/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/051129.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, November 29, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 236 Headlines ACE CASH: Consumer Fraud Litigation Removed To S.D. CA Court ACE CASH: TX Managers Launch FLSA Violations Lawsuit in E.D. TX CALIFORNIA: District Refutes Teachers' Retirement Litigation COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Notice Issued Regarding Restitution Fund CONNECTICUT: Audit Finds Monitors Receive Disparate Compensation CYBERSOURCE CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 2006 DANKA BUSINESS: TN Court Yet To Rule on Lawsuit Summary Judgment DOLE FOOD: FDA Bares October Warning Against Pre-packaged Salads ENRON CORPORATION: ERISA Settlement Hearing Set Dec. 20, 2005 EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: FL Court Mulls Appeal of $1.6Mil Suit Ruling ETHNIC INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Apricots For Undeclared Sulfites FRUIT COMPANIES: FDA Issues Warning For Unproven Health Claims GENTA INC.: NJ Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Part GUIDANT CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Withdraw Securities Suits in IN GUIDANT CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended ERISA Lawsuit in IN GUIDANT CORPORATION: JPML Mulls Consolidation of Injury Lawsuits GUIDANT CORPORATION: 70 Former Employees File Age Bias Lawsuit HORMONE THERAPIES: FDA Warns 16 Firms Over False Health Claims INTERLAND INC.: Asks PA Court To Dismiss TCPA Violations Lawsuit INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls 989 Trucks Due to Crash Hazard MICROSOFT CORPORATION: ND School District Amasses $276T Windfall NEW YORK: Court Rejects County's Appeal in Strip Search Lawsuit NUI CORPORATION: Suit Settlement Hearing Set January 20, 2006 POLYMEDICA CORPORATION: Discovery Continues in MA Stock Lawsuit SPX CORPORATION: Certification Sought For Stock, ERISA Lawsuits STAKTEK HOLDINGS: Asks NM Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit STARWAY INC.: Recalls Sweetpotato Strips For Undeclared Sulfites TENNESSEE GAS: KS Court Mulls Gas Royalties Suits Certification TENNESSEE GAS: Faces Two Hurricane Injury Lawsuits in E.D. LA VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Recalls 1,530 Vehicles For Injury Hazard VOLVO CARS: Recalls 10,259 Various Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard New Securities Fraud Cases BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in TX GREAT WOLF: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in WI HELEN OF TROY: Charles J. Piven Lodges TX Securities Fraud Suit TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Suit in KY UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in NY ********* ACE CASH: Consumer Fraud Litigation Removed To S.D. CA Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Ace Cash Express, Inc. and its franchisee Your Financial Resource, Inc. removed the class action filed against them to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Perseveranda Goins, Marie Aficial and Antonia Torres filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego on June 1, 2005, alleging, among other things, that the Company and its franchisee violated various California state law requirements with respect to the making of short-term consumer loans to the plaintiffs by, among other things, failing to make proper disclosures to the plaintiffs and assessing plaintiffs' insufficient funds fees in excess of the statutory cap. On July 1, 2005, the defendants removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The suit is styled "Goins, et al v. Your Financial, et al., case no. 3:05cv1340," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, under Judge Thomas J. Whelan. Representing the plaintiffs is Frank J. Fox, Majors and Fox LLP, 401 West A Street, Suite 2350, San Diego, CA 92101- 7921, Phone: (619)234-1000. Representing the Company is Michael L. Kirby, Post Kirby Noonan and Sweat, 600 West Broadway, Suite 1100, San Diego, CA 92101-3302, Phone: (619)231-8666. ACE CASH: TX Managers Launch FLSA Violations Lawsuit in E.D. TX --------------------------------------------------------------- Ace Cash Express, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Rebecca Webb and Pamela List filed the suit on June 13, 2005, seeking to recover overtime wages allegedly due to "center managers" and "managers-in-training" regularly being required to work in excess of 45 hours per week. The suit is styled "Webb et al v. Ace Cash Express, Inc., case no. 2:05-cv-00254-LED," filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, under Judge Leonard Davis. Representing the Company is John Gray Harrison, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart - Dallas, 8117 Preston Rd, 700 Preston Commons, Dallas, TX 75225-4324, Phone: 214/987-3800, Fax: 12149873927, E-mail: john.harrison@odnss.com. Representing the plaintiffs is John Dale Sloan, Jr., Sloan & Monsour, P O Drawer 2909, 101 East Whaley St, Longview, Tx 75606, Phone: 903/757-7000, Fax: 19037577574, E-mail: jsloan@sloanmonsour.com. CALIFORNIA: District Refutes Teachers' Retirement Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ In its response to litigation brought by two of its teachers, the Ontario-Montclair School District in California denies that it had a legal obligation to reimburse the employees for lost retirement contributions, The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin reports. Attorneys for the school district seek to have a class action complaint dismissed. That complaint was filed against the district after employee retirement contributions went missing last year. In the November 17 response, which cites various legal and technical flaws with the original complaint, the district's attorneys contend, "Plaintiffs have failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty." The Ohio-based company which handled the contributions, NEBSonline, is in bankruptcy proceedings after its chief financial officer allegedly pilfered millions of dollars before committing suicide. Collectively, school districts in San Bernardino County were one of NEBS' largest customers. Teachers in Ontario-Montclair asked the district earlier this year to reimburse their lost contributions and pursue claims against NEBS. Rick McClure, vice president of the Ontario-Montclair Teachers Association, hopes the school board, with two new members elected last November 8, will reconsider its position. He told The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, "They've simply failed their employees here. Their position they've taken all along is that they've been concerned about money, and here they're spending all this money on lawyers instead of doing the right thing." One of the ousted board members, James Downs, wanted the district to reimburse the affected employees, however, a motion to that effect failed earlier this year. The district's response indicates its employees were sent forms and instructions on how to file a claim against NEBS on their own behalf. Ontario-Montclair was the only of 16 San Bernardino County school districts not to reimburse its employees after NEBS declared bankruptcy in November 2004. The county office of education revealed that approximately 2,400 employees in the county lost $1.4 million when NEBS went under. According to the teacher's union, Ontario-Montclair teachers, staff and administrators who contributed lost between $25 to $1,600 each. Cathie Fields, lawyer for the district, said earlier this month that the district believed the suit was without merit and would defend itself. A court hearing date to dismiss the motion has been slotted for January 9, 2006. COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Notice Issued Regarding Restitution Fund ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a summary notice of claims process for the distribution of the Restitution Fund in the matter, "United States of America v. Computer Associates International, Inc., Docket Number CR 04-837 (ILG) (EDNY)." The $225,000,000 Restitution Fund will benefit all persons or entities that purchased or transacted in the common stock of Computer Associates International, Inc. (CA) or call or put options in CA common stock during the period January 20, 1998 through and including February 25, 2002 and who were damaged thereby. The notice reminds all interested parties that that they must submit a Proof of Claim to the Fund Administrator no later than January 31, 2006. For more details, contact In re: Computer Associates Restitution Fund c/o Kenneth R. Feinberg, Fund Administrator, P.O. Box 808072, Phone: (800) 316-2110. CONNECTICUT: Audit Finds Monitors Receive Disparate Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell is calling for greater uniformity in the compensation paid to court-appointed monitors overseeing some troubled state agencies, after a new report showed those officials received anywhere between $15,000 to $1.4 million a year, The Associated Press Reports. Governor Rell, a Republican, suggested recently that the state should go back to the federal courts and renegotiate compensation plans. In addition, she also questioned whether some monitors are still needed, because the state has met improvement goals set by the courts. In a written statement, Governor Rell said, "It is critical that every available tax dollar be put toward direct care and services for those whom court protection was sought, not toward administrative costs associated with court monitors, special masters or other overseers." Monitors and special masters are typically appointed by federal judges to oversee state agencies, often as conditions of court settlements. Usually, the state often has no say in the compensation arrangements and is simply forced to foot the bill. The governor's comments comes as an Office of Policy and Management audit that released recently revealed that compensation ranges from $1.4 million paid last fiscal year to D. Ray Sirry, the former federal monitor who watched over the Department of Children and Families to $15,000 a year paid to each member of an expert advisory panel to the Department of Education. In one case, the governor's office set the compensation rate, according to the audit. The audit, requested by Governor Rell in light of an investigation into Dr. Sirry's compensation package, found that five agencies have monitors of some sort overseeing court- ordered improvements. At DCF, Dr. Sirry was appointed in May 2000 as a result of a lawsuit challenging the agency's care of abused and neglected children. Dr. Sirry had presented a budget and periodic bills to the federal court, which also approved his rate of compensation. Dr. Sirry left in August because of health reasons and was replaced in October by Ray Mancuso. That same month, the court also appointed a special master, U.S. Magistrate Holly Fitzsimmons, to report on the state's progress toward exiting the court decree. State officials believe the court will cover her expenses. A federal court is currently investigating allegations that Dr. Sirry was overpaid. Another court monitor oversees conditions and practices at youth detention centers. Under the settlement, the state pays Dr. Robert Carl Jr. $125 an hour, including travel time and reasonable expenses. The state also covers the cost of a mental health consultant to review mental health services at the facilities. George Hayes Jr. works through the Office of the Child Advocate and monitors operations at the Connecticut Juvenile Training School in Middletown. Last fiscal year, he earned $62,800 plus $1,800 in expenses. His compensation is set by the governor's office. The Department of Education is paying an expert panel of four, $1,000 apiece for each meeting they attend, for a total of $15,000 annually. They're advising the state on how to increase the percentage of students with mental retardation or intellectual disability who are placed in regular classes. That panel stems from a case filed in 1991 by five school-age children with mental retardation and their families. It was certified as a class action lawsuit on December 13, 1993, and the federal court approved a settlement on May 22, 2002. Governor Rell has already asked a federal judge to remove a special master, David Ferleger, who is overseeing improvements at Southbury Training School. Mr. Ferleger was recently disciplined in Pennsylvania for practicing law without a license. Since August 1997, the Department of Mental Retardation has deposited about $2.9 million into an account for the special master. Those funds cover Mr. Ferleger's salary, some overhead and the cost of consultants he has hired. DMR estimates that Dr. Ferleger earns about $260 an hour. The agency has asked the federal court for more detailed payments to the attorney, who is based in Pennsylvania. CYBERSOURCE CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 2006 -------------------------------------------------------------- Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Cybersource Corporation, its chairman and chief executive officer, a former officer and four brokerage firms that served as underwriters in its initial public offering, is set for April 24,2006 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In July and August 2001, various class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's stock issued pursuant to or traceable to the initial public offering during the period from June 23, 1999 through December 6, 2000. The action alleges that the Company's underwriters charged secret excessive commissions to certain of their customers in return for allocations of the Company's stock in the offering. The two individual defendants are alleged to be liable because of their involvement in preparing and signing the registration statement for the offering, which allegedly failed to disclose the supposedly excessive commissions. On December 7, 2001, an amended complaint was filed in one of the actions to expand the purported class to persons who purchased the Company's stock issued pursuant to or traceable to the follow-on public offering during the period from November 4, 1999 through December 6, 2000. The lawsuit filed against the Company is one of several hundred lawsuits filed against other companies based on substantially similar claims. On April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended complaint was filed to consolidate all of the complaints and claims into one case. The consolidated amended complaint alleges claims that are virtually identical to the amended complaint filed on December 7, 2001 and the original complaints. In October 2002, the Company's officer and a former officer that were named in the amended complaint were dismissed without prejudice. In July 2002, the Company, along with other issuer defendants in the case, filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. On February 19, 2003, the court issued a written decision denying the motion to dismiss with respect to the Company and the individual defendants. On July 2, 2003, a committee of the Company's Board of Directors conditionally approved a proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter. The settlement would provide, among other things, a release of the Company and of the individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful in the Amended Complaint. The Company would agree to undertake other responsibilities under the partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims it may have against its underwriters. Any direct financial impact of the proposed settlement is expected to be borne by the Company's insurers. The committee agreed to approve the settlement subject to a number of conditions, including the participation of a substantial number of other Issuer Defendants in the proposed settlement, the consent of the Company's insurers to the settlement, and the completion of acceptable final settlement documentation. On August 31, 2005, the court issued a formal preliminary approval for the settlement and set a final approval hearing date for April 24, 2006. While there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the lawsuit, the Company does not presently believe that an adverse outcome in the lawsuit would have a material effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Plaintiffs Brian Mohr and Javad Samadi filed the suit, styled "In Re CyberSource Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Docket no. 01 Civ. 7000 (Sas)," related to "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)." The plaintiffs executive committee is composed of: (1) Melvyn I. Weiss, Ariana J. Tadler, Peter G.A. Safirstein of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York 10119-0165, Phone: (212) 594-5300 (2) Stanley D. Bernstein, Robert Berg, Rebecca M. Katz, Danielle Mazzini- Daly of BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD & LIFSHITZ, LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, Phone: (212) 779-1414 (3) Richard S. Schiffrin, David Kessler, Darren J. Check of SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY, LLP, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004, Phone: (610) 667- 7706 (4) Jules Brody and Aaron Brody, STULL STULL & BRODY, 6 East 45th Street, New York, New York 10017, Phone: (212) 687-7230 (5) Daniel W. Krasner, Fred Taylor Isquity, Thomas H. Burt and Brian Cohen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, Phone: (212) 545-4600 (6) Howard Sirota, Rachell Sirota, Saul Roffe, John P. Smyth, Halona N. Patrick, SIROTA & SIROTA LLP, 110 Wall Street, 21st Floor, New York, New York 10005, Phone: (212) 425-9055 DANKA BUSINESS: TN Court Yet To Rule on Lawsuit Summary Judgment ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee has yet to rule Danka Business Systems, PLC's petition to grant summary judgment in its favor in the putative class action complaint titled "Stephen L. Edwards, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Danka Industries, Inc., et al., including American Business Credit Corporation, Defendants." The suit alleges claims of breach of contract, fraud/intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, violation of the Florida Deception and Unfair Trade Protection Act and injunctive relief. The claim was filed in the state court in Tennessee, and the Company has removed the claim to the United States District Court for Middle District of Tennessee for further proceedings. The plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify the class, which the Company has opposed. The Company has filed a motion for summary judgment, which plaintiffs have opposed. The suit is styled "Edwards v. Danka Industries Inc, et al., case no. 3:03-cv-00575," filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, under Judge John T. Nixon. Representing the plaintiffs is Charles P. Yezbak, III, 144 Second Avenue North, Suite 200, Nashville, TN 37201, Phone: (615) 250-2000, Fax: (615) 250-2020, E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com. Representing the Company are: (1) Thomas B. Hatch, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, 2800 LaSalle Plaza, Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015, Phone: (612) 349-8500 (2) Andrew J. Pulliam, Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 1500, Nashville, TN 37203-1423, Phone: (615) 244-0020, E-mail: apulliam@wyattfirm.com DOLE FOOD: FDA Bares October Warning Against Pre-packaged Salads ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing a nationwide warning to consumers against eating certain pre-packaged Dole salad products because these products have been associated with an outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 in Minnesota. The affected products include three brand names and are labeled with "best- if-used by" dates, as listed below, and a production code beginning with "B250." Illnesses have been associated with consumption of Dole salad products purchased from a single grocery store chain, Rainbow Foods, in its Minnesota locations. However, salad products containing the affected production codes are also distributed nationwide. The three prepackaged salad products involved are: (1) Classic Romaine - with a "best-if-used-by (BIUB)" date of September 23, 2005 and a production code beginning with "B250." (2) American Blend - with a "best-if-used-by (BIUB)" date of September 23, 2005 and a production code beginning with "B250." (3) Greener Selection - with a "best-if-used-by (BIUB)" date of September 22, 2005, and a production code beginning with "B250." The "best-if-used-by" code date can be located in the upper right hand corner of the front of the bag. While it is unlikely that stores still have this product on their shelves, consumers may have product in their refrigerators. Consumers who have any of the three packaged salads listed should dispose of the product. "Given the severity of this illness, FDA believes an urgent warning to consumers is needed. FDA is working closely with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and our state partners to further identify the source of the problem and its scope," said Dr. Robert Brackett, Director of the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. At this time, no other Dole salad products are involved and Dole Food Company has issued a recall for the implicated salad products. Dole is working cooperatively with the FDA to minimize any further risk to consumers. E. coli O157:H7 infection often causes severe bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps; sometimes the infection causes non-bloody diarrhea or no symptoms. Usually little or no fever is present, and the illness resolves in five to ten days. Although most healthy adults can recover completely within a week, in some persons, particularly children under five years of age and the elderly, the infection can also cause a complication called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). This condition can lead to serious kidney damage and even death. To date there have been reports of eleven cases of illness attributed to E. coli O157 in Minnesota. Of these eleven cases, two individuals have been hospitalized. The latest reported illness was September 19, 2005. Individuals who may have experienced any of the above symptoms after eating these salad products should contact their physician or local department of health. ENRON CORPORATION: ERISA Settlement Hearing Set Dec. 20, 2005 ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter, "In re: Enron Corporation ERISA Litigation, Case No. H-01-3913 (Consolidated Cases)," on behalf of all persons who were participants or beneficiaries in the Enron Corporation Savings Plan (401K), the Enron Corporation Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) and/or the Enron Corporation Cash Balance Plan and any and all predecessors and successors to such plans during the period from January 1, 1995, through the Effective Date of the settlement. The Courts will hold a hearing in the case, "In re Enron Corporation ERISA Litigation, Case No. H-01-3913," at 2:00 p.m., Central Standard Time, December 20, 2005. For more details, call 1-866-560-4043, or visit http://www.enronerisa.com,http://www.erisafraud.comor http://www.hbsslaw.com. EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: FL Court Mulls Appeal of $1.6Mil Suit Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Palm Beach County Court in Florida has yet to rule on Equity Residential's appeal of the court's decision, granting $1.6 million in damages in favor of the plaintiffs in the class action filed against it, regarding certain charges made to residents who terminated their leases early or failed to provide sufficient notice of intent to vacate. In December 2004, the Court issued a Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law holding those fees legally uncollectible under Florida law. In recognition of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which awarded damages and interest to the class in the amount of approximately $1.6 million, the Company established a reserve of approximately $1.6 million and correspondingly recorded this as a general and administrative expense. Due to pending appeals, the award is neither final nor enforceable. ETHNIC INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Apricots For Undeclared Sulfites -------------------------------------------------------------- Ethnic International Holding, Inc., 4 Corporate Drive, Cranbury, NJ is recalling YORUK BRAND DRIED APRICOT because it may contained undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life threatening reactions if they consume this product. The recalled Yoruk brand Dried Apricots are distributed in uncoded 0.5 lb. plastic bags. The product was distributed in New York State. The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites on the label. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. Consumers who have purchased Yoruk Brand Dried Apricots should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 609-395-8513. FRUIT COMPANIES: FDA Issues Warning For Unproven Health Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued on October 24,2005 Warning Letters to 29 companies that manufacture, market, or distribute products made from cherries or other fruits. The Warning Letters told the firms to stop making unproven claims on the firms' web sites and product labels that their fruit products treat or prevent disease. The companies cited are marketing dried fruit, fruit juice, and juice concentrate for treating or preventing of a variety of diseases, including cancer, heart disease, and arthritis. The Warning Letters state that if the firms fail to take prompt corrective measures, they may face FDA enforcement action without further notice. Actions could include FDA seizure of the products, as well as injunctions or criminal sanctions. Copies of the FDA Warning Letters are available at the Website: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/chrylist.html. GENTA INC.: NJ Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Part --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part Genta, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against it and certain of its principal officers on behalf of purported classes of the Company's shareholders who purchased Company securities during several class periods. The consolidated suit alleges that the Company and certain of its principal officers violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding Genasense, for the treatment of melanoma that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. The shareholder class action complaint in the various actions seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount and recovery of plaintiffs' costs and attorneys' fees. In addition, three shareholder derivative actions have been filed against the directors and certain officers of the Company in New Jersey State and Federal courts. Based on facts substantially similar to those asserted in the shareholder class actions, the derivative plaintiffs claim that defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders and other violations of New Jersey law. On September 30, 2005, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. The court dismissed plaintiffs' claim that the defendants engaged in a scheme or artifice to defraud plaintiffs, but allowed plaintiffs' claims to proceed with respect to their allegations that defendants issued false and misleading public statements about Genasense. On October 17, 2005, defendants filed an answer to the complaint and will soon commence pre- trial discovery. The suit is styled "In re Genta, Inc. Securities Litigation, case no. 2:04-cv-02123-JAG-GDH," filed in the United States District Court in New Jersey, under Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. Representing the plaintiffs are Melvyn I. Weiss, MILBERG, WEISS, BERSHAD & SCHULMAN, ESQS., One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York NY 10119 Phone: 212-594-5300; and Patrick Louis Rocco, SHALOV STONE & BONNER LLP 163 Madison Avenue PO Box 177 Morristown, NJ 07962-1277 Phone: (973) 775-8997 E-mail: procco@lawssb.com. Representing the Company are Thomas A. Cunniff, Jack L. Kolpen FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP Princeton Pike Corporate Center 997 Lenox Drive Building 3, Lawrenceville NJ 08648-2311 Phone: (609) 896-3600 Email: tcunniff@foxrothschild.com or jkolpen@foxrothschild.com. GUIDANT CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Withdraw Securities Suits in IN --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed four securities class actions filed against Guidant Corporation and several of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The suits were filed beginning in late June 2005, alleging that the defendants concealed adverse information about the Company's defibrillators and sold stock in violation of federal securities laws. The complaints seek class certification, monetary damages, and injunctive relief. On October 24, 2005, these complaints were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. The suits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, under Judge John Daniel Tinder. The suits are styled: (1) YEROUSHALMI v. GUIDANT CORPORATION et al., case no. 1:05-cv-00951-JDT-TAB (2) MANNING v. GUIDANT CORPORATION et al., case no. 1:05- cv-00985-JDT-TAB (3) MURRAY v. GUIDANT CORPORATION et al., case no. 1:05-cv- 01078-JDT-TAB (4) HODGSON v. GUIDANT CORPORATION et al., case no. 1:05- cv-01174-JDT-TAB GUIDANT CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended ERISA Lawsuit in IN ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action against Guidant Corporation and its directors on behalf of participants in the Company's employee pension benefit plans in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The suit was filed in July 2005, charging the Company with breaches of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Company fiduciaries concealed adverse information about the Company's defibrillators and imprudently made contributions to the Company's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan in the form of Company stock. The complaint seeks class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages, the imposition of a constructive trust, and costs and attorneys' fees. A second, similar complaint has been filed and is expected to be consolidated with the initial complaint. The suit is styled "HARZEWSKI v. GUIDANT CORPORATION et al., case no. 1:05-cv-01009-LJM-TAB," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, under Judge Larry J. McKinney. Representing the Company is John R. Schaibley, III, BAKER & DANIELS, 300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2700, Indianapolis, IN 46204, Phone: (317)237-1283, Fax: (317)237-1000, E-mail: jrschaib@bakerd.com. GUIDANT CORPORATION: JPML Mulls Consolidation of Injury Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation conducted a hearing in September 2005 to determine the sole issue of the location for consolidating the lawsuits filed against Guidant Corporation, following the Company's recent implantable defibrillator and pacemaker systems field actions. Approximately forty-five product liability class action lawsuits and approximately fifty individual lawsuits have been filed in various state and federal jurisdictions against the Company. The majority of these cases are pending in federal court. An additional six lawsuits have been filed in Canada. The complaints in these product liability lawsuits generally allege strict liability, negligence, warranty and other common law and/or statutory claims. The majority of claimants alleges no physical injury, but is suing for medical monitoring and anxiety. The complaints generally seek class certification, monetary damages and injunctive relief. GUIDANT CORPORATION: 70 Former Employees File Age Bias Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Approximately seventy former employees have filed charges against Guidant Corporation, alleging that the Company discriminated against the former employees on the basis of their age when the Company terminated their employment in August 2004 in conjunction with the Company's reduction in force. The litigation was filed with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Most of the charges were filed in the Minneapolis Area Office. The EEOC has not yet rendered a decision on the charges. HORMONE THERAPIES: FDA Warns 16 Firms Over False Health Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has taken action against a number of firms marketing unapproved "Alternative Hormone Therapies" because the products these firms are selling are unapproved new drugs that have not been found safe and effective to treat or prevent certain serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions. FDA issued Warning Letters to 16 dietary supplement and hormone cream marketers who are making unproven claims that tout the benefits of their "alternative hormone therapy" products in treating or preventing serious diseases, including cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis, and in affecting the structure or function of the body. These alternative therapies are often promoted as "natural" or "safer" treatments that can be used in place of approved hormone treatments. Marketers have 15 days to respond to FDA. The companies are: (1) All Natural Pain Relief Inc. (2) Bio-Health (3) BuyInnovations.com (4) CHS International Research Ltd. (5) ComCore 21 Corporation (6) Greatest Herbs on Earth (7) HMS Crown, Inc. (8) Healthworks 2000 (9) Healthy Days, Inc. (10) HebaT Laboratories, LLC (11) Herbal Fields Supplements (12) Nutriteam, Inc. (13) One Life USA (14) Suzanne's Natural Foods (15) The Way Up (16) Tip Top Vitamins "[The] FDA takes seriously its responsibility to protect consumers from products promoted with unproven claims. It's particularly troublesome when these claims provide false hope to patients with serious or life-threatening conditions," said Margaret O'K. Glavin, FDA's Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs. In the Warning Letters, FDA advises the firms that, under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), a product is considered to be a drug if it claims to diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat or prevent disease or, for products other than foods and dietary supplements, if it claims to affect the structure or function of the body. The Warning Letters further state that FDA considers these products to be "new drugs" that require FDA approval before marketing. Examples of the unproven claims cited in the Warning Letters include: -reversing osteoporosis-related bone loss and increasing bone density -reducing, arresting, or inhibiting the growth of cancer cells -protecting against fibroids, ovarian, and endometrial cancers -treating various forms of arthritis The FDA letters also advise the marketers that advertising claims are governed by the FTC Act and other laws enforced by the FTC. As part of the joint effort, FTC is also issuing letters notifying 34 websites that are promoting "alternative hormone therapy" products with similar claims that the FTC is unaware of any competent and reliable scientific evidence to support the claims. As stated in these letters, the FTC Act prohibits unfair or deceptive acts and practices, including false and unsubstantiated advertising claims. For more information, visit the FTC website at www.ftc.gov. INTERLAND INC.: Asks PA Court To Dismiss TCPA Violations Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Interland, Inc. asked the Allegheny County State Court in Pennsylvania to dismiss the claims in the class action filed against it, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). A competing web hosting company, PairNetworks, filed this case in December 2001 as a putative class action, claiming that the Company's distribution of a facsimile on November 15, 2001 to market domain name registration services violated the TCPA. Several years later, two additional plaintiffs joined in the action. The plaintiffs have conceded that all of the putative class members were customers of the Company. Federal Communications Commission regulations in effect at the time provided that the distribution of facsimiles to persons with whom the sender had an "established business relationship" did not amount to a violation of the TCPA. The Company has asked the court to deny class certification and a ruling on that motion is pending as well as a motion for summary judgment on the named plaintiffs' claims. If the court denies class certification, the Company's damages, if it were liable, cannot exceed $1,500 for each of the three named plaintiffs. In addition, the Company has filed a motion seeking to dismiss all of the claims against it on the grounds that the facsimile at issue did not violate the TCPA because it satisfied all of the requirements of applicable Federal Communications Commission regulations in effect at the time the fax was sent. Congress has expressly extended those regulations through the Junk Fax Act of 2005. The Company' motion has been briefed and argued to the court and the parties are awaiting a ruling. INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls 989 Trucks Due to Crash Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------- International Truck & Engine Corporation in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 989 units of 2005-06 INTERNATIONAL / CF500 and 2005-06 INTERNATIONAL / CF600 trucks due to crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V523000. According to the ODI, on certain trucks, the cab entry steps were manufactured incorrectly causing them to have lower material strength properties than designed. These lower material strength properties can allow the step tread to fracture and separate from the vehicle under normal usage. Step tread's separation while a person is entering or exiting the cab, may result in property damage or personal injury. As a remedy, dealers will install reinforced metal brackets on both cab entry platforms. The recall is expected to begin on November 28, 2005. For more details, contact International, Phone: 1-800-448-7825 OR the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov. MICROSOFT CORPORATION: ND School District Amasses $276T Windfall ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Grand Forks School District in North Dakota will receive $276,000 as its share in a settlement, which should bring millions of dollars to state schools, of a class action lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation, The Grand Forks Herald reports. Superintendent Mark Sanford told The Grand Forks Herald that half of the amount is earmarked for general use and the other for software for schools in which 50 percent of the students are eligible for free and reduced lunches. He added that the money could also be credited for purchases the district has made since the 2003 school year, which adds to the flexibility of how the money can be used. Mr. Sanford explains to The Grand Fold Herald that one way in which the money could be used is to pay for the technology needed to do online assessments, in which students take tests online and their scores immediately can be matched against school district and state standards. According to him, having immediate personalized results and testing comparisons is important for teachers to have when they are planning their classroom instruction. Microsoft faced a flurry of lawsuits back in 2000 for using its market power to force customers to pay higher prices for its Windows operating system. Those federal cases were later consolidated in the United States District Court for Maryland. These cases allege that the Company competed unfairly and unlawfully monopolized alleged markets for operating systems and certain software applications, and they seek to recover alleged overcharges for these products. To date, courts have dismissed all claims for damages in cases brought against the Company by indirect purchasers under federal law and in 17 states. Nine of those state court decisions have been affirmed on appeal. An appeal of one of those state rulings is pending. There was no appeal in four states. Claims under federal law brought on behalf of foreign purchasers have been dismissed by the U.S. District Court in Maryland as have all claims brought on behalf of consumers seeking injunctive relief under federal law, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 2, 2005) reports. The ruling on injunctive relief and the ruling dismissing the federal claims of indirect purchasers are currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, as is a ruling denying certification of certain proposed classes of U.S. direct purchasers. Courts in eleven states have ruled that indirect purchaser cases may proceed as class actions, while courts in two states have denied class certification. In 2003, we reached an agreement with counsel for the California plaintiffs to settle all claims in 27 consolidated cases in that state, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 2, 2005) reports. Under the settlement, class members will be able to obtain vouchers that entitle the class members to be reimbursed up to the face value of their vouchers for purchases of a wide variety of platform-neutral computer hardware and software. The total value of vouchers issued will depend on the number of class members who make a claim and are issued vouchers. Two-thirds of the value of vouchers unissued or unredeemed by class members will be made available to certain schools in California in the form of vouchers that also may be redeemed for cash against purchases of a wide variety of platform-neutral computer hardware, software, and related services. The Company also reached similar agreements to settle all claims in a number of other states. The settlements in these states are structured similarly to the California settlement, except that, among other differences, one-half of the value of vouchers unissued to class members will be made available to certain schools in the relevant states. The maximum value of vouchers to be issued in these settlements, including the California settlement, is approximately $1.9 billion. The actual costs of these settlements will be less than that maximum amount, depending on the number of class members and schools who are issued and redeem vouchers, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 2, 2005) reports. The settlements in Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, and West Virginia have received final court approval. The Company estimates the total cost to resolve all of these cases will range between $1.3 billion and $1.6 billion, with the actual cost dependent upon many unknown factors such as the quantity and mix of products for which claims will be made, the number of eligible class members who ultimately use the vouchers, the nature of hardware and software that is acquired using the vouchers, and the cost of administering the claims process, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 2, 2005) reports. NEW YORK: Court Rejects County's Appeal in Strip Search Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Officers at the Montgomery County jail won't be allowed to strip search people detained for minor offenses, according to a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, The Associated Press reports. In essence, the court's ruling rejected Montgomery County's appeal in a class action lawsuit initiated on behalf of former Fort Plain, New York resident Paul Marriott, who was forced to undergo a strip search after allegedly not feeding his horses. Back in March, a U.S. district court judge granted a preliminary injunction to stop the strip searches. Members of the class action lawsuit, which was filed back in April 29, 2003, included those who were admitted into the Montgomery County jail between April 29th, 2000, and March 25th, 2005, after being charged with a misdemeanor, violation, probation or parole violation, traffic infraction or other minor offense. The suit is styled, "Marriott v. County of Montgomery, et al, Case No. 5:03-cv-00531-DNH-DEP," filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, under Judge David N. Hurd with referral to Judge David E. Peebles. Representing the Defendant/s are, Thomas W. Hyland of Wilson, Elser Law Firm - NY Office, 150 East 42nd St., New York, NY 10017-5639, Phone: 212-490-3000, Fax: 212-490-3038, E-mail: hylandt@wemed.com and Theresa B. Marangas of Wilson, Elser Law Firm - Albany Office, 677 Broadway - 9th Floor, Albany, NY 12207-2996, Phone: 518-449-8893, Fax: 518-465-2548, E-mail: marangast@wemed.com. Representing the plaintiff/s are: (1) Elmer R. Keach, III of Office of Elmer R. Keach, III, 1040 Riverfront Center, P.O. Box 70, Amsterdam, NY 12010, Phone: 518-434-1718, Fax: 518-770-1558, E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com; (2) Gary E. Mason and Charles A. Schneider of Mason Law Firm, 1225 19th St., N.W. Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036, Phone: 202-429-2290, Fax: 202-429-2294, E-mail: gmason@masonlawdc.com and cschneider@masonlawdc.com; and (3) Bruce E. Menken and Jason J. Rozger of Beranbaum, Menken Law Firm, 3 New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004, Phone: 212-509-1616, Fax: 212-509-8088, E-mail: bmenken@bmbblaw.com and jrozger@bmbblaw.com. NUI CORPORATION: Suit Settlement Hearing Set January 20, 2006 ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $3,500,000 settlement in the matter, "In re: NUI Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 02-5220 (MLC)." The case was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of NUI Corporation between November 8, 2001 and October 17, 2002. The hearing will be held before the Honorable Mary L. Cooper on January 20, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. in the United States District Courthouse, 402 East State St., Trenton, NJ 08608. For more details, contact In re NUI Securities Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6322, Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone: 1-800-294-3992 or Katherin M. Ryan, Esq. or Kay E. Sickles, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Mail: 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087 or by Phone: (610) 667-7706. POLYMEDICA CORPORATION: Discovery Continues in MA Stock Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery continues in the securities class action filed against PolyMedica Corporation and Steven J. Lee, the Company's former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On November 27, 2000, Richard Bowe SEP-IRA filed a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and purchasers of common stock. The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees and costs and claims violations of Sections 10(b), 10b-5, and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging various statements were misleading with respect to the Company's revenue and earnings based on an alleged scheme to produce fictitious sales. Several virtually identical lawsuits were subsequently filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company. On July 30, 2001, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the complaints under the caption "In re: PolyMedica Corp. Securities Litigation, Civ. Action No. 00-12426-REK." Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on October 9, 2001. The consolidated amended complaint extended the class period to October 26, 1998 through August 21, 2001, and named as defendants the Company, Liberty Medical Supply, Inc., and certain of the Company's former officers. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on December 10, 2001. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to this motion on February 11, 2002, and defendants filed a reply memorandum on March 11, 2002. The Court denied the motion without a hearing on May 10, 2002. On June 20, 2002, defendants filed answers to the consolidated amended complaint. On January 28, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification to which defendants filed an opposition on February 27, 2004. Plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum on April 12, 2004 followed by additional briefing by the parties. The Court heard oral argument on the motion on June 2, 2004. On September 8, 2004, the court allowed the plaintiffs' motion and certified the class. On September 21, 2004, the defendants filed a petition requesting that they be permitted to appeal the decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs filed a response to the defendants' petition on October 7, 2004 opposing defendants' request to appeal the class certification. Also on October 7, 2004, the Court stayed sending notice of the class action pending a ruling on defendants' appeal of class certification. On February 15, 2005, the First Circuit Court of Appeals granted defendants' petition for leave to appeal the class certification decision. Defendants-appellants filed their brief on March 15, 2005, and plaintiffs-appellees filed an opposition on April 15, 2005. Defendants-appellants filed a reply brief on April 25, 2005. The First Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on May 4, 2005 and took the matter under advisement. The suit is styled "Bowe et al v. Polymedica Corp., case no. 1:00-cv-12426-REK," filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Robert E. Keeton. Law firm for the defendants is Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-526- 6145, Fax: 617-526-5000. The plaintiff firms are Hale & Dorr, 60 State Street, Boston, MA, 2109, Phone: 617.526.6167 and Moulton & Gans LLP, 133 Federal Street, Boston, MA, 2110, Phone: 617.369.7979. SPX CORPORATION: Certification Sought For Stock, ERISA Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina to certify the consolidated class actions filed against SPX Corporation and certain of its current and former executive officers. Beginning in March 2004, multiple class action complaints seeking unspecified monetary damages were filed or announced by certain law firms representing or seeking to represent purchasers of the Company's common stock during a specified period, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs generally allege that the Company made false and misleading statements regarding the forecast of the Company's 2003 fiscal year business and operating results in order to artificially inflate the price of Company stock. These complaints have been consolidated into a single amended complaint against the Company and its former Chairman, CEO and President. On September 20, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated action in its entirety. Additionally, on April 23, 2004, an additional class action complaint was filed in the same court, alleging breaches of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by the Company, its then general counsel and the Administrative Committee regarding one of the Company's 401(k) defined contribution benefit plans arising from the plan's holding of Company stock. On June 10, 2005 a first amended Complaint was filed in the ERISA suit, adding as defendants certain current and former directors and Administrative Committee members, and conforming the complaint to the allegations in the Securities Class Action. On July 25, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended ERISA complaint in its entirety. That motion is fully briefed for ruling by the District Court. On September 8, 2005, the plaintiffs moved the Court to certify the proposed class in the ERISA suit. The Company opposed that motion and it is fully briefed for ruling by the District Court. The litigation is styled "Belafey et al v. SPX Corporation, et al, case no. 3:04cv99," filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, under Judge H. Brent McKnight. Representing the Company are David C Wright, III and Julian H. Wright of Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, PA, Mail: 101 No Tryon St Suite 1900, Charlotte, NC 28246 USA, Phone: 704-377-2536; and Ross B. Bricker, Anton R. Valukas and Ronald L. Malmer of Jenner & Block, One IBM Plaza, Chicago, IL 60611-3608 Phone: 312/ 923-4524. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax: 610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com (2) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, (3) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com (4) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington, DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower, Washington, DC, 20005, Phone: 202.408.4600, Fax: 202.408.4699, E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com (5) Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, 320 East 39th Street, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.983.9330, Fax: 212.983.9331, E- mail: Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com (6) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone: 215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net (7) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (Boca Raton, FL), 5355 Town Center Road - Suite 900, Boca Raton, FL, 33486, Phone: 561.361.5000, Fax: 561.367.8400, (8) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York, NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065, Phone: 212.594.5300, (9) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com (10) Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail: info@whhf.com (11) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail: newyork@whafh.com STAKTEK HOLDINGS: Asks NM Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Staktek Holdings, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico to dismiss a securities class action filed against it and two of its executive officers. The plaintiff claims that the defendants failed to disclose to the public an anticipated shortage of computer memory chips and that they knew or recklessly disregarded that the anticipated shortage would have a materially adverse impact on the Company's revenue and earnings. In addition, the plaintiff claims that the defendants failed to disclose to investors that the industry's transition to a new generation of higher-capacity memory chips was causing computer makers to stockpile supplies of older memory chips, increasing the shortage. The suit covers individuals who purchased Company stock between November 26, 2003 and May 19, 2004. In April 2005, the case was transferred to federal district court in Austin, Texas, and in June the plaintiff amended her complaint, adding the Company's chairman of the board as a defendant. In July 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. STARWAY INC.: Recalls Sweetpotato Strips For Undeclared Sulfites ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starway Incorporated, located at 137 Grattan Street, Brooklyn, NY, 11237, is recalling Min Yue Foods Brand Sweetpotato Strip because the product contains undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening reactions if they consume this product. The recalled Min Yue Foods Brand Sweetpotato Strip, a product of China, is distributed in coded 6920824900390 and heat-sealed 16 oz. plastic bags. The product was distributed in New York State. The recall was initiated after routine sampling by NYS Dept. of Agriculture & Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Min Yue Foods Brand Sweetpotato Strip in packages which did not declare sulfites on the label. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. Consumers who have purchased the packages of Min Yue Foods Brand Sweetpotato Strip should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 718-417-1788. TENNESSEE GAS: KS Court Mulls Gas Royalties Suits Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- The District Court of Stevens County, Kansas has yet to rule on motions for class certification of two lawsuits filed against Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., a number of its affiliates and other natural gas companies. The first suit, styled "Will Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines and Their Predecessors, et al.," alleges that the defendants mismeasured natural gas volumes and heating content of natural gas on non-federal and non-Native American lands and seek to recover royalties that they contend they should have received had the volume and heating value of natural gas produced from their properties been differently measured, analyzed, calculated and reported, together with prejudgment and postjudgment interest, punitive damages, treble damages, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and future injunctive relief to require the defendants to adopt allegedly appropriate gas measurement practices. No monetary relief has been specified in this case. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of a nationwide class of natural gas working interest owners and natural gas royalty owners was denied in April 2003. Plaintiffs were granted leave to file a Fourth Amended Petition, which narrows the proposed class to royalty owners in wells in Kansas, Wyoming and Colorado and removes claims as to heating content. A second class action petition has since been filed as to the heating content claim. Motions for class certification have been briefed and argued in both proceedings, and the parties are awaiting the court's ruling. TENNESSEE GAS: Faces Two Hurricane Injury Lawsuits in E.D. LA ------------------------------------------------------------- Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. faces two class action petitions for damages filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, styled "George Barasich, et al. v. Columbia Gulf Transmission Company, et al." and "Charles Villa Jr., et al. v. Columbia Gulf Transmission Company, et al." The suits also name as defendants all oil and gas pipeline and production companies that dredged pipeline canals, installed transmission lines or drilled for oil and gas in the marshes of coastal Louisiana. The suits assert that the defendants caused erosion and land loss that destroyed critical protection against hurricane surges and winds and was a substantial cause of the loss of life and destruction of property. The first lawsuit alleges damages associated with Hurricane Katrina. The second lawsuit alleges damages associated with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Recalls 1,530 Vehicles For Injury Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- Volkswagen of America, Inc. in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 1,530 units of 2006 AUDI / A8, 2006 AUDI / A8 L, 2006 AUDI / A8 L W12 passenger vehicles due to injury hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V522000. According to the ODI, on certain passenger vehicles a wiring harness condition exists that may deactivate the passenger side frontal air bag even under circumstances when it should remain activated. If this condition occurs, both the air bag warning light in the instrument cluster and the "Passenger Air Bag Off" telltale in the center of the instrument panel will properly illuminate. Consequently, the passenger side frontal air bag would not deploy in the case on a frontal crash. As a remedy, dealers will modify the wiring harness. The recall is expected to begin on November 30, 2005. For more details, contact Audi, Phone: 1-800-822-2834 OR the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov. VOLVO CARS: Recalls 10,259 Various Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- Volvo Cars of North America, LLC in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 10,259 units of 2005 VOLVO / S80 and 2005 VOLVO / XC90 vehicles due to crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V529000. According to the ODI, on certain passenger and sports utility vehicles, due to an error in the factory assembly instruction, the B+TERMINAL may be in conflict with the starter motor solenoid. If this occurs, the conflict between the B+TERMINAL and the starter motor solenoid may develop into a short circuit of the battery cable to ground. Smoke may appear from under the hood and it may be impossible to start the car. If the short circuit happens during driving, electrical power could be lost resulting in the warning lamps being deactivated. An electrical short could result in a fire. As a remedy, dealers will inspect and increase distance between the B+TERMINAL and the starter motor solenoid by adjusting the terminal. The recall is expected to begin early December. For more details, contact Volvo, Phone: 1-800-458-1552 OR the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov. New Securities Fraud Cases BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in TX --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action on behalf 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. stock for 144 million common shares of Blockbuster, and on behalf of those who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Blockbuster in the open market between September 8, 2004 and August 9, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against defendant Blockbuster, Viacom, Inc., National Amusements, Inc. (Viacom's controlling shareholder) and certain of Viacom's and Blockbuster's officers and/or directors. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt St., Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com. GREAT WOLF: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in WI --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. (NASDAQ: WOLF) between December 14, 2004 and July 28, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period, and the statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt St., Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com. HELEN OF TROY: Charles J. Piven Lodges TX Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Helen of Troy, Ltd. (NASDAQ: HELE) between October 12, 2004 and October 10, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division, against defendant Helen of Troy, Ltd. and one or more of its officers. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt St., Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com. TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Suit in KY ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, initiated a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on behalf of purchasers of Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. ("Tempur-Pedic") (NYSE:TPX) publicly traded securities during the period between April 22, 2005 and September 19, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Tempur-Pedic and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Tempur-Pedic engages in the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of advanced visco-elastic products under the TEMPUR and Tempur-Pedic brands worldwide. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects. Then, on September 19, 2005, after defendants had sold $8.3 million worth of their own shares, Tempur-Pedic issued lower guidance for 2005, sending the Company's shares plummeting, falling 28% in one day, from $16.38 per share on September 19, 2005 to $11.70 on September 20, 2005. According to the complaint, defendants knew, but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, the following adverse material facts: (1) that Tempur-Pedic's market share in the visco-elastic market was declining, eliminating the Company's prospects for the 2005 growth defendants had projected; (2) that even by July 21, 2005, when the Company was publicly faced with the fact that increased competition was rumored to have already negatively hurt the Company's business, defendants reiterated positive guidance, despite clear signals that such guidance was even more unattainable than it was when it was first issued; (3) that the Company's strength vis-a-vis its retail channel and its visco-elastic product line was not expanding as defendants claimed; (4) that the Company's "worldwide leadership position" was not "continu(ing) to grow" as defendants repeatedly claimed; (5) that the Company was not on track to meet its goal of increasing sales in its retail channel by 30%-35%; (6) that the Company's offerings and marketing strategy were cannibalizing the Company's other products; and (7) that as a result of the above, the Company's FY 2005 projections of $880-$890 million in revenue and $1.10- $1.13 earnings per share were grossly overstated. For more details, contact William Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, Phone: 800-449-4900, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/tempur/. UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action on behalf of all those who purchased securities of Universal American Financial Corporation ("Universal American" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: UHCO) between February 16, 2005 and October 28, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendant Universal American and certain of its officers and/or directors. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt St., Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com. ********* 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 * * *