651-6800, Fax: 513-651-6745 (fax), E-mail: gcowan@fbtlaw.com; and (3) W. Carter Younger of McGuire Woods LLP - 1, One James Center, 901 E Cary St., Richmond, VA 23219, Phone: 804- 775-4712, Fax: 804-775-4366. JUVENILE PRODUCTS: Recalls Vaporizers, Diffusers For Fire Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Juvenile Products Corporation, of Miami, Florida (THIS COMPANY IS OUT OF BUSINESS.) is voluntarily recalling about 10,000 Vapor-Eze Waterless Vaporizers and 5,000 Vapor-Eze Aromatherapy Diffusers. According to the companies, a defective internal heater in the recalled vaporizers and diffusers can cause sparking and emit flames while in use. This poses a fire, burn and shock hazard to consumers. There have been reports of 25 incidents involving these products, including at least six fires and two reports of burn injuries. In one incident, a young child was hospitalized with burns to the face and hands and smoke inhalation. In another incident, a consumer suffered a burned foot. The recalled waterless vaporizers are white plastic with vents. The aromatherapy diffusers are ivory plastic with vents. Both are 5-inches wide by 3 �-inches high. "Vapor-Eze," and "Waterless Vaporizer" are written on the top of the vaporizer. "Vapor-Eze" and "Aromatic Therapy" are written on the top of the diffuser. Model 1070, 2070 or 3070 and "Juv. Prod's. Corp" are printed on the bottom of the units. UPC Code 015715910701, 015715010008, 000157159104 or 0157150010145 is printed on the packaging. Manufactured in the United States, the recalled products were sold discount department and drug stores, including Wal-Mart, from June 2005 through September 2005 for about $20. Remedy: Consumers should stop using the recalled waterless vaporizer and aromatherapy diffuser immediately and return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumer Contact: The manufacturer of these recalled products is out of business. Consumers who purchased the recalled vaporizers or diffusers at Wal-Mart should contact Wal-Mart at (800) 925-6278 between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.Walmart.com- consumers who purchased the products elsewhere should contact the retailer or CPSC's Hotline at (800) 638-2772. LANDSTAR SYSTEM: FL Court Grants Certification To OOIDA Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division granted class certification to the class action filed against Landstar System, Inc., alleging violations of certain federal leasing regulations. On November 1, 2002, the Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc. (OOIDA) and six individual Independent Contractors filed a putative class action complaint, alleging that certain aspects of the Company's motor carrier leases with its Independent Contractors violate certain federal leasing regulations and seeks injunctive relief, an unspecified amount of damages and attorney's fees. On March 8 and June 4, 2004, the Court dismissed all claims of one of the six individual Plaintiffs on the grounds that the ICC Termination Act is not applicable to leases signed before the Act's January 1, 1996, effective date, and dismissed all claims of all remaining Plaintiffs against four of the seven Company entities previously named as Defendants. Claims currently survive against the following Company entities - Landstar Inway, Inc., Landstar Ligon, Inc. and Landstar Ranger, Inc. With respect to the remaining claims, the June 4, 2004 order held that the Act created a private right of action to which a four-year statute of limitation applies. On November 30, 2004, the Court heard oral argument on a motion by OOIDA to certify the case as a class action. On April 7, 2005, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint that included additional allegations with respect to violations of certain federal leasing regulations. On April 18 and June 10, 2005, Defendants filed motions for partial summary judgment to address the claims of the Amended Complaint. On August 30, 2005, the Court granted a motion by Plaintiffs to certify the case as a class action, and set trial for the April 2006 trial term. On October 19, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied the Defendants' petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the class-certification order. The District Court is expected to rule prior to trial on the pending motions for summary judgment. The suit is styled, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc. et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01005-HLA-MCR, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, The Honorable Henry Lee Adams Jr., presiding. The following represented the Plaintiff/s: Daniel E. Cohen, Daniel R. Unumb, Paul D. Cullen, Mary Craine Lombardo, Joseph A. Black and Susan Van Bell of The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC, 1101 30th St., N.W., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20007-3770, Phone: 202/944-8600 or 202/965-6100; and Michael R. Freed of Brennan, Manna & Diamond, PL, Humana Centre Building, 76 S. Laura Street, Ste. 2110, Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/366-1500, Fax: 904/366-1501, E-mail: mrfreed@bmdpl.com. The following are representing the Defendant/s: (1) Daniel R. Barney of Scopelitis, Garvin, Light & Hanson, P.C., 1850 M St., NW, Suite 280, Washington, DC 20036- 5804, Phone: 202/783-5485, E-mail: dbarney@scopelitis.com; (2) Timothy W. Wiseman, Robert L. Browning and Gregory M. Feary of Scopelitis, Garven, Light & Hanson, P.C., 10 W. Market St., Suite 1500, Indianapolis, IN 46204-2968, Phone: 317/637-1777, Fax: 317/687-2414; (3) Andrew Tysen Duva and Lawrence Joseph Hamilton, II of Holland & Knight, 50 North Laura St., Suite 3900, Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/353-2000 or 904/353- 2000 Ext. 25454, Fax: 904/358-1872, E-mail: lhamilton@hklaw.com. LOUISIANA: Orleans Parish Prisoners Detail Chaos After Katrina -------------------------------------------------------------- In legal papers filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, 45 men and women formerly detained at Orleans Parish Prison recount disturbing details of being abandoned without food or water and abused by guards after Hurricane Katrina struck. The ACLU said that the scores of testimonials it has obtained from prisoners contradict public statements made by Sheriff Marlin N. Gusman that the prisoners had food and water and that the evacuation went as planned. "The prisoners' accounts are remarkably similar, and raise serious claims that they were abandoned by prison officials and subject to excessive force," said Eric Balaban of the ACLU National Prison Project, which represents the prisoners in an ongoing class-action lawsuit. Prisoners claim that deputies forced them into their cells by shooting bean bags, macing and tasering them. Once they were returned to their cells, some deputies handcuffed the cell doors to prevent them from escaping. As the locked cells began to flood, prisoners hung signs out of the broken windows for help, and others jumped into the water below. According to the testimonials, deputies and members of the Special Investigation Division shot at some of the prisoners who were attempting to escape the rising water inside the jail, and several prisoners report that they witnessed fellow prisoners getting shot in the back. When the prisoners were finally evacuated from the jail, many were forced to wade through toxic, waste-filled water to the Broad Street overpass on Interstate 10. Prisoners reported that the armed guards at the overpass had K-9 dogs, which were used to threaten them. Several prisoners said that the dogs bit other prisoners. Many of the prisoners on the overpass said they were maced and beaten, some for nothing more than sitting next to a fellow prisoner who attempted to stand and stretch after being forced to sit on the pavement for hours. Other prisoners recount being maced and beaten for requesting food and water. Female prisoners also report that deputies directed degrading and sexually offensive comments at them. "It was like we were left to die. No water, no air, no food. We were left with deputies that were out of control," said one woman, who is identified in legal papers as "Inmate #19." Before filing the testimonials with the court, the ACLU redacted the names of the prisoners in order to protect their safety. "Inmate #19" said she was housed in a dorm with 100 other women because of flooding. The women were left with nothing to eat or drink, and many of them drank water out of trashcans. "I still have recurring nightmares about what I saw and what I went through," she said. One man, who was housed at Unit F-2, said he and other prisoners saw "a few dead bodies and we were told not to say anything or we were going to be like them." The man, referred to as "Inmate #41," said that when he was evacuated from the building, the water was so high that prisoners had to swim or wade out to safety. He eventually reached the Interstate 10 overpass, where he was denied food and water for two days. "The evacuation [was] hideous to say the least," said another woman, referred to as "Inmate #6." "So gruesome that we had to wade through standing toxic-contaminated water filled with feces, urine and all kinds of other foreign debris for days on end . [It is] almost impossible to fathom how one can survive it and not be scarred to extremes." Many prisoners say conditions worsened when they were moved to other facilities, such as Hunt Correctional Facility. "Inmate #7" described Hunt as "pure hell." "The guards treated us like old nasty dogs. We could asked them nothing. [or] you might get shot at," he said. Another man, "Inmate #64," described lawlessness at Hunt. "Everywhere you looked there were fights, people getting stabbed, people getting raped. When [deputies] did come with food, they threw it to us from scaffolds like they were at Mardi Gras." The ACLU said it has received hundreds of responses and plans to release additional testimonials in the coming weeks. The testimonials were obtained through a series of questionnaires sent to prisoners who are now being held at various facilities across Louisiana. Summaries of more than 70 testimonials are found at: www.aclu.org/Prisons/Prisons.cfm?ID=19414&c=26. Select testimonials are available at: www.aclu.org/Prisons/Prisons.cfm?ID=19416&c=26. More testimonials will be posted soon. For more information on the ACLU's efforts in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, go to: http://www.aclu.org/HurricaneRelief. MARATHON OIL: Faces Several Injury Suits For MTBE Contamination --------------------------------------------------------------- Marathon Oil, Inc. is named as a defendant, along with many other refining companies, in over forty recently-filed cases in thirteen states alleging methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) contamination in groundwater. The plaintiffs generally are water providers or governmental authorities and they allege that refiners, manufacturers and sellers of gasoline containing MTBE are liable for manufacturing a defective product and that owners and operators of retail gasoline sites have allowed MTBE to be discharged into the groundwater. Several of these lawsuits allege contamination that is outside of Marathon's marketing area. A few of the cases seek approval as class actions. Many of the cases seek punitive damages or treble damages under a variety of statutes and theories. As a result, The Company has stopped producing MTBE at its refineries. The potential impact of these recent cases and future potential similar cases is uncertain. Marathon intends to vigorously defend these cases. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Seeks Review of Refusal to Dismiss GA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Mohawk Industries, Inc. appealed to the United States Supreme Court, after the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals refused to review its ruling upholding in part a lower court's refusal to dismiss class action filed against it, styled "Shirley Williams, et al vs. Mohawk Industries, Inc." Four plaintiffs filed the suit in January 2004, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging that they are former and current employees of the Company and that the Company's actions and conduct, including the employment of persons who are not permitted to work in this country, have damaged them and the other members of the purported class by suppressing the wages of the Company's hourly employees in Georgia. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including treble damages; return of any allegedly unlawful profits; and attorney's fees and costs of litigation. In February 2004, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, which was denied by the Northern District in April 2004. The Company then sought and obtained permission to file an immediate appeal of the Northern District's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. In June 2005, the 11th Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part the lower court's decision. In June 2005, the Company filed a motion requesting review by the full 11th Circuit. The 11th Circuit refused to hear the case and the Company now has appealed to the United States Supreme Court. NOVARTIS NUTRITION: Recalls Feeding Formula Due to Health Risks --------------------------------------------------------------- Novartis Nutrition Corporation is recalling 2,712 bottles of an enteral feeding formula which was incorrectly labeled as Diabetisourcer AC 1.5 Liter bottles lot 2135L. The product contained in these bottles is Resource Diabeticr TF a tube feeding formulated for diabetes, which contains sodium and calcium caseinate, components of milk. People with an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of a serious or life threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. The recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the FDA. Healthcare professionals administering to patients who have an allergy or sensitivity to milk should immediately stop using this product. Healthcare institutions that have received shipping cartons labeled Resource Diabeticr TF lot number 2135L or bottles labeled Diabetisourcer AC 1.5 Liter bottles lot 2135L should contact Novartis Customer Services at 1-800-333-3785. Consumers who have questions can contact this same 800 number. In addition the two products are not nutritionally equivalent. The product label for Diabetisourcer AC indicates that the 1.5L container provides 1800 calories and 150 grams of carbohydrate. Consuming Resource Diabeticr TF, the patient would receive 1590 calories and 127 grams of carbohydrate in a 1.5L container. The affected product was shipped nationwide and is only distributed to healthcare institutional facilities. Affected product is not distributed to retail outlets. The recalled bottles were shipped in cartons correctly labeled as Resource Diabeticr TF lot 2135L however the bottles were incorrectly labeled as Diabetisource AC. Lot 2135L. Novartis Nutrition Corporation has notified its distributors requesting that they stop sale immediately and return all product in their inventory. Novartis Nutrition Corporation takes its mission of improving the health and well being of patients in healthcare delivery settings very seriously, and therefore believe it is necessary to take this precautionary action. For more details, contact Brandi Robinson, Phone: 212-830-2408. OVERTURE SERVICES: NY Settlement Fairness Hearing Set April 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Overture Services, Inc., certain underwriters involved in the Company's initial public offering, and certain of its current and former officers and directors is set for April 24,2006, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On July 12, 2001, the first of several purported securities class action lawsuits was filed. The suits were later consolidated. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 involving undisclosed compensation to the underwriters, and improper practices by the underwriters, and seek unspecified damages. Similar complaints were filed in the same court against numerous public companies that conducted initial public offerings of their common stock since the mid-1990s. All of these lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial purposes before Judge Shira Scheindlin. On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging Rule 10b-5 claims of fraud. On July 15, 2002, the issuers filed a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with applicable pleading standards. On October 8, 2002, the Court entered an Order of Dismissal as to all of the individual defendants in the Overture IPO litigation, without prejudice. On February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the Rule 10b-5 claims against certain defendants, including the Company. On August 31, 2005 the Court entered an order confirming its preliminary approval of a settlement proposal made by plaintiffs, which includes settlement of, and release of claims against, the issuer defendants, including the Company PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Stock Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Praecis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against it and certain of its officers. In December 2004 and January 2005, the Company, Chairman and (now former) Chief Executive Officer Malcolm Gefter, President and (now former) Chief Operating Officer Kevin F. McLaughlin, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer Edward C. English, and former President and Chief Operating Officer William K. Heiden, were named as defendants in three purported class action securities lawsuits. The complaints generally allege securities fraud during the period from November 25, 2003 through December 6, 2004. Each of the complaints purports to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges that the Company and the individually named defendants made materially false and misleading public statements concerning the Company's business and financial results, particularly relating to statements regarding the commercialization of Plenaxis. On February 7, 2005, a motion was filed to consolidate the three actions and to appoint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On February 18, 2005, the Company and the individual defendants filed a brief response to that motion, reserving their rights to challenge the adequacy and typicality, among other things, of the proposed lead plaintiffs in connection with class certification proceedings, if any. On April 13, 2005, the Court entered an Order granting the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the three actions (as well as each case that relates to the same subject matter that may be subsequently filed in or transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts), appoint lead plaintiffs and approve such plaintiffs' selection of co-lead counsel. On August 1, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. On September 12, 2005, the Company and the individual defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On October 24, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. Those purported class actions are captioned: (i) Katz v. Praecis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Malcolm Gefter, Kevin McLaughlin, Edward English and William K. Heiden, Civil Action No. 04-12581-GAO (filed December 9, 2004), under Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr. (ii) Schwartz v. Praecis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Malcolm Gefter, Kevin McLaughlin, Edward English and William K. Heiden, Civil Action No. 04-12704-REK (filed December 27, 2004) under Judge Robert E. Keeton and (iii) Bassin v. Praecis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Malcolm L. Gefter, Ph.D., Kevin F. McLaughlin, Edward C. English and William K. Heiden, Civil Action No. 05-10134-GAO (filed January 21, 2005) under Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (a) Charles J. Piven World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202 Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com (b) Dyer & Shuman, LLP 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO, 80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E- mail: info@dyershuman.com (c) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (LA) 1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067 Phone: (310) 201-915, E-mail: (310) 201-916, info@glancylaw.com (d) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, New York, NY, 10016 Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax: 212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com (e) Schatz & Nobel, P.C. 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com (f) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com (g) Shapiro, Haber & Urmy LLP 75 State Street, Boston, MA, 02109, Phone: 617.439.3939, Fax: 617.439.0134, E-mail: info@shulaw.com ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Continues To Face Cabin Stewards "Tips" Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Royal Caribbean Cruises, Inc. and one of its cruise brands continues to face a purported class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The suit alleges that the Company's Celebrity Cruises improperly requires its cabin stewards to share guest gratuities with assistant cabin stewards. The suit seeks payment of damages, including penalty wages under 46 U.S.C. Section 10113 of U.S. law and interest. ROYAL CARIBBEAN: FL Court Dismisses Lawsuit For Deceptive Trade --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the class action filed against Royal Caribbean Cruises, Inc., alleging that the Company improperly profit from shore excursions offered to its guests by third party shore excursion operators in violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The suit seeks payment of damages, including the difference between what the Company collects from its guests for shore excursions and what the Company pays to the shore excursion operators. The court dismissed the suit in September 2005. SPS TEMPORARIES: Settles Workers' Discrimination Suit For $580T --------------------------------------------------------------- The employment agency SPS Temporaries, Inc. and two of its clients agreed to pay up to $580,000 to settle a class action discrimination lawsuit, The Associated Press reports. The suit accused them of discriminating against employees due to race, sex, disability, age and national origin. Filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), it also charges the company of complying with requests from its clients to provide temporary workers of a certain race or gender. The suit further alleges that the Company destroyed documents showing it coded applicants based on race, sex and national origin during the EEOC's investigation. In addition, the suit also charges that Jamestown Container Cos. requested white men as temporary workers and Whiting Door Manufacturing Corporation in Akron requested male workers, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (February 2, 2004) reports. According to the EEOC, the Buffalo, New York-based firm agreed to pay the amount. That money will then be placed into a claims fund to be distributed to alleged victims of the discrimination. Whiting Door agreed to a $60,000 contribution, while Jamestown Container agreed to make a $20,000 payment. None of the companies admitted wrongdoing. The suit is styled, "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. SPS Temporaries, Inc., et al, Case No. 1:04-cv-00052-JTE-HBS," filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, under Judge John T. Elfvin, with referral to Judge Hugh B. Scott. Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Katherine Bissell and Robert D. Rose of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, New York District Office, 33 Whitehall St., 5th Floor, New York, NY 10004-2112, Phone: 212-336-3690, Fax: 212-336-3623, E-mail: katherine.bissell@eeoc.gov and robert.rose@eeoc.gov. Representing the Defendant/s are, Thomas E. Brydges of Jaeckle, Fleischmann & Mugel, 700 Fleet Bank Bldg., Buffalo, NY 14202, Phone: 716-843-3812, Fax: 716-856-0432, E-mail: tbrydges@jaeckle.com; and Robert A. Doren of Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, 40 Fountain Plaza, Key Center, Suite 600, Buffalo, NY 14202-2200, Phone: 716-566-2833, Fax: 716-566-2808, E-mail: rdoren@bsk.com. STERICYCLE INC.: Reaches Settlement in 3CI Shareholder Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Stericycle, Inc. (NASDAQ:SRCL), the leading provider in North America of medical waste management and compliance services for the healthcare community, entered into a preliminary settlement to resolve a pending class action lawsuit by the minority shareholders of Stericycle's publicly traded majority-owned subsidiary, 3CI Complete Compliance Corporation, and by 3CI. The settlement remains subject to court approval. Under the terms of the preliminary settlement, Stericycle will pay a total of $32.5 million. After deducting the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, in an amount to be approved by the court, the balance of the settlement amount will be paid to members of the plaintiff class to settle all lawsuit claims and alleged damages and will include the purchase or cancellation of all shares of 3CI stock held by the class. The stock purchase will allow 3CI to become a wholly owned subsidiary of Stericycle. Stericycle anticipates taking a one-time charge in the fourth quarter of 2005 for settlement and legal expenses. A portion of the $32.5 million will be booked towards the stock purchase when the settlement is finalized. Stericycle does not anticipate that this event will result in any changes to its preliminary 2006 guidance previously given in its conference call of October 25, 2005. Stericycle and the individual defendants do not admit any liability under the terms of the settlement, and continue to maintain their position that they acted at all times in the best interests of 3CI and its shareholders. "We agreed to settle this lawsuit to put the matter behind us and focus on realizing the synergies that can be obtained by integrating 3CI's operations into our own," said Mark Miller, Stericycle's President and CEO. "We vigorously fought these allegations for over three years, and were fully prepared to take this matter to a trial on its merits. However, considering the benefits that we expect to gain by being able to integrate 3CI, we concluded that it was in Stericycle's best interest to put an end to the continuing cost and distraction of litigation and to eliminate the uncertainty inherent in a jury trial." The settlement provides for the dismissal with prejudice of litigation filed in state court in Caddo Parish, Louisiana in July 2002, and litigation pending in state court in Harris County, Texas. Trial for the class action filed against Stericycle, Inc. and four of its officers and directors was set for September and October 2005 in First Judicial District Court in Caddo Parish, Louisiana. Larry F. Robb filed the suit, styled, "Robb et al. v. Stericycle, Inc. et al., cause no. 467704-A," on June 20, 2002 on behalf of a class comprised of the Company's minority stockholders, and derivatively on behalf of the Company. Mr. Robb is a shareholder of the Company's majority-owned subsidiary, 3CI Complete Compliance Corporation. The suit, which was filed on behalf of the minority shareholders of 3CI and derivatively on behalf of 3CI itself, alleges, among other claims, that the Company and the four directors of 3CI who are or were serving as the Company's designees (and who are or were also officers or directors of the Company) unjustly enriched the Company at the expense of 3CI and its other shareholders. The plaintiff seeks, among other relief, actual and punitive damages and an order requiring the buyout of 3CI's minority shareholders, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (March 26, 2005) reports. In September 2003, the full board of 3CI appointed a special committee consisting of 3CI's three independent directors (one of whom later resigned) to act on 3CI's behalf in respect of the dispute with the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary Waste Systems, Inc. (WSI), regarding the conversion rate of 3CI's preferred stock. In January 2004, the full board expanded the special committee's authority to include an investigation of all claims by the plaintiff in the Louisiana lawsuit and by the third-party plaintiffs in the Texas lawsuit, and to act on 3CI's behalf in respect of both lawsuits, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (March 26, 2005) reports. After purporting to conduct an investigation of these claims, the special committee concluded that the claims in the Louisiana lawsuit had merit, and in December 2004, 3CI, at the special committee's s direction, filed a joint petition with the plaintiff superseding the plaintiff's prior petition but seeking substantially the same relief as the prior petition. Prior to filing the joint petition, 3CI, again at the special committee's direction, entered into a joint prosecution agreement with the plaintiff and his law firm pursuant to which two-thirds of the work in prosecuting the suit would be performed by the plaintiff and his law firm and one-third by 3CI and its counsel, and two- thirds of any monetary recovery would be allocated to the plaintiff (or plaintiff class) and one-third to 3CI, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (March 26, 2005) reports. In January 2005, the Company filed a third-party complaint for contribution from various former officers and directors of 3CI who had participated in approving the actions complained of in the joint petition. The Company also filed a counterclaim against the members of the special committee on the grounds, among others, that they breached their fiduciary duties as directors by failing to conduct a thorough investigation and analysis of the plaintiff's claims before entering into the joint prosecution agreement, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (March 26, 2005) reports. In February 2005, the court granted class certification, approved the plaintiff's law firm as class counsel, and preliminarily approved the joint prosecution agreement subject to the objections of members of the plaintiff class. The court scheduled the suit for trial in September 2005 if it is tried before a jury and in October 2005 if it is tried before the judge, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (March 26, 2005) reports. SYCAMORE KIDS: Recalls 3.2T Breeze Strollers Due to Injury Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Sycamore Kids Inc., of Fort Collins, Colorado is voluntarily recalling about 3,200 units of Mountain Buggy Urban Single and Urban Double, Breeze Strollers. The recall is an expansion of the Sycamore Kids Inc. jogging stroller recall announced on July 14, 2005 and includes additional models. According to company, the handlebar can crack or break, causing the handlebar to detach while in use, posing a risk of injury to young children. Sycamore Kids has received 22 reports of handlebar either cracking or breaking when the stroller was pulled up or taken down stairs. This resulted in two reports of bruises and scrapes. The recalled strollers have a metal frame and a cloth seat with a sun canopy. The strollers were sold in a variety of colors including, navy, red, black, silver and orange. A metal plate above the footrest shows the Mountain Buggy logo with "Mountain Buggy," "Urban," or "Breeze" written underneath on the metal plate. The recalled Mountain Buggy Urban Single strollers have item number U1204-002, and serial numbers between 000000 and 012893. The recalled Mountain Buggy Urban Double strollers have item number U2204-002, and serial numbers between 000000 and 006957. The recalled Mountain Buggy Breeze strollers have item number B1204-002, and serial numbers between 000000 and 000191. The serial number and model number are on the back of the metal plate. All recalled buggies have a gray handlebar button. Manufactured in New Zealand, the strollers were sold at juvenile furniture retailers and baby product stores and Web retailers nationwide from December 2004 through July 2005 for between $400 and $640. Remedy: Contact Sycamore Kids to find an authorized repair center to receive a free replacement handlebar ratchet. Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Sycamore Kids Inc. toll-free at (866) 524-8805 anytime, or write to support@mountainbuggyusa.com - this recall information also can be found on the firm's Web site: http://www.mountainbuggyusa.com. TEXAS: Mission Pollution Case Heard Before State Supreme Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Ester Salinas, the Mission, Texas woman who began a class action suit against about 25 chemical companies in 1998, recently spoke before the state Supreme Court, The Daily Texan reports. The case involves several residents from Mission, who have injuries they said were caused by exposure to harmful chemicals in a nearby toxic waste site. The resident who are involved in the case are seeking compensation for negligence, medical bills and devalued property, according to attorney Linda Laurent of Houston-based Reich and Binstock, one of several lawyers for the plaintiffs. The defendants in the case, which include Union Pacific Railroad Company, URS Corporation and Chevron Chemical Corporation, appealed to the state Supreme Court, asking them to order the 332nd District Court to reverse the trial date it set in May 2004. The Texas Supreme Court though has not yet decided the case. The defendants, represented by Richard Newman of San Antonio- based Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., claim that they haven't been given sufficient evidence to prepare their defense. Setting a court date without this information was an abuse of discretion by the trial court, Mr. Newman argues. Ms. Kaurent told The Daily Texan that while the five plaintiffs in the case provided causal evidence linking their injuries to chemicals in the area, the defendants have requested such evidence for several hundred others who also claim to have chemical-related illnesses. Ms. Laurent represents the five plaintiffs listed, each of whom have been diagnosed with non- Hodgkins lymphoma. This form of cancer has been linked to exposure to chlordane, one of the chemicals found in Mission, according to Mrs. Salinas. According to Ms. Laurent, the chemical plant ceased operations about 30 years ago. However, many chemicals take years to break down. For example, dioxin takes decades to break down and makes up one-third of the herbicides used in Agent Orange, the Pesticide Action Network North America Web site revealed. The Hayes-Sammons Chemical Co., which processed and stored chemicals for the companies involved in the class action suit, is classified as a Superfund toxic waste site by the Environmental Protection Agency. Superfund sites are "uncontrolled hazardous waste sites," according to the EPA Web site. If the Texas Supreme Court denies the defendant's request, then the lower court will hear the Mission residents' case. However if the request is granted, the plaintiffs may have to provide in-depth medical reports for the other claims, which will take much more time and money, Ms. Laurent told The Daily Texan. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS: Workers Launch Lawsuit For FLSA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Two Texas Instruments workers initiated a class action lawsuit against the company for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, The Fort Worth Star Telegram reports. Wilford Vogt of Irving and James Gauthier of Denison charge in a recently filed federal lawsuit that Texas Instruments required employees in its "fab facilities" to regularly work shifts of 12 hours and longer but only paid for 11.5 hours at work. It was not clear from the lawsuit though whether Mr. Vogt and Mr. Gauthier are still employed by TI. Nevertheless, the suit contends that employees are due 32-42 minutes per day of unpaid overtime. The suit alleges that the unpaid work stems from a list of activities employees were required to complete before starting their shift and a briefing employees had to attend at the end of their shift. According to the suit, shifts don't officially start at the facilities until after employees have changed from their street clothes to clean suits, as well as switching shoes, putting on hair nets, washing hands, donning gloves and passing through an air shower. Additionally, the suit claims that Texas Instruments uses card readers to account for when employees are on site. However it never pays more than eight hours of regular pay and 3.5 hours of overtime per shift. The suit is styled, "Vogt et al v. Texas Instruments Incorporated, Case No. 3:05-cv-02244," filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, under Judge Sam A. Lindsay. Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Hal K. Gillespie and David K. Watsky of Gillespie Rozen Watsky Motley & Jones, 3402 Oak Grove Ave., Suite 200, Dallas, TX 75204, Phone: 214/720-2009, Fax: 214/720-2291, E-mail: hkg@grwlawfirm.com and watsky@grwlawfirm.com. TRAVELERS PROPERTY: Asks MN Court To Dismiss Shareholder Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Travelers Property Casualty Corporation and its board of directors asked the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota to dismiss the securities class actions filed in connection with the Company's merger with St. Paul Companies, Inc. (SPC). The Company and its board of directors were initially named as defendants in three putative class action lawsuits brought by shareholders alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the merger of the Company and SPC and seeking injunctive relief as well as unspecified monetary damages. The actions were captioned: (1) Henzel, et al. v. Travelers Property Casualty Corp., et al., (Jud. Dist. of Waterbury, Ct. Nov. 17, 2003); (2) Vozzolo v. Travelers Property Casualty Corp., et al., (Jud. Dist. of Waterbury, Ct. Nov. 17, 2003); and (3) Farina v. Travelers Property Casualty Corp., et al. (Jud. Dist. of Waterbury, Ct. December 15, 2003) The "Farina" complaint also named SPC and its former subsidiary, Adams Acquisition Corporation, as defendants, alleging that they aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. On March 18, 2004, the company and SPC announced that all of these lawsuits had been settled, subject to court approval of the settlements. The settlement included a modification to the termination fee that could have been paid had the merger not been completed, additional disclosure in the proxy statement distributed in connection with the merger and a nominal amount for attorneys' fees. Before court approval of the settlement, additional shareholder litigation was commenced, as described below. On September 12, 2005, plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their complaints without prejudice. Beginning in August 2004, following post-merger announcements by the Company, various shareholders of the Company commenced fourteen putative class action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Plaintiff shareholders allege that certain disclosures relating to the April 2004 merger between the Company and SPC contained false or misleading statements with respect to the value of SPC's loss reserves in violation of federal securities laws. These actions have been consolidated under the caption "In re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation I" and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel have been appointed. An additional putative class action based on the same allegations was brought in New York State Supreme Court. This action was subsequently transferred to the District of Minnesota and was consolidated with "In re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation I." On June 24, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint. The amended consolidated complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. It does not specify damages. On August 23, 2005, the Company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. Three other actions against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors are pending in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Two of these actions, styled "Kahn v. The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., et al. (November 2, 2004) and "Michael A. Bernstein Profit Sharing Plan v. The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., et al., (November 10, 2004)," are putative class actions brought by certain shareholders of the Company against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. In these two actions, plaintiff shareholders allege violations of federal securities laws in connection with the Company's alleged failure to make disclosure relating to the practice of paying brokers commissions on a contingent basis. These actions have been consolidated as "In re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II," and a lead plaintiff has been appointed. On July 11, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint. The consolidated action will be coordinated with "In re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation I" for pretrial purposes. In the third of these actions, an alleged beneficiary of the Company's 401(k) savings plan has commenced a putative class action against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors captioned "Spiziri v. The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., et al." (Dec. 28, 2004). The plaintiff alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act based on allegations similar to those in "In re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation I." On June 1, 2005, the Company and the other defendants in "Spiziri" moved to dismiss the complaint. UNITED STATES: Government May Scratch Salvadoran Protections ------------------------------------------------------------ The Bush administration is proposing to end protections bestowed illegal immigrants newly arrived from El Salvador, arguing that the safeguards interfere with new border control policies, The Associated Press reports. Immigration rights attorneys and activists though argued that the so-called Orantes injunction that gave Salvadoran immigrants special rights nearly two decades ago still was needed. Saul Solorzano, executive director of the Central American Resource Center in Washington told The Associated Press, "Many people lose hope in the economy of El Salvador, they try to come to the U.S. to find willing employers, and with this they will have a harder time." The protections were mandated by a federal judge as a result of a class action suit by immigrants, who fled their country's bloody civil war and claimed the U.S. government tried to coerce them into going back. The 1988 injunction required immigration authorities to advise Salvadorans of their right to a hearing before an immigration judge and of their right to apply for political asylum, among other things. Recently, the Justice Department filed a motion in Los Angeles, California seeking to dissolve that injunction. The Department of Homeland Security argues that the protections get in the way of the "expedited removal" policy the department extended in September along the entire U.S.-Mexico border. Under that policy, illegal immigrants who don't have a criminal background or pose a national security threat can be removed without a hearing. However, according to Homeland Security Department spokesman Jarrod Agen, due to the injunction that applies to Salvadorans, they are given notice to appear before an immigration judge regardless of their background, even though many of them never do. Mr. Agen told The Associated Press, "Removing the injunction seeks to end that, so that we can put them right into expedited removal so that when they're caught they're detained and removed as quickly as possible." He also said that it takes about 90 days for an illegal Salvadoran immigrant to be processed through the detention and removal process, compared to 35 days for immigrants who are handled through expedited removal. Department of Homeland Security figures revealed that only Mexican immigrants have surpassed Salvadorans in numbers of arrests since the 2006 fiscal year began October 1. In the 2005 fiscal year, by contrast, Salvadorans were third, after Mexicans and Hondurans. The figures also indicated that some 6,600 Salvadorans were arrested between October 1 and November 15 on the southwest border. There were 106,200 Mexicans arrested during that period, and 5,200 Hondurans. In the 2005 fiscal year, there were 39,300 Salvadorans arrested, compared to 1 million Mexicans and 52,700 Hondurans. Mr. Agen attributed the increase to the new expedited removal policy that, for now, applies to all nationalities except for Salvadorans. UST INC.: FL Court Converts Tobacco Suit To Individual Action ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida converted the purported class action filed against UST Inc. and other smokeless tobacco manufacturers into an individual action. Six plaintiffs initially filed the class action "on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated" against various smokeless tobacco manufacturers including the Company and other organizations for personal injuries, including cancers of the mouth and larynx, oral lesions, leukoplakia, facial disfigurement, gum and tooth loss, fear of cancer, death and depression and other injuries allegedly resulting from the use of the Company's smokeless tobacco products. Plaintiffs also claimed nicotine "addiction" and sought unspecified compensatory damages and certain equitable and other relief, including but not limited to, medical monitoring. On July 12, 2005, plaintiffs' counsel served papers that seek to convert this purported class action into an individual action on behalf of a single plaintiff. In connection with these papers, on August 15, 2005, the claims of two of the plaintiffs were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On October 18, 2005, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims of three additional plaintiffs. On October 31, 2005, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the three plaintiffs, without prejudice, thereby converting this action from a purported class action to an individual action on behalf of a single plaintiff. New Securities Fraud Cases BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Baron & Budd Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. TX ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C., initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of all those who acquired shares of Blockbuster, Inc. ("Blockbuster" or the "Company") (NYSE:BBI) pursuant to the Company's exchange offer of Viacom, Inc. ("Viacom") stock for 144 million common shares of Blockbuster (the "Exchange Offer"), and on behalf of those who purchased Blockbuster shares in the open market between September 8, 2004 and August 9, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and is pending before the Honorable David C. Godbey against defendants Blockbuster, Viacom, National Amusements, Inc. and certain of Viacom and Blockbuster's officers and directors. The complaint alleges that Viacom was Blockbuster's controlling shareholder and that, prior to the Exchange Offer, Viacom caused Blockbuster to pay a $5 per share special dividend, of which Viacom was the primary beneficiary. In order to pay the dividend, Blockbuster was forced to take on debt in the amount of approximately $1.1 billion. As further set forth in the complaint, defendants failed to disclose in the Prospectus and throughout the Class Period that Blockbuster was unprepared to build the technological infrastructure required to integrate its in-store and online sales operations and to achieve the Company's transformation away from being solely a movie rental outlet. Moreover, the Company's core in-store rental operations were not generating sufficient cash flow to fund Blockbuster's attempts to diversify. The truth began to emerge on August 9, 2005, when, before the market opened, the Company reported: (1) a second-quarter net loss of $57.2 million, or $0.31 per share -- well below Company-guided analyst estimates; (2) negative free cash flow of $118 million compared to positive free cash flow of $23 million in the second quarter of 2004; and (3) that it was abandoning its 2005 guidance. The Company also announced that, on August 8, 2005, it had been forced to amend its credit facility to provide for a waiver of its leverage ratio covenants. After this announcement, the Company's stock opened that morning at $7.05, down 11.9%, or $0.96 from the previous day's closing price of $8.01. The stock continued to decline as the market absorbed the full impact of the announcement, falling to a six-year low of $6.30 on August 10, 2005. After the Class Period, on November 8, 2005, defendants stated in an SEC filings that Blockbuster "may not have sufficient cash flows from operating activities, cash on hand and available borrowings under our credit facilities to service our indebtedness" and that the Company could be forced into bankruptcy if it was unable to raise additional funds through a private offering. For more details, contact Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. or Zan Smith of Baron & Budd, P.C., Phone: (800) 222-2766, E-mail: info@baronbudd.com, Web site: http://www.baronandbudd.com. BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of all those who acquired shares of Blockbuster, Inc. (NYSE: BBI) pursuant to the Company's exchange offer of Viacom, Inc. ("Viacom") stock for 144 million common shares of Blockbuster (the "Exchange Offer"), and on behalf of those who purchased Blockbuster shares in the open market between September 8, 2004 and August 9, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges that Viacom was Blockbuster's controlling shareholder and that, prior to the Exchange Offer, Viacom caused Blockbuster to pay a $5 per share special dividend of which Viacom was the primary beneficiary. In order to pay the dividend, Blockbuster was forced to take on debt in the amount of approximately $1.1 billion. Subsequently, in the Prospectus issued in connection with Viacom's divestiture of its Blockbuster shares, (the "Prospectus"), defendants stated that Blockbuster planned to transform itself "from a place where you go to rent a movie to a brand where you go to rent, buy or trade a movie or game, new or used, pay-by-the-day, pay-by-the-month, in-store or online." The transformation was to be achieved through a series of initiatives: Blockbuster Online (Internet sales); Movie Pass (in-store movie subscription); Game Pass (in-store game subscription); and "No More Late Fees." Defendants warned investors that the transformation would require heavy investment but assured them that Blockbuster's debt obligations would not stand in the way and that, "the steady operating cash flow from our core rental business has provided us with the ability to invest in new initiatives." As set forth in the complaint, defendants failed to disclose in the Prospectus and throughout the Class Period that Blockbuster was wholly unprepared to build the technological infrastructure required to integrate its in-store and online sales operations and otherwise execute the Company's transformation. Moreover, the Company's core in-store rental operations were not generating sufficient cash flow to fund Blockbuster's investment in "new initiatives." The truth began to emerge on August 9, 2005, when, before the market opened, the Company reported: (1) a second-quarter net loss of $57.2 million, or $0.31 per share --- well below Company-guided analyst estimates; (2) negative free cash flow of $118 million compared to positive free cash flow of $23 million in the second quarter of 2004; and (3) that it was abandoning its 2005 guidance. The Company also announced that, on August 8, 2005, it had been forced to amend its credit facility to provide for a waiver of its leverage ratio covenants. After this announcement, the Company's stock opened that morning at $7.05, down 11.9%, or $0.96 from the previous day's closing price of $8.01. The stock continued to decline as the market absorbed the full impact of the announcement, falling to a six-year low of $6.30 on August 10, 2005. After the Class Period, on November 8, 2005, defendants stated in an SEC filing that Blockbuster "may not have sufficient cash flows from operating activities, cash on hand and available borrowings under our credit facilities to service our indebtedness" and that the Company could be forced into bankruptcy if it is unable to raise additional funds through a private offering. For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, Phone (888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000, Fax: (610) 660-8080, E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com, Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182. FIRST BANCORP: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP initiated a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of First BanCorp. ("First BanCorp") (NYSE:FBP) publicly traded securities during the period between March 31, 2003 and October 24, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges First BanCorp and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. First BanCorp operates as the holding company for First Bank Puerto Rico, which provides various financial services in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and British Virgin Islands. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued false statements about First BanCorp's earnings, assets, capital and prospects causing the Company's stock to trade at artificially inflated levels. While the Company's stock price dropped somewhat in the late spring of 2005 due to problems announced by First BanCorp's competitors in Puerto Rico, as well as an adverse interest rate environment, the stock soon recovered as defendants did not own up to significant accounting issues, such as those disclosed earlier by its competitors, and the Company continued to report favorable financial results. On August 25, 2005, the Company issued a press release announcing that the Company had "received a letter from the (SEC) in which the SEC indicated that it was conducting an informal inquiry into the Company. The inquiry pertains, among other things, to the accounting for mortgage loans purchased by the Company from two other financial institutions during the calendar years 2000 through 2004." As a result of this disclosure, First BanCorp's stock dropped to $18.23 per share on August 26, 2005. Later, on September 30, 2005, both the Company's CEO and CFO suddenly announced they were resigning. Then, on October 21, 2005, the Company disclosed that the SEC had issued a formal order of investigation and on October 24, 2005, Fitch downgraded the Company debt to BBB. On this news, First BanCorp's stock dropped to below $12 per share. According to the complaint, during the Class Period defendants concealed the following adverse information from the investing public: (1) the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading in that the Company had manipulated its accounting for mortgage loans purchased between 2000 and 2004; (2) the Company's internal controls were grossly weak, thereby allowing the Company's top management to manipulate them at will; (3) the Company's "record" quarterly income reported during the Class Period was a product of accounting fraud, not synergies produced by effective fiscal and personnel management; and (4) as a result, the Company's published financial statements violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/firstbancorp/. HCA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in TN ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District Of Tennessee on behalf of all securities purchasers of HCA Inc. (NYSE: HCA) ("HCA" or the "Company") between January 12, 2005 and July 12, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges HCA Inc., Jack O. Bovender, Jr., Richard M. Bracken and Robert Milton Johnson with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that in order to lower its bad-debt provisions and to appear more profitable the Company altered its policies for measuring bad-debt expenses; (2) that, despite HCA's attempts to obscure its true condition, the Company's debts from uninsured patients and/or from insured patients not paying their deductibles or co- payment obligations were increasing; and (3) that the Company was experiencing unfavorable trends that were decreasing its profitability. On January 12, 2005, HCA revised upward its earnings forecast for fourth quarter 2004. On this news, HCA's stock soared over 10 percent, from $39.68 to $43.70, after languishing in the $30 to $40 range for most of 2004. On March 28, 2005, HCA revised upward its earnings forecast for the first quarter 2005. Once again, the market reacted favorably to the news sending HCA's stock to trade at over $50 per share. Both adjustments largely resulted from lower-than-expected provisions for doubtful accounts. On July 13, 2005, HCA lowered its guidance for the second quarter, as a result of bigger than expected bad-debt provisions. On this news, shares of HCA fell $4.86 per share, or 8.85 percent, on July 13, 2005, to close at $50.05 per share. On September 23, 2005, the Company disclosed that it had been subpoenaed by the SEC and prosecutors for the Southern District of New York for documents related to the stock sales by certain HCA senior executives. On September 28, 2005, HCA disclosed that the SEC had issued a formal order of inquiry with respect to the insider trading at the Company and commenced a formal investigation. For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site: http://www.sbclasslaw.com. INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in CA --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Interlink Electronics, Inc. ("Interlink" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LINK) between April 24, 2003 and November 1, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Interlink and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning Interlink's financial performance caused the Company's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. Interlink develops, manufactures, markets, and sells intuitive interface devices and components, such as wireless remote controls, for business and home applications. The Complaint alleges that defendants made repeated Class Period representations concerning the Company's performance and prospects, which were materially false and misleading as a result of the Company's improper accounting practices and weak accounting controls. On March 9, 2005, Interlink publicly announced it would restate its financial results for the first three quarters of 2004 to correct several instances of improper accounting. Then, on November 2, 2005, Interlink shocked investors by announcing it was again restating its financial statements -- this time for all of 2003 and 2004 and for the first two quarters of 2005 -- wiping out previously reported earnings. This news sent Interlink shares plummeting in value by 40%. For more details, contact Tzivia Brody 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. WELLS FARGO: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. CA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC) and certain of its affiliates, on behalf of those who purchased MFS mutual funds from Wells Fargo Investments, LLC ("Wells Fargo Investments") or H.D. Vest Investment Services, LLC ("H.D. Vest") during the period between June 30, 2000 and June 8, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The MFS mutual funds and their respective symbols are as follows: MFS Capital Opportunities Fund (NASDAQ: MCOFX), (NASDAQ: MCOBX), (NASDAQ: MCOCX), (NASDAQ: MFCRX), (NASDAQ: MCOTX), (NASDAQ: EACOX), (NASDAQ: EBCOX), (NASDAQ: ECCOX), (NASDAQ: MCOIX) MFS Core Growth Fund (NASDAQ: MFCAX), (NASDAQ: MFCBX), (NASDAQ: MFCCX), (NASDAQ: MCFRX), (NASDAQ: MCRRX), (NASDAQ: MFCIX) MFS Emerging Growth Fund (NASDAQ: MEGRX), (NASDAQ: MEGBX), (NASDAQ: MFECX), (NASDAQ: MFERX), (NASDAQ: MEGRX), (NASDAQ: EAGRX), (NASDAQ: EBEGX), (NASDAQ: ECEGX), (NASDAQ: MFEGX), (NASDAQ: MFEIX) MFS Growth Opportunities Fund (NASDAQ: MGOFX), (NASDAQ: MGOBX) MFS Large Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: MCGAX), (NASDAQ: MCGBX) MFS Managed Sectors Fund (NASDAQ: MMNSX), (NASDAQ: MSEBX), (NASDAQ: MMNCX) MFS Mid Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: OTCAX), (NASDAQ: OTCBX), (NASDAQ: OTCCX), (NASDAQ: MMCRX), (NASDAQ: MCPRX), (NASDAQ: EAMCX), (NASDAQ: EBCGX), (NASDAQ: ECGRX), (NASDAQ: OTCIX) MFS New Discovery Fund (NASDAQ: MNDAX), (NASDAQ: MNDBX), (NASDAQ: MNDCX), (NASDAQ: MFNRX), (NASDAQ: MNDRX), (NASDAQ: EANDX), (NASDAQ: EBNDX), (NASDAQ: ECNDX), (NASDAQ: MNDIX) MFS New Endeavor Fund (NASDAQ: MECAX), (NASDAQ: MECBX), (NASDAQ: MECCX), (NASDAQ: MNERX), (NASDAQ: MENRX), (NASDAQ: MECIX) MFS Research Fund (NASDAQ: MFRFX), (NASDAQ: MFRBX), (NASDAQ: MFRCX), (NASDAQ: MFRRX), (NASDAQ: MSRRX), (NASDAQ: EARFX), (NASDAQ: EBRFX), (NASDAQ: ECRFX) MFS Strategic Growth Fund (NASDAQ: MFSGX), (NASDAQ: MSBGX), (NASDAQ: MFGCX), (NASDAQ: MSGRX), (NASDAQ: MSTRX), (NASDAQ: EASGX), (NASDAQ: EBSGX), (NASDAQ: ECSGX), (NASDAQ: MSGIX) MFS Technology Fund (NASDAQ: MTCAX), (NASDAQ: MTCBX), (NASDAQ: MTCCX), (NASDAQ: MTQRX), (NASDAQ: MTERX), (NASDAQ: MTCIX) Massachusetts Investors Growth Stock (NASDAQ: MIGFX), (NASDAQ: MIGBX), (NASDAQ: MIGDX), (NASDAQ: MIGRX), (NASDAQ: MIRGX), (NASDAQ: EISTX), (NASDAQ: EMIVX), (NASDAQ: EMICX), (NASDAQ: MGTIX) MFS Mid Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: MVCAX), (NASDAQ: MCBVX), (NASDAQ: MVCCX), (NASDAQ: MMVRX), (NASDAQ: MCVRX), (NASDAQ: EACVX), (NASDAQ: EBCVX), (NASDAQ: ECCVX), (NASDAQ: MCVIX) MFS Research Growth and Income Fund (NASDAQ: MRGAX), (NASDAQ: MRGBX), (NASDAQ: MRGCX), (NASDAQ: MGIRX), (NASDAQ: MRERX), (NASDAQ: MRGRX) MFS Strategic Value Fund (NASDAQ: MSVTX), (NASDAQ: MSVCX), (NASDAQ: MQSVX), (NASDAQ: MSVRX), (NASDAQ: MVSRX), (NASDAQ: EASVX), (NASDAQ: EBSVX), (NASDAQ: ECSVX), (NASDAQ: MSVLX), (NASDAQ: MISVX) MFS Total Return Fund (NASDAQ: MSFRX), (NASDAQ: MTRBX), (NASDAQ: MTRCX), (NASDAQ: MFTRX), (NASDAQ: MTRRX), (NASDAQ: EATRX), (NASDAQ: EBTRX), (NASDAQ: ECTRX), (NASDAQ: MTRIX) MFS Union Standard Equity Fund (NASDAQ: MUEAX), (NASDAQ: MUSBX), (NASDAQ: MUECX), (NASDAQ: MUSEX) MFS Utilities Fund (NASDAQ: MMUFX), (NASDAQ: MMUBX), (NASDAQ: MMUCX), (NASDAQ: MMURX), (NASDAQ: MURRX), (NASDAQ: MMUIX) MFS Value Fund (NASDAQ: MEIAX), (NASDAQ: MFEBX), (NASDAQ: MEICX), (NASDAQ: MFVRX), (NASDAQ: MVRRX), (NASDAQ: EAVLX), (NASDAQ: EBVLX), (NASDAQ: ECVLX), (NASDAQ: MEIIX) Massachusetts Investors Trust (NASDAQ: MITTX), (NASDAQ: MITBX), (NASDAQ: MITCX), (NASDAQ: MITRX), (NASDAQ: MIRTX), (NASDAQ: EAMTX), (NASDAQ: EBMTX), (NASDAQ: ECITX), (NASDAQ: MITIX) MFS Aggressive Growth Allocation Fund (NASDAQ: MAAGX), (NASDAQ: MBAGX), (NASDAQ: MCAGX), (NASDAQ: MAARX), (NASDAQ: MAWAX), (NASDAQ: EAGTX), (NASDAQ: EBAAX), (NASDAQ: ECAAX), (NASDAQ: MIAGX) MFS Conservative Allocation Fund (NASDAQ: MACFX), (NASDAQ: MACBX), (NASDAQ: MACVX), (NASDAQ: MACRX), (NASDAQ: MCARX), (NASDAQ: ECLAX), (NASDAQ: EBCAX), (NASDAQ: ECACX), (NASDAQ: MACIX) MFS Growth Allocation Fund (NASDAQ: MAGWX), (NASDAQ: MBGWX), (NASDAQ: MCGWX), (NASDAQ: MGARX), (NASDAQ: MGALX), (NASDAQ: EAGWX), (NASDAQ: EBGWX), (NASDAQ: ECGWX), (NASDAQ: MGWIX) MFS Moderate Allocation Fund (NASDAQ: MAMAX), (NASDAQ: MMABX), (NASDAQ: MMACX), (NASDAQ: MAMRX), (NASDAQ: MARRX), (NASDAQ: MAMDX), (NASDAQ: EBMDX), (NASDAQ: ECMAX), (NASDAQ: MMAIX) MFS Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFBFX), (NASDAQ: MFBBX), (NASDAQ: MFBCX), (NASDAQ: MFBRX), (NASDAQ: MBRRX), (NASDAQ: EABDX), (NASDAQ: EBBDX), (NASDAQ: ECBDX, (NASDAQ: MBDIX) MFS Emerging Markets Debt Fund (NASDAQ: MEDAX), (NASDAQ: MEDBX), (NASDAQ: MEDCX), (NASDAQ: MEDIX) MFS Government Limited Maturity Fund (NASDAQ: MGLFX), (NASDAQ: MGLBX), (NASDAQ: MGLCX) MFS Government Mortgage Fund (NASDAQ: MGMTX), (NASDAQ: MGTBX), (NASDAQ: MGMIX) MFS Government Securities Fund (NASDAQ: MFGSX), (NASDAQ: MFGBX), (NASDAQ: MFGDX), (NASDAQ: MGSRX), (NASDAQ: MGVSX), (NASDAQ: EAGSX), (NASDAQ: EBGSX), (NASDAQ: ECGSX) MFS High Income Fund (NASDAQ: MHITX), (NASDAQ: MHIBX), (NASDAQ: MHICX), (NASDAQ: EAHIX), (NASDAQ: EMHBX), (NASDAQ: EMHCX), (NASDAQ: MHIIX), (NASDAQ: MHIRX) MFS High Yield Opportunities Fund (NASDAQ: MHOAX), (NASDAQ: MHOBX), (NASDAQ: MHOCX), (NASDAQ: MHOIX) MFS Intermediate Investment Grade Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MGBFX), (NASDAQ: MGBVX), (NASDAQ: MGBCX), (NASDAQ: MGBEX), (NASDAQ: MIBRX) MFS Limited Maturity Fund (NASDAQ: MQLFX), (NASDAQ: MQLBX), (NASDAQ: MQLCX), (NASDAQ: EALMX), (NASDAQ: EBLMX), (NASDAQ: ELDCX), (NASDAQ: MLDRX) MFS Research Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MRBFX), (NASDAQ: MRBBX), (NASDAQ: MRBCX), (NASDAQ: EARBX), (NASDAQ: EBRBX), (NASDAQ: ECRBX), (NASDAQ: MRBIX), (NASDAQ: MRBRX) MFS Strategic Income Fund (NASDAQ: MFIOX), (NASDAQ: MIOBX), (NASDAQ: MIOCX), (NASDAQ: MFIIX) MFS Alabama Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFALX), (NASDAQ: MBABX) MFS Arkansas Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFARX), (NASDAQ: MBARX) MFS California Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MCFTX), (NASDAQ: MBCAX), (NASDAQ: MCCAX) MFS Florida Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFFLX), (NASDAQ: MBFLX) MFS Georgia Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MMGAX), (NASDAQ: MBGAX) MFS Maryland Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFSMX), (NASDAQ: MBMDX) MFS Massachusetts Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFSSX), (NASDAQ: MBMAX) MFS Mississippi Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MISSX), (NASDAQ: MBMSX) MFS Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MMBFX), (NASDAQ: MMBBX) MFS Municipal Limited Maturity Fund (NASDAQ: MTLFX), (NASDAQ: MTLBX), (NASDAQ: MTLCX) MFS New York Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MSNYX), (NASDAQ: MBNYX), (NASDAQ: MCNYX) MFS North Carolina Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MSNCX), (NASDAQ: MBNCX), (NASDAQ: MCNCX) MFS Pennsylvania Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFPAX), (NASDAQ: MBPAX) MFS South Carolina Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFSCX), (NASDAQ: MBSCX) MFS Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MSTNX), (NASDAQ: MBTNX) MFS Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MSVAX), (NASDAQ: MBVAX), (NASDAQ: MVACX) MFS West Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFWVX), (NASDAQ: MBWVX) MFS Emerging Markets Equity Fund (NASDAQ: MEMAX), (NASDAQ: MEMCX), (NASDAQ: MEMIX), (NASDAQ: MEMBX) MFS Global Equity Fund (NASDAQ: MWEFX), (NASDAQ: MWEBX), (NASDAQ: MWECX), (NASDAQ: MWEIX), (NASDAQ: MGERX) MFS Global Growth Fund (NASDAQ: MWOFX), (NASDAQ: MWOBX), (NASDAQ: MWOCX), (NASDAQ: MWOIX), (NASDAQ: MGLRX) MFS Global Total Return Fund (NASDAQ: MFWTX), (NASDAQ: MFWBX), (NASDAQ: MFWCX), (NASDAQ: MFWIX), (NASDAQ: MGRRX) MFS International Growth Fund (NASDAQ: MGRAX), (NASDAQ: MGRBX), (NASDAQ: MGRCX), (NASDAQ: MQGIX) MFS International New Discovery Fund (NASDAQ: MIDAX), (NASDAQ: MIDBX), (NASDAQ: MIDCX), (NASDAQ: EAIDX), (NASDAQ: EBIDX), (NASDAQ: ECIDX), (NASDAQ: MWNIX), (NASDAQ: MINRX) MFS International Value Fund (NASDAQ: MGIAX), (NASDAQ: MGIBX), (NASDAQ: MGICX), (NASDAQ: MINIX) MFS Research International Fund (NASDAQ: MRSAX), (NASDAQ: MRIBX), (NASDAQ: MRICX), (NASDAQ: EARSX), (NASDAQ: EBRIX), (NASDAQ: ECRIX), (NASDAQ: MRSIX), (NASDAQ: MRIRX) The Wells Fargo Preferred Funds include mutual funds in the following mutual fund families: Franklin Templeton Investments, Putnam Investments, MFS Investment Management, Fidelity Investments, Evergreen Investments, Alliance Bernstein Investment Research and Management, Van Kampen Investments, AIM Distributors, Inc., Oppenheimer Funds, Inc., Eaton Vance Managed Investments, ING Funds Distributors, LLC, Allianz Global Investors Distributors, LLC, Federated, The Hartford Mutual Funds, Dreyfus Service Corporation, Delaware Investments, Pioneer Investment Management, Inc., Scudder Investments, and Wells Fargo Mutual Funds. The H.D. Vest Preferred Funds include mutual funds in the following mutual fund families: Oppenheimer Funds, Putnam Investments, Scudder Investments, MFS Investment Management, Van Kampen Investments, Lincoln Financial Distributors, AIM Investments, Phoenix Investment Partners, John Hancock Funds, Wells Fargo Funds, American Funds, and Franklin Templeton Investments. The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against defendant Wells Fargo & Company and certain of its affiliated entities. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to aggressively push Wells Fargo Investments and H.D. Vest sales personnel to steer clients into purchasing certain Wells Fargo Funds and Wells Fargo and H.D. Vest Preferred Funds (collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided financial incentives and rewards to Wells Fargo and H.D. Vest and their personnel based on sales. The complaint alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments were not in the clients' best interest. Wells Fargo Investments and H.D. Vest's failure to disclose the incentives constituted violations of federal securities laws. The action also includes a subclass of persons who held any shares of Wells Fargo Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges that the investment advisor subsidiary of Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo Funds Management, created further undisclosed material conflicts of interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with brokers at Wells Fargo Investments and H.D. Vest to push investors into Wells Fargo Funds, regardless of whether such investments were in the investors' best interests. The investment advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been invested in the underlying portfolio. In doing so they breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders' investment returns. The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a Wells Fargo Financial Plan that held Wells Fargo Funds. The Wells Fargo Financial Plans include, but are not limited to Full Service Brokerage Accounts, Wells Asset Management accounts, WellsChoice account, and WellsSelect account. For more details, contact Tzivia Brody 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. ********* 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 * * *