/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/051213.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, December 13, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 246
Headlines
AUGUST TECHNOLOGY: Continues To Face MN Suits V. Rudolph Merger
AUSTRIA: NY Court Ruling Paves Way For Survivors' Compensation
BUCA INC.: CA Court Mulls Approval for Overtime Suit Settlement
CHAPARRAL NETWORK: CA Court Mulls Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
CRITICAL PATH: NY Court Preliminary OKs Stock Lawsuit Settlement
DIGITAL RIVER: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suit Settlement
DISCOVER BANK: Court Rules Bank Can Skirt CA Law on Arbitration
DOW CHEMICAL: MI Court to Hear Dioxin Pollution Suit Appeal
FLORIDA: More Title Insurance Companies Enter Into Settlements
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Faces U.K. Suit Over Seroxat's Side Effects
GLOBAL CROSSING: Reaches Preliminary Settlement For NY Lawsuit
HAWAII: Plantation Lawsuit Still Accepting Moloka'i Claimants
HYPERCOM CORPORATION: Asks AZ Court To Dismiss Securities Suits
ILLINOIS: County Judge Says Democrats, Lawyers Behind Conspiracy
IPASS INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
LEXAR MEDIA: CA Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissal Deemed Final
LIBERTY MEDICAL: FL Judge Grants Certification to Overtime Suit
LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Settlement
LOUDEYE CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 2006 in NY
MANNATECH INC.: Parties Request Securities Suits' Consolidation
NETFLIX INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
NETFLIX INC.: Reaches Settlement For Consumers Fraud Suit in CA
NEW VALLEY: Shareholders File FL, DE Lawsuits V. Vector Merger
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Suit By Jobless Avondale Mills Workers
OREGON STATE: Group Sues Over Hospital Assaults, Overcrowding
PDI INC.: To Ask NJ Court To Dismiss Amended Securities Lawsuit
PDI INC.: Current, Former Employees File Labor Suit in CA Court
POZEN INC.: NC Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SAKS INC.: Clothing Vendors File Suit For Markdowns, Overcharges
SALEM COMMUNICATIONS: Forges Settlement for CA Securities Suit
SOLUTIA INC.: Flexsys Continues to Face Rubber Antitrust Suits
SOLUTIA INC.: Employee Pension Plan Faces ERISA Suit in S.D. IL
SOLUTIA INC.: Faces Rubber Chemical Antitrust Lawsuits in Canada
SOLUTIA INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended ERISA Lawsuit in S.D. NY
TENNESSEE: County Ready to Settle Lawsuit Over Jail Conditions
TCI INVESTMENT: Southwestern Ontario Investors Launch $785M Suit
WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Consolidated Lawsuit in W.D. WA
WORKERS TEMPORARY: Appeal Planned in Day Laborer's Case in FL
New Securities Fraud Cases
EVCI CAREER: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
EVCI CAREER: Roy Jacobs Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
EVCI CAREER: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
EVCI CAREER: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NY
FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in FL
STONE ENERGY: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in FL
WELLS FARGO: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
*********
AUGUST TECHNOLOGY: Continues To Face MN Suits V. Rudolph Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
August Technology Corporation faces a class action filed in
Minnesota Superior Court, opposing its proposed merger with
Nanometrics Inc. and Rudolph Technologies, Inc. The suits also
name each of the Company's board of directors as defendants:
(1) Jeff O'Dell,
(2) James Bernards,
(3) Roger Gower,
(4) Michael Wright and
(5) Linda Hall Whitman
Two separate lawsuits that purported to be class action claims
were initially filed on February 4, 2005 and February 14,2005 on
behalf of the Company's shareholders. Both lawsuits were
brought in Minnesota State Court and claimed that the directors
had breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
shareholders in connection with their actions in agreeing to the
proposed merger with Nanometrics Incorporated. The plaintiffs
in both actions sought various forms of injunctive relief
including an order enjoining the Company and its board of
directors from consummating the merger with Nanometrics.
The two proceedings were consolidated and heard as one case. On
April 19, 2005, the Court issued a 30-day stay of all
proceedings. On April 27, 2005, the plaintiffs scheduled a
hearing on a motion to amend the complaint. The hearing was
scheduled for June 9, 2005. On May 10, 2005 the Court issued an
order dismissing the complaint for asserting derivative claims
without complying with the rules governing derivative actions.
Thereafter the Court removed the hearing from the calendar.
On July 18, 2005, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
asserting derivative claims was filed in Minnesota state court
against the Company and the individual members of the board
named above as well as Lynn J. Davis, who joined the board on
March 30, 2005 (the "Board"). The lawsuit claims the directors
have breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
shareholders in connection with their actions in approving the
merger agreement with Nanometrics, Inc. and subsequently
terminating that merger agreement and entering into a new merger
agreement with Rudolph Technologies, Inc. The plaintiff seeks
various forms of injunctive relief including an order enjoining
the Company and the Board from consummating the proposed merger
with Rudolph.
The plaintiff in the lawsuit filed on July 18, 2005 is Robert
Etem, the owner of 4,200 shares of the Company's common stock.
Mr. Etem was also a plaintiff in the lawsuit described above
filed on February 14, 2005.
AUSTRIA: NY Court Ruling Paves Way For Survivors' Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling by the U.S. District Court in New York paved the way
for final compensation payments to Holocaust survivors from
Austria, The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports.
The December 7, 2005, decision essentially dismisses class
action lawsuits against Austrian businesses. It was greeted with
relief by survivor organizations and the Conference on Jewish
Material Claims Against Germany, parties to a settlement
negotiated with the Austrian government.
Gideon Taylor, Claims Conference executive vice president told
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency that the resulting legal closure
means payments are imminent. Neither the Austrian government nor
businesses would agree to payments without insurance against
future lawsuits.
Mr. Taylor further told The Jewish Telegraphic Agency in a
telephone interview, "This fund has been tied up in legal knots
in courts in the U.S., and this had deprived many Austrian
Holocaust survivors and their heirs of the symbolic payments."
He emphasizes though, "like most restitution payments, this is
not an issue of money." Mr. Taylor also pointed out, "The
amounts are small, but the property losses were large. This is
about symbolism. People are frustrated that what was supposed to
be a symbolic gesture turned into a legal argument."
All in all, Austrian restitution funds totaled about $500
million. However, the component from the $210 million General
Settlement Fund (GSF) for Austrian Jews created in January 2001
through negotiations with the Claims Conference was held up
until December 7. By that date, Judge Shirley Wohl Kram of the
Southern District of New York dismissed the cases brought
against the government and industry of Austria by some Jews of
Austrian background, and by some heirs.
Judge Kram threw out the suits after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals, which had dismissed remaining Holocaust-related
lawsuits against Austria, ordered her on November 23 to resolve
the cases within 60 days. The Appeals Court called GSF a
preferable method of ensuring payments to victims of Nazism.
In a 2-1 ruling, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New
York dismissed parts of a class action lawsuit by Austrian
Jewish victims of the Nazi regime in a ruling that may clear the
way for payouts from a settlement fund. Deferring to U.S.
foreign policy interests, the federal appeals court stated in
its ruling that it was "particularly mindful" of the federal
government's statement that dismissing the case would advance
its relations with Austria, Israel and Western, Central and
Eastern European nations. According to the court, the lawsuit
was the final case holding up implementation of an agreement
with Austria that established a fund to compensate Austrian Jews
whose property was confiscated during the Nazi era and World War
II. Essentially, distributions from the Austrian compensation
fund, which included $150 million to cover certain property
claims, were contingent on dismissal of the case, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (November 24, 2005) reports.
The plaintiffs in the case, which include present and former
nationals of Austria and their heirs and successors who suffered
from Nazi persecution between 1938 and 1945, brought the lawsuit
in October 2000 against the Republic of Austria and an
organization through which Austria owns, operates and controls
commercial enterprises. Austria asked for dismissal of the
lawsuit on the grounds of sovereign immunity, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (November 24, 2005) reports.
That lawsuit was the final case holding up implementation of an
agreement with Austria that established a fund to compensate
Austrian Jews whose property was confiscated during the Nazi era
and World War II, according to the appeals court. Distributions
from the Austrian compensation fund, which included $150 million
to cover certain property claims, were contingent on dismissal
of the case, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November
28, 2005) reports.
"We look upon this with great favor," Henry Wegner, a survivor
from Austria who in 1966 co-founded the American Council for
Equal Compensation of Nazi Victims from Austria told The Jewish
Telegraphic Agency of the recent ruling. Previously, the
organization submitted a decisive amicus brief in the case,
which was quoted in the judge's opinion. That brief urged the
court to "take affirmative action to ensure that compensation is
paid to Holocaust survivors during their lifetimes."
Additionally, Mr. Wegner's group was also party to negotiations
with the Austrian government, together with Israeli survivors,
the Claims Conference, the Austrian National Fund and attorney
Stuart Eisenstadt, who had also handled compensation
negotiations on behalf of the Clinton administration. Mr. Wegner
told The Jewish Telegraphic Agency that he had faced resistance
from some Jews in Austria who wanted to press ahead with their
lawsuits brought in American courts.
However, Ariel Musikant, head of the Jewish Community of
Austria, told The Jewish Telegraphic Agency that he was
delighted by the dismissal of the suits and expected "people may
get their first payments on December 16th." He also told The
Jewish Telegraphic Agency that he had convinced "26 plaintiffs
to consent to withdraw their claims and there is just one left.
And the one guy is suing everybody now."
Though he did not identify the remaining claimant, Mr. Musikant
did point out that the court action on November 23 and December
7, "means people will finally get their money. We never expected
it to go so fast."
It was not fast enough for many claimants. In some cases, heirs
will be the beneficiaries, according to Hannah Lessing, director
of the Austrian National Fund, which will distribute the
payments out of the GSF. Ms. Lessing told The Jewish Telegraphic
Agency that of the 30,000 claimants who filed for compensation,
only 15,000 are still living. The fund tries to reach the oldest
claimants first, she adds. In all, there are some 19,000 valid
claims.
"Everybody who handed in a claim and has been" approved "will
receive a letter" asking them to sign a waiver, according to
which they will now receive 10 percent of the amount they
claimed. Those who agree will likely later receive an additional
payment from funds that remain after the initial distribution.
The other option is to reject the waiver and hope that the
remaining funds will be sufficient to provide a compensation of
more than 10 percent, according to Ms. Lessing.
The GSF funds amount to symbolic compensation for stolen assets,
including real estate, liquidated businesses, bank accounts,
securities, mortgages, insurance policies, personal effects, and
the loss of education and jobs.
According to Ms. Lessing, three homes were already returned to
their former owners or heirs. Two previous components of the
negotiated agreement with Austria $150 million from the Austrian
National Fund and payments for pensions and nursing care have
been implemented.
Mr. Wegner, who survived several concentration camps and lost
most of his family in the Holocaust, told The Jewish Telegraphic
Agency that he now has written a letter thanking Andreas Kohl,
President of Austria's Parliament, for endorsing the legal
closure and urging him to see that payments go out quickly.
Ms. Lessing, whose father fled Nazi Austria for Palestine, told
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency though that, "Nothing will ever be
fair. Whatever we do will always be a little piece of a puzzle."
In 2002, Austrian officials signed an agreement with Mr.
Muzicant, the leader of Austria's Jews to compensate his
community for property stolen and destroyed during Nazi rule.
Under the deal, reached after months of negotiations, Austria's
nine provinces are to pay a total of $17 million (18.2 million
euros) in five yearly installments to the Jewish community, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 17, 2002) reports.
The federal government already has come to terms with Austrian
Jews and their survivors on compensation. After signing the deal
at a meeting of governors in the Upper Austria city of Gmunden,
some 110 miles west of Vienna, Josef Puehringer, the governor of
Upper Austria, said the deal settled an obligation to the
country's Jews. We "have fulfilled our moral obligations,"
according to Mr. Puehringer. "With this agreement, an important
chapter has been closed." Local leaders also said that the first
installment would be paid only after two wartime-related class
actions pending in the United States against the Austrian
government are withdrawn, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(July 17, 2002) reports.
BUCA INC.: CA Court Mulls Approval for Overtime Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court in California has yet to
approve the settlement for the employee class action filed
against Buca, Inc.
Two of the Company's former hourly employees initially filed the
suit in March 2004 in the Orange County Superior Court, State of
California. The action was later transferred to the Los Angeles
Court. The complaint alleges causes of action for failure to
pay wages/overtime, failure to allow meal breaks, failure to
allow rest breaks, failure to pay reporting time pay, violation
of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, and
certain statutory damages and penalties.
Mediation occurred in February 2005, at which time the parties
reached a tentative settlement. The settlement has not yet been
approved by the court. The proposed settlement structure is
expected to result in a liability which the Company currently
estimate to be between $1.5 and $2.0 million. The actual amount
under the proposed settlement structure will be dependent on how
many members of the putative class file timely claims, assuming
judicial approval.
CHAPARRAL NETWORK: CA Court Mulls Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California has yet to rule on Chaparral Network Storage, Inc.'s
(now acquired by Dot Hill Systems Corporation) motion to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its former officers and directors.
The lawsuit, among other things, alleges violations of federal
securities laws and purports to seek damages on behalf of a
class of shareholders who purchased Chaparral securities during
a defined period prior to Dot Hill's acquisition of Chaparral.
In May 2005, the Second Amended Complaint was dismissed with
leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint,
which the Company and other defendants are again moving
to dismiss. Those motions are set for hearing on November 7,
2005.
The suit is styled "in re Robert T Harvey Securities Litigation,
8:04-cv-00876-DOC-PJW," filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, under Judge David
O. Carter. Representing the Company is Eric H. Macmichael and
Meghan Oryan Spieker of Cooley Godward, 4401 Eastgate Mall, San
Diego, CA 92121, Phone: 858-550-6000, E-mail:
mspieker@cooley.com. Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Brian Barry, Jill Levine Betts of Brian Barry Law
Offices, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 307, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-788-0831, E-mail:
bribarry1@yahoo.com or jilllevine1@yahoo.com;
(2) Kenneth J. Catanzarite and Jim T. Tice, Catanzarite Law
Offices, 2331 W Lincoln Ave, Anaheim, CA 92801, Phone:
714-520-5544, E-mail: kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com or
jtice@catanzarite.com;
(3) Laurence M. Rosen, Rosen Law Firm, 350 Fifth Avenue,
Suite 5508, New York, NY 10118, Phone: 212-686-1060, E-
mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or jtice@catanzarite.com
CRITICAL PATH: NY Court Preliminary OKs Stock Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the consolidated
securities class action filed against Critical Path, Inc.,
certain of its former officers and directors and underwriters
connected with its initial public offering (IPO) of common
stock.
The purported class action complaints were filed by individuals
who allege that they purchased the Company's common stock at the
initial and secondary public offerings between March 29, 1999
and December 6, 2000. The complaints allege generally that the
prospectus under which such securities were sold contained false
and misleading statements with respect to discounts and excess
commissions received by the underwriters as well as allegations
of "laddering" whereby underwriters required their customers to
purchase additional shares in the aftermarket in exchange for an
allocation of IPO shares. The complaints seek an unspecified
amount in damages on behalf of persons who purchased our common
stock during the specified period.
Similar complaints have been filed against 55 underwriters and
more than 300 other companies and other individuals. The over
1,000 complaints have been consolidated into a single action. We
have reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to
resolve the cases. The proposed settlement involves no monetary
payment by the Company and no admission of liability.
Various plaintiffs filed similar actions asserting virtually
identical allegations against more than 40 investment banks and
250 other companies. All of these "IPO allocation" Securities
class actions currently pending in the Southern District of New
York are assigned to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin for coordinated
pretrial proceedings. The issuer defendants in the coordinated
proceedings, including the Company, filed omnibus motions to
dismiss the actions. In October 2002, the Company's directors
and officers were dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a
tolling agreement. In February 2003, the court issued a ruling
denying the motion to dismiss with respect to the claims against
the Company.
In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement, for the release of
claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company, in
exchange for a contingent payment to be made by the issuer
defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of certain
claims, was submitted to the Court for approval. Pursuant to
the Plan, the plaintiffs in the IPO Class Action received in
connection with their claims the assignment of any insurance
proceeds that the Company receives in connection with the
litigation, but otherwise the claims of the plaintiffs against
it or any of its other assets have been discharged as part of
the Plan. In February 2005, further to plaintiffs' motion, the
Court granted preliminary approval for a proposed settlement of
the IPO Class Action. The settlement is subject to certain final
determinations and a fairness hearing.
The suit is styled "IN RE CRITICAL PATH, INC. INITIAL PUBLIC
OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION," filed in relation to "IN RE
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
N. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
(2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300
(3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala
Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax:
610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com
(5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
(6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
DIGITAL RIVER: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Digital
River, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors, styled
"In re Digital River, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-7355."
Similar complaints, referred to here as the IPO Lawsuits, were
filed in the same court against hundreds of other public
companies, referred to here as the Issuers. In the consolidated
amended complaint against the Company, the plaintiffs allege
that the defendants and the underwriters of its initial public
offering, or IPO, violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933 based on allegations that the Company's IPO registration
statement and prospectus failed to disclose material facts
regarding the compensation to be received by, and the stock
allocation practices of, the IPO underwriters. The complaint
also contains a claim for violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that this
omission constituted a deceit on investors. The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
In July 2002, the Company joined in a global motion to dismiss
the IPO Lawsuits filed by all of the Issuers (among others). In
October 2002, the parties agreed to toll the statute of
limitations with respect to certain of the named officers and
directors until September 30, 2003 and on the basis of this
agreement, the Company's officers and directors were dismissed
from the lawsuit without prejudice. In February 2003, the court
issued a decision denying the motion to dismiss the Section 11
claims against the Company and almost all of the other Issuers
and denying the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claims
against the Company and many of the Issuers.
During the summer of 2003, the Company, along with a substantial
majority of Issuers, indirectly participated in discussions with
the plaintiffs and the Issuers' respective insurers regarding a
tentative settlement of the IPO Lawsuits. The terms of the
tentative settlement would provide for, among other things, a
release of the Issuers and their officers and directors from all
further liability resulting from plaintiffs' claims, and the
assignment to plaintiffs of certain potential claims that the
Issuers may have against their IPO underwriters. The tentative
settlement also provides that, in the event that plaintiffs
ultimately recover less than a guaranteed sum of $1 billion from
the IPO underwriters, plaintiffs would be entitled to payment by
each participating Issuer's insurer of a pro rata share of any
shortfall in the plaintiffs' guaranteed recovery.
In June 2003, pursuant to the authorization of a special
litigation committee of the Company's board of directors, the
Company entered into a non-binding memorandum of understanding
reflecting the settlement terms described above. In September
2003, in connection with the possible settlement, its officers
and directors who had entered tolling agreements with plaintiffs
(described above) agreed to extend those agreements so that they
would not expire prior to any settlement being finalized. In
June 2004, the Company executed a final settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs consistent with the terms of the memorandum
of understanding. On February 15, 2005, the Court issued a
decision certifying a class action for settlement purposes and
granting preliminary approval of the settlement, subject to
modification of certain bar orders contemplated by the
settlement. In addition, the settlement is still subject to
statutory notice requirements as well as final judicial
approval. On August 31, 2005, the Court reaffirmed class
certification and preliminary approval of the modified
settlement in a comprehensive Order. In addition, the Court
approved the form of Notice to be sent to members of the
settlement classes, which will be published and mailed beginning
November 15, 2005. The Court has scheduled a Final Settlement
Fairness Hearing for April 24, 2006. The settlement is still
subject to statutory notice requirements as well as final
judicial approval.
The suit is styled "In re Digital River, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-7355," related to
"In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
(2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300,
(3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com
(5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
(6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
DISCOVER BANK: Court Rules Bank Can Skirt CA Law on Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles, California
ruled that Morgan Stanley's Discover Bank unit could require
customers to arbitrate disputes, bypassing a California law that
prohibits credit card contracts that bar some customer lawsuits,
The Bloomberg News reports.
The court ruling came in a nationwide class action lawsuit on
behalf of as many as 25 million customers who say they were
charged late fees when they paid their bills on time. According
to the court, although California banned class action waivers,
the laws of Discover's home state of Delaware applied.
Additionally, the court ruled that the cardholders in the case
must resolve their disputes with Discover "on an individual
basis" through arbitration as specified in Discover's credit
card holder agreement. In essence, the cardholders can't sue as
a group, which would have given them leverage for a settlement.
The court pointed out, "Delaware's interest is demonstrably
greater than California's. Delaware is home to the sole
defendant, not just home to some portion of the putative class."
DOW CHEMICAL: MI Court to Hear Dioxin Pollution Suit Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Michigan Court of Appeals will decide whether residents
along the Tittabawassee River may mount a class action lawsuit
against Dow Chemical Co. over dioxin pollution, The Saginaw News
reports.
The Court of Appeals recently announced that it would hear Dow's
claim that Saginaw County Chief Circuit Judge Leopold P.
Borrello wrongly allowed 2,000 property owners to sue the
company as a class. The chemical giant argues that the court
cannot lump every riverside resident, each with different dioxin
levels and property uses, into a single group to decide the
case.
Dow spokesman Scot Wheeler told The Saginaw News, "The decision
to certify a class was mistaken because the individual issues
presented in the plaintiffs' claims cannot possibly be proven on
a class-wide basis. The individual issues at hand outweigh any
common issues."
Until those arguments are heard, the Court of Appeals has also
put a stop to all local litigation. Dow officials praised the
court's decision, saying this is the second time a higher court
has agreed to hear a company appeal. The state Supreme Court
granted the first appeal in spring 2004, when Dow argued that
residents could not sue for ongoing medical testing to diagnose
dioxin-related maladies. The court eventually sided with Dow.
Bruce Trogan, an attorney representing property owners, told The
Saginaw News that the Court of Appeals probably wouldn't hear
the case until spring. By then, the lawsuit will reach its
three-year mark. He also told The Saginaw News, "(My clients)
have been waiting for an awfully long time to get this off the
ground. Now they have to wait indefinitely for the next stage of
the case to proceed."
Dow attorneys have 56 days to submit their arguments to the
Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs will then have 35 days to
respond. Once the response is filed, Dow will have a 21-day
window to submit any counter arguments. The process will take
the parties to the end of March. The Court of Appeals then must
schedule a time for oral arguments.
In a sharply worded appeal, Dow Chemical Co. called on the
Michigan Court of Appeals to reverse the ruling of Judge
Borrello. Dow attorneys argued, "This court should not condone
the sort of drive-by certification which occurred here. If the
superficial approach used by the trial court was the acceptable
standard for certification, Michigan would become a magnet for
the very type of sprawling mass-tort class actions that are
being overwhelmingly rejected by courts elsewhere," an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (November 17, 2005) reports.
Dow's appeal stems from an October 21, 2005 decision in which
Judge Borrello ruled, after two days of oral arguments that
residents claiming property damage because of historic dioxin
releases from Dow Chemical Co. could proceed with a class action
lawsuit. Kathy Henry along with her husband filed that lawsuit
in March 2003 after the state uncovered contamination along the
Tittabawassee River, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(November 7, 2005) reports.
The decision, which is only the second time in the last 20 years
that a Saginaw County judge has certified a class action
lawsuit, expands the case from 160-plus named plaintiffs to
about 2,000 property owners who live within the flood plain of
the Tittabawassee. Under state law, residents are included in
the lawsuit unless they opt out, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (November 7, 2005) reports.
In his ruling Judge Borrello stated that the suit is best
handled on a group basis. He also said, "To deny a class action
in this case and allow the plaintiffs to pursue individual
claims would result in up to 2,000 individual claims being filed
in this court. Such a result would impede the convenient
administration of justice," an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (November 7, 2005) reports.
FLORIDA: More Title Insurance Companies Enter Into Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Wites & Kapetan, P.A., reports on the settlement
of three class actions pending against Lawyers Title Insurance
Corporation, American Pioneer Title Insurance Corporation (now
known as Ticor Title Insurance Company of Florida) and Fidelity
National Title Insurance Corporation.
These companies joined Florida's largest title insurer,
Attorneys & Title Insurance Fund, Inc., (known as "The Fund") in
settling actions alleging that the insurers overcharged persons
that pay the premiums for title insurance in Florida.
The lawsuits focus on title insurance premiums charged to
borrowers in mortgage refinancing transactions. In such
transactions, the borrower is required to pay a title insurance
company a premium for a title insurance policy that the insurer
then issues to the lender. That policy is known as a Lender's
Policy, and insures the lender, not the borrower. The lawsuits
alleged that title insurance companies overcharged borrowers for
such premiums by failing to charge them a discounted premium as
required by Florida law, known as the Reissue Rate. The
plaintiffs also alleged that the insurers failed to charge the
Reissue Rate in other circumstances where the law so required.
In settling the lawsuits, the three insurers to most recently
settle, established settlement funds, ranging from $824,536 to
$1,400,000, to pay the claims of class members, and agreed to
institute wide-ranging changes to their business practices.
These changes were an industry first when made a part of The
Fund settlement, and Lawyers Title, Ticor and Fidelity agreed to
implement the same changes. The insurers now agree that charging
Reissue Rates is mandatory and that virtually all Florida
residents are eligible for such rates. The insurers will now:
(1) communicate to and enforce this policy among its
agents,
(2) include these changes in all future training, policy
and procedure manuals,
(3) require their agents to disclose the availability of
the discount to consumers, and
(4) audit their agents to ensure compliance. All of the
changes are new for these insurers, and are the result
of the settlements.
Included in the classes are persons that paid a title insurance
premium to Lawyers Title, Ticor/American Pioneer, and Fidelity
from 1999 to 2005 (the exact dates within each year vary with
each settlement) that should have been, but were not, charged a
premium based on the Reissue Rate in connection with
(i) a mortgage refinancing;
(ii) the purchase of unimproved land; and/or
(iii) the purchase of a property from a seller that purchased
and resold that property within three years.
Class members will soon receive notice of the settlement through
direct mail and publication in newspapers throughout the state.
A settlement website,
http://www.floridatitleinsurancesettlement.com,is already live
for The Fund and Lawyers Title settlements and will soon be
expanded to include the Ticor and Fidelity settlements.
For more details, contact Marc A. Wites of Wites & Kapetan,
P.A., Phone: 1-866-277-8631 or 954-570-8989, E-mail:
mwites@wklawyers.com, Web site: http://www.wklawyers.com.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Faces U.K. Suit Over Seroxat's Side Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------
GlaxoSmithKline Plc faces a 1,500-strong class action suit in
the United Kingdom early next year over its anti-depressant
Seroxat, The Business newspaper reports.
The newspaper quoted Mark Harvey, a partner at Cardiff solicitor
Hugh James, as saying that he would launch the suit next spring.
Mr. Harvey though was unavailable for further comment regarding
the matter. A spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline told Reuters, "We
do not accept the allegations in the potential class action and
will address the issues raised if litigation is pursued."
The 1,500 litigants will claim they were not warned that the
drug, prescribed for depression, could lead to addiction,
according to the newspaper. In addition, they will also allege
that it caused aggression and in some cases suicidal thoughts,
the newspaper adds. In the United States, the drug is known as
Paxil.
Earlier this year, the European Medicines Agency reaffirmed the
positive benefit-risk for Paxil in the treatment of adult
anxiety and depression. However, last August, GlaxoSmithKline
Plc slammed a study from scientists in Norway suggesting Paxil
was linked to an increased suicide risk in adults, arguing that
the research was flawed and misleading.
GLOBAL CROSSING: Reaches Preliminary Settlement For NY Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Global Crossing Ltd. reached a preliminary settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York
Following the Company's April 27, 2004 announcement that it
expected to restate certain of its consolidated financial
statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2003, eight
separate class action lawsuits all purporting to be brought on
behalf of Company shareholders were commenced against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors in the United
States District Courts in New Jersey, New York and California.
The cases were consolidated and transferred by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to Judge Gerald Lynch of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
On February 18, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated class action complaint against the Company and two
of its past and present officers. The consolidated amended
complaint, which was filed on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased or acquired the Company's common stock between
December 9, 2003 and April 26, 2004, asserts claims under the
federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs contend that
the Company's misstatements or omissions artificially inflated
the price of the Company's stock, which declined when the
"true" costs were disclosed. Plaintiffs seek compensatory
damages as well as other relief.
Counsel for the Company and the lead plaintiffs have agreed in
principle on behalf of their clients to settle the litigation
under the terms of a proposed settlement agreement. The proposed
settlement agreement contemplates the creation of a settlement
fund by the company, subject to reimbursement in full by the
Company's directors and officers liability insurance carrier.
The Company may also seek reimbursement of legal costs from the
insurance carrier to the extent such costs exceed a $0.5
deductible. The proposed settlement agreement remains subject to
final negotiation and court approval.
HAWAII: Plantation Lawsuit Still Accepting Moloka'i Claimants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Scott Hendler and his legal team will be returning to
Moloka'i, Hawaii in the coming months to handle claims of
residents who wish to take part in a class action lawsuit
against former pineapple plantation owners Del-Monte, Libby and
Dole for the health effects resulting from the use of their
insecticides, The Molokai Island Times reports.
Mr. Hendler told The Molokai Island Times, "It will take time
because it's a long process," but he urged Moloka'i people not
to give up their hope. He also told The Molokai Island Times
that he's trying to do what he can for the people of Moloka'i.
He adds, that he would appreciate anyone with pictures or
medical records or any other type of account to call his help
line at 1-800-443-6353.
Betty Lou Alfonso-Ignacio, who started the case against the
plantations to "achieve justice for her deceased father," told
The Molokai Island Times that she would not be discouraged. She
added, "I'm not going to give up on this. I met a girl who had
only knobs on her hands, I met some people at the airport who
said that their baby had cancer, I really hope the people
continue to come out and talk to me."
HYPERCOM CORPORATION: Asks AZ Court To Dismiss Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hypercom Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the District of Arizona to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action filed against it, its former Chief Executive
Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer.
Several shareholder class action lawsuits were initially filed
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during the
period from April 30, 2004 to February & 3, 2005, alleging
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These
lawsuits are based on the Company's February 2005 announcement
that certain leases originated in the United Kingdom had been
incorrectly accounted for as sales-type leases, rather than
operating leases, and that the Company would restate its
financial statements for the first three quarters of 2004. The
lawsuits seek damages against the defendants in an unspecified
amount.
The Court consolidated the shareholder class actions and a
consolidated amended class action complaint was filed in August
2005. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action in
September 2005 that is scheduled for oral argument in January
2006.
The suit is styled "Verve LLC v. Hypercom Corporation, et al.,
case no. 2:05-cv-00365-FJM," filed in the United States District
Court in Arizona, under Judge Frederick J. Martone.
Representing the Company are Andrew Foster Halaby, Sid Leach,
Monica Anne Limon-Wynn of Snell & Wilmer, 1 Arizona Ctr, 400 E
Van Buren, Phoenix, AZ 85004-0001, Phone: 602-382-6000, Fax:
602382-6070, e-mail: ahalaby@swlaw.com, sleach@swlaw.com,
mlimon-wynn@swlaw.com. Representing the plaintiffs are Gregory
S. Donahue and Christopher S. Walton, Simon Galasso & Frantz
PLC, 6300 Bridgepoint Bldg 1, Ste 410A, Austin, TX 78730, phone:
512-231-1311, Fax: 512-231-1411.
ILLINOIS: County Judge Says Democrats, Lawyers Behind Conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge George Moran, Jr. claims that trial
lawyers who lost in his courtroom are conspiring with the
county's Democratic party to force him off the bench, The St.
Louis Post-Dispatch reports.
According to Judge Moran, someone from the party told him last
month of a plan to scuttle his bid for retention to a six-year
term in next year's election. He told The St. Louis Post-
Dispatch that the party member, whom he refused to identify,
said the plan would involve publicly accusing the judge of
shirking work to take Spanish classes and belittling him over
his profile on a dating Web site. On the site, Judge Moran is
pictured in judicial robes and as indicating a preference for
"skinny dipping" and "erotica."
"They came here trying to scare me, but I'm not going to be
intimidated by cheap shots," said Judge Moran, 57, a Democrat
and county judge since 1977. "If the worst they can come up with
about me after 28 years is that I have an Internet dating site,
that I like women and I took some Spanish, I think voters are
smart enough not to pay attention to that."
But one prominent court official told The St. Louis Post-
Dispatch that the judge's Web site embarrassed his fellow judges
and the Democratic party. The official, a Democrat who declined
to be identified said, "A judge with a photo on a dating Web
site showing him in his judicial robes is weird, to say the
least. A lot of people think this is going to make him an easy
target if he runs for retention next year."
As a son of a former state appellate judge and personal injury
attorney, Judge Moran's judicial career has followed the classic
Madison County trajectory that favors Democratic trial lawyers
and their sons and daughters. Now, the system that created him
has apparently turned on him.
Judge Moran, of Pontoon Beach, declined to identify the people
who he says are involved in the campaign against him, other than
to say they were "the big contributors to the Democratic party -
the trial lawyers." He told The St. Louis Post-Dispatch that
powerful plaintiffs firms were seeking his removal because he
had dismissed and transferred some of their class-action suits.
Since June, Judge Moran has thrown out cases brought by the
Lakin Law Firm in Wood River, the St. Louis firm of
KoreinTillery and the Edwardsville firm of Goldenberg, Miller,
Heller and Antognoli.
Attorney Mark Goldenberg, 56, of Granite City told The St. Louis
Post-Dispatch that he knew of no campaign to force Judge Moran
off the bench. He adds, "We like to win, but nobody wins all
their cases. We certainly have not done anything at all to take
the position that Judge Moran should not run for retention."
For his part, Mr. Lakin told The St. Louis Post-Dispatch that
his firm "has not currently taken a position on Judge Moran's
retention race one way or another, but we've always supported
him in the past."
Representatives from the KoreinTillery firm did not return phone
calls seeking comment. Madison County Democratic Party Chairman
Mac Warfield also could not be reached for comment.
Madison County Circuit Clerk Matt Melucci, the Democratic
party's secretary, told The St. Louis Post-Dispatch that he was
unaware of any intimidation tactics. "I've never heard that,"
according to him.
The high-ranking court official told The St. Louis Post-Dispatch
that the party tried last month to persuade Judge Moran to
remain on the bench until his term ends in November 2006 then
retire. As a reward, according to the official, Judge Moran was
promised a job with a plaintiff's firm.
Judge Moran is one of four circuit judges in the 3rd Circuit,
which includes Madison and Bond counties, who are up for
retention in November. The others are Ann Callis, Charles Romani
and John Knight.
"The judges are worried that bad publicity will convince people
to vote against Moran, and once you get people voting no against
one judge, they'll vote no against the rest and drag all three
down," the unidentified official told The St. Louis Post-
Dispatch.
When the Madison County Democratic Party handed out its
endorsements on October 25, it gave nods to Judge Callis, Judge
Romani and Judge Knight.
An endorsement carries some prestige and also guarantees that a
candidate's name will appear on 25,000 sample ballots that
Democratic committeemen will distribute door-to-door. Candidates
must ask for an endorsement to be eligible for one. Judge Moran
told The St. Louis Post-Dispatch that he did not seek and did
not need his party's support, noting that he had won retention
three times, once without an endorsement.
Judge Moran also told The St. Louis Post-Dispatch that he joined
the Match.com dating service two years ago, after his third
divorce. The site shows Moran in his judicial robes, circa 1977,
the year he became an associate judge. (He was appointed a
circuit judge in 1980.) Among his biographical descriptions,
Judge Moran states, "I am a sitting circuit judge in Madison
County, Illinois," and "I am slender, well-groomed and look like
my picture." He lists among his "turn-ons" erotica, skinny
dipping, flirting, power, money, dancing and long hair. His
"turn-offs" are body piercings, sarcasm and tattoos, according
to the Web site.
Speaking in his chambers last week, Judge Moran said he had
landed numerous dates through the Internet. According to him,
"I've had some good luck with that site. I've met some beautiful
women. I dated a former Miss Alabama."
He acknowledged taking Spanish courses, but insisted that they
were night classes and that he never skipped work to attend
them. He said that he took the classes "because there are pretty
women there. What's wrong with that?"
Judge Moran told The St. Louis Post-Dispatch that he had asked
authorities to investigate the alleged intimidation campaign
against him. He explains, "What they did might be a crime. You
can't falsify information to remove a judge. You're not allowed
to intimidate a judge, either."
IPASS INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
iPass, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Norhtern District of California to dismiss a consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers and directors.
On January 14, 2005, a lawsuit entitled "Palumbo v. iPass, Inc.,
et al., Case No. C 05 228 MHP" was filed purportedly on behalf
of a class of investors who purchased iPass stock between April
22, 2004 and June 30, 2004, against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors. The complaint alleges that in April
2004 the defendants made misleading statements concerning the
Company's projected revenues for the quarter ending June 30,
2004, and sets forth claims against the defendants under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 and seeks monetary damages to be proven at trial. Several
similar lawsuits were subsequently filed in the same court, and
all of the suits have since been consolidated into a single
action.
On April 22, 2005, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff
on July 5, 2005. All defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
September 2, 2005. The motion is set for hearing in December
2005. This matter is at an early stage; no response to the
complaint has been filed, no discovery has taken place and no
trial date has been set.
The suit is styled "Palumbo v. iPass, Inc. et al., case no.
3:05-cv-00228-MHP," filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, under Judge Marilyn H.
Patel. Representing the plaintiffs are Elizabeth P. Lin,
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, 355 South Grand Ave.,
Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213/617-1200, Fax:
(213) 617-1975, E-mail: elin@milbergweiss.com. Representing the
Company is William S. Freeman, Cooley Godward LLP, Five Palo
Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 9406-2155,
Phone: 650 843-5000, Fax: 650 857-0663, E-mail:
freemanws@cooley.com.
LEXAR MEDIA: CA Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissal Deemed Final
---------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Lexar Media, Inc., its chief executive officer and its
chief financial officer in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California is deemed final, after
plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint.
On May 21, 2004, the Company, along with our Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer, were named as defendants in
a federal class action in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California. That action was brought
allegedly on behalf of a class of plaintiffs who purchased its
common stock, and asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, based principally on allegations that the Company
made misrepresentations regarding its business.
Six similar class actions have since been filed in the Northern
District of California. The Court has appointed a lead
plaintiff and ordered that those actions be consolidated. In
October 2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint,
on behalf of those who purchased the Company's stock between
October 16, 2003 and April 16, 2004. In January 2005, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. On July 5, 2005, the Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, but
granted plaintiffs leave to amend within thirty days. On August
4, 2005, plaintiffs determined that they would not file an
amended complaint. On September 6, 2005, the Court entered a
stipulated dismissal with prejudice.
The suit is styled "In Re Lexar Media, Inc. Securities
Litigation, 3:04-cv-02013-SC," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Samuel Conti. Representing the Company are Alice L.
Jensen and Kevin P. Muck, Fenwick & West LLP, 275 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 875-2300, Fax: (415) 281-
1350, E-mail: ajensen@fenwick.com or kmuck@fenwick.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Robert S. Green, Robert A. Jigarjian, Green Welling
LLP, 595 Market Street, Suite 2750, San Francisco, CA
94105, Phone: 415/477-6700, Fax: 415-477-6710, E-mail:
RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM or CAND.USCOURTS@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM
(2) Richard A. Maniskas, Marc A. Topaz, Schiffrin &
Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA
19087, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056
(3) David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq., Samuel H. Rudman, Tanara
Skyirsky, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, Suite 406, Melville, NY
11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail:
drosenfeld@geller-rudman.com
LIBERTY MEDICAL: FL Judge Grants Certification to Overtime Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal lawsuit launched by a former Liberty Medical Supply
employee, who claims that she wasn't paid overtime was recently
made into a class action, The TCPalm.com News reports.
According to court papers, Catherine Ealy-Simon, a former
customer service representative, sued in February 2005, claiming
that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by
underpaying her for overtime and bonuses based on her sales
levels. In an order issued recently, U.S. District Judge K.
Michael Moore approved giving conditional collective status to
current and former employees who might make claims.
The Cullen Law Firm, which is based in West Palm Beach and
represents Ms. Ealy-Simon, told The TCPalm.com News that they
have about 150 people who are ready to join the class action. It
estimates that there are more than 3,000 people who are part of
the affected class, although there is a three-year statute of
limitations for making such claims. Representatives from
PolyMedica Corporation, Liberty's parent company, could not be
reached for comment regarding the recent ruling.
The suit is styled, "Ealy-Simon, et al v. Liberty Medical, et
al, Case No. 2:05-cv-14059-KMM," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge
K. Michael Moore. Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Beth Linda
Blechman and Mark Aloysius Cullen of The Cullen Law Firm PA,
2090 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL
33409, Phone: 561-640-9191, Fax: 214-4021. Representing the
Defendant/s are:
(1) Haas A. Hatic of Greenspoon Marder Hirschfeld Rafkin
Ross & Berger, 100 W. Cypress Creek Road, Suite 700,
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309, Phone: 954-491-1120, Fax:
343-6956;
(2) William Vito Roppolo, Jr. and Allan James Sullivan of
Baker & McKenzie, 1111 Brickell Ave., Suite 1700,
Miami, FL 33131-3214, Phone: 305-789-8900, Fax: 789-
8953; and
(3) Jessica G. Taverna of Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris et al,
12010 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 900, Reston, VA 20190-
5839, Phone: 703-464-4800.
LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York preliminarily approved the settlement of the securities
class action filed against Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, styled "Samet v. Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. et al."
(01-CV-6770)."
The suit also names as defendants certain of its officers and
directors, and certain underwriters involved in the Company's
initial public offering. The complaint in this action asserted,
among other things, that the Company's initial public offering
registration statement contained misstatements and/or omissions
regarding the underwriters' alleged conduct in allocating shares
in the Company's initial public offering to the underwriters'
customers. In March 2002, the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York entered an order dismissing
without prejudice the claims against the Company and its
officers and directors (the case remained pending against the
underwriter defendants).
On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
naming as defendants not only the underwriter defendants but
also the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The
amended complaint asserts claims under both the registration and
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws relating to,
among other allegations, the underwriters' alleged conduct in
allocating shares in the Company's initial public offering and
the disclosures contained in the Company's registration
statement.
The Company understands that various plaintiffs have filed
approximately 1,000 lawsuits making substantially similar
allegations against approximately 300 other publicly traded
companies in connection with the underwriting of their public
offerings. On July 15, 2002, the Company together with the
other issuers named as defendants in these coordinated
proceedings, filed a collective motion to dismiss the complaint
on various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer
defendants. In October 2002, the claims against officers and
directors were dismissed without prejudice.
In February 2003, the Court issued its ruling on the motion to
dismiss, ruling that the claims under the antifraud provisions
of the securities laws could proceed against the Company and a
majority of the other issuer defendants. In June 2003, the
Company elected to participate in a proposed settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation. If ultimately
approved by the Court, this proposed settlement would result in
a dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation
against the Company and against any other of the issuer
defendants who elect to participate in the proposed settlement,
together with the current or former officers and directors of
participating issuers who were named as individual defendants.
The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of
any claims against underwriter defendants, and the litigation as
against those defendants is continuing. The proposed settlement
provides that the class members in the class action cases
brought against the participating issuer defendants will be
guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by insurers of the
participating issuer defendants. If recoveries totaling $1
billion or more are obtained by the class members from the
underwriter defendants, however, the monetary obligations to the
class members under the proposed settlement will be satisfied.
In addition, Lionbridge and any other participating issuer
defendants will be required to assign to the class members
certain claims that they may have against the underwriters of
their IPOs. The proposed settlement contemplates that any
amounts necessary to fund the settlement or settlement-related
expenses would come from participating issuers' directors and
officers liability insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds
of the participating issuer defendants themselves. A
participating issuer defendant could be required to contribute
to the costs of the settlement if that issuer's insurance
coverage were insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share
of the settlement costs.
Consummation of the proposed settlement is conditioned upon
obtaining both preliminary and final approval by the Court.
Formal settlement documents were submitted to the Court in June
2004, together with a motion asking the Court to preliminarily
approve the form of settlement. Certain underwriters who were
named as defendants in the settling cases, and who are not
parties to the proposed settlement, have filed an opposition to
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement of those cases.
On February 15, 2005, the Court issued an order preliminarily
approving the proposed settlement in all respects but one. In
response to this order, the plaintiffs and the issuer defendants
are in the process of submitting revised settlement documents to
the Court. The underwriter defendants may object to the revised
settlement documents. Consummation of the proposed settlement is
conditioned upon obtaining approval by the Court.
On September 1, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the
proposed settlement, directed that notice of the terms of the
proposed settlement be provided to all class members and
scheduled a fairness hearing, at which objections to the
proposed settlement will be heard. Thereafter, the Court will
determine whether to grant final approval to the proposed
settlement. If the Court approves the revised settlement
documents, it will direct that notice of the terms of the
proposed settlement be published in a newspaper and on the
internet and mailed to all proposed class members. It will also
schedule a fairness hearing, at which objections to the proposed
settlement will be heard. Thereafter, the Court will determine
whether to grant final approval to the proposed settlement.
The suit is styled "Samet v. Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. et
al. (01-CV-6770)," related to "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21-MC-92 (Sas)," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:
(1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
(2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300,
(3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com
(5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
(6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, newyork@whafh.com
LOUDEYE CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set April 2006 in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The final fairness hearing for the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Loudeye
Corporation, certain of its former officers and directors and
the underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO) is set for
April 2006 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
Between January 11 and December 6, 2001, class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. These actions were filed against 310
issuers (including the Company), 55 underwriters and numerous
individuals including certain of the Company's former officers
and directors. The various complaints were filed purportedly on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock during the time period between March 15 and December 6,
2000.
The complaints allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, primarily based on
allegations that the Company's underwriters received undisclosed
compensation in connection with the Company's initial public
offering and that the underwriters entered into undisclosed
arrangements with some investors that were designed to distort
and/or inflate the market price for the Company's common stock
in the aftermarket. These actions were consolidated for pre-
trial purposes. No specific amount of damages has been claimed.
The Company and the individual defendants have demanded to be
indemnified by underwriter defendants pursuant to the
underwriting agreement entered into at the time of the initial
public offering. Presently all claims against the former
officers have been withdrawn without prejudice. The Court
suggested that the parties select six test cases to determine
class-action eligibility. The Company is not a party to any of
the test cases.
In March 2005, a proposed settlement initially structured in
June 2003 among plaintiffs, issuer defendants, issuer officers
and directors named as defendants, and issuers' insurance
companies, was approved by the Court. This proposed settlement
provides, among other matters, that:
(1) issuer defendants and related individual defendants
will be released from the litigation without any
liability other than certain expenses incurred to date
in connection with the litigation;
(2) issuer defendants' insurers will guarantee $1.0 billion
in recoveries by plaintiff class members;
(3) issuer defendants will assign certain claims against
underwriter defendants to the plaintiff class members;
and
(4) issuer defendants will have the opportunity to
recover certain litigation-related expenses if
plaintiffs recover more than $5.0 billion from
underwriter defendants.
The final settlement terms as approved by the Court differ from
the initial settlement proposal in that the settlement does not
bar the defendant underwriters from bringing contractual
indemnity claims against the issuer defendants, including the
Company. The Company's board of directors approved the proposed
settlement in August 2003 and granted preliminary approval in
March 2005. A fairness hearing on the proposed settlement is
scheduled for April 2006.
The suit is styled "IN RE LOUDEYE CORPORATION INITIAL PUBLIC
OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION," filed in relation to "IN RE
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
N. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(i) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
(ii) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300
(iii) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala
Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax:
610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(iv) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com
(v) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
(vi) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
MANNATECH INC.: Parties Request Securities Suits' Consolidation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the securities litigation filed against Mannatech,
Inc. seek consolidation of the suits in the United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico.
Several securities class action lawsuits were initially filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.
The allegations in these class action lawsuits are substantively
identical to those in the securities class action lawsuit filed
by Mr. Jonathan Crowell on August 1, 2005. On August 30, 2005,
Mr. Richard McMurry filed a class action lawsuit against the
Company, Mr. Samuel L. Caster, its Chief Executive Officer, Mr.
Terry L. Persinger, its President and Chief Operating Officer,
and Mr. Stephen D. Fenstermacher, its Chief Financial Officer.
Second, on September 5, 2005, Mr. Michael Bruce Zeller filed a
class action lawsuit against the Company, Mr. Caster, Mr.
Persinger, and Mr. Fenstermacher.
On October 17, 2005, a motion was filed in each class action
lawsuit by the plaintiffs' counsel in the Crowell class action
lawsuit to consolidate the three class action lawsuits and to
appoint Mr. Austin Chang, Mr. Roger L. Sanford, Scalion Pty Ltd,
and Mr. Michael D. Martin as lead plaintiffs. The motion also
requests the appointment of the law firms Murry, Frank & Sailer,
LLP and Glancy, Binkow & Goldberg, LLP as co-lead counsel, and
Ron Bell & Associates as liaison counsel, for the putative
class. On November 4, 2005, the court granted leave for this
motion to be withdrawn.
On October 17, 2005, a motion was also filed in each class
action lawsuit by plaintiffs' counsel in the McMurry lawsuit to
appoint Mr. Austin Chang, Ms. Naomi S. Miller, Mr. John C.
Ogden, and Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund as
lead plaintiffs. The motion also requests the appointment of the
law firm Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins LLP
as lead counsel, and Freedman, Boyd, Daniels, Hollander &
Goldberg, P.A. as liaison counsel, for the putative class.
NETFLIX INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Netflix, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California to dismiss a consolidated
securities class action filed against certain of its officers
and directors, namely:
(1) Reed Hastings,
(2) W. Barry McCarthy, Jr., and
(3) Leslie J. Kilgore
The consolidated complaint was filed on February 24, 2005,
alleging violations of certain federal securities laws and
seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a class of purchasers
of the Company's common stock between October 1, 2003 and
October 14, 2004. The plaintiffs allege that the Company made
false and misleading statements and omissions of material facts
based on the Company's disclosure regarding churn and delivery
speed, claiming alleged violations by each named defendant of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and alleged violations by
certain of its officers of Section 20A of Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
On June 28, 2005, the Court dismissed the action with leave to
amend. Plaintiffs did so amend, and the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint. A hearing on the motion to
dismiss is scheduled for November 17, 2005.
The suit is styled "In re Netflix, Inc. Securities Litigation,
case no. 3:04-cv-02978-FMS," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge Fern
M. Smith. Representing the Company are Cynthia A. Dy and
Cameron Powers Hoffman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650
Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Phone: 650/493-9300 Fax:
650-565-5100 E-mail: cdy@wsgr.com, choffman@wsgr.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Arthur L Shingler, III, David R. Scott, Neil R.
Rothstein, Scott + Scott, LLC 401 B Street Suite 401
San Diego, CA 92101 USA Phone: 619-233-4565 Fax: 619-
233-0508 E-mail: Ashingler@scott-Scott.com,
Drscott@scott-Scott.com;
(2) Brian O O'Mara, William S. Lerach, Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 401 B Street, Suite
1700 San Diego, CA 92101 USA Phone: 619/ 231-1058 Fax:
(619) 231-7423 Email: Briano@lerachlaw.com or
Billl@lerachlaw.com
NETFLIX INC.: Reaches Settlement For Consumers Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Netflix, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action filed in
California Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco by
Frank Chavez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated.
The complaint asserts claims of, among other things, false
advertising, unfair and deceptive trade practices, breach of
contract as well as claims relating to the Company's statements
regarding DVD delivery times. The complaint seeks restitution,
disgorgement, damages, and injunction and specific performance
and other relief.
Case management conference was held on March 23,2005 before
Judge Thomas J. Mellon, Jr. On September 22, 2005, the Company
agreed to a tentative settlement, which remains subject to final
court approval. The court granted preliminary approval on
October 27, 2005 and a hearing for final approval is scheduled
for January 18, 2006.
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Netflix subscribers
who were enrolled in a paid membership before January 15, 2005
and were a member on October 19, 2005 are eligible to receive a
free one-month upgrade in service level and Netflix subscribers
who were enrolled in a paid membership before January 15, 2005
and were not a member on October 19, 2005 are eligible to
receive a free one-month Netflix membership of either the 1, 2
or 3 DVDs at-a-time unlimited program. The Company has also
agreed to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses in an
amount not to exceed $2,530. The Company estimates the total
cost of the settlement will be approximately $3,980 with the
actual cost dependent upon many unknown factors such as the
number of current and former Netflix subscribers who will claim
the settlement benefit.
The suit is styled "FRANK CHAVEZ VS. NETFLIX, INC., A FOREIGN
CORPORATION et al, case no. CGC-04-434884." Representing the
Company is Keith Eggleton of WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI,
650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto CA 94304-1050 USA Phone: (650)
493-9300. Representing the plaintiffs are Adam Gutride LAW
OFFICES OF ADAM GUTRRIDE 835 Douglass Street, San Francisco CA
94114 USA Phone: (415) 271-6469; and Seth Safire, 6467
California, San Francisco CA 94121 USA Phone: (415) 876-4345.
NEW VALLEY: Shareholders File FL, DE Lawsuits V. Vector Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
New Valley Corporation faces several shareholder class actions
filed in Florida and Delaware state courts.
On September 29, 2005, an individual Company stockholder filed a
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery purporting to
commence a class action lawsuit against Vector Group Ltd., New
Valley and each of the Company's individual directors. The
complaint was styled as PILL V. NEW VALLEY CORPORATION, ET AL.,
(C.A. No. 1678-N).
On September 29, 2005, a separate action was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-
Dade County, Florida against the same defendants as in the PILL
matter and styled as TOMBS V. NEW VALLEY CORPORATION, ET AL.
(Case No. 05-19623 CA 22). On October 28, 2005, an additional
action was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the
same defendants as in the PILL matter and styled as LINDSTROM V.
LEBOW, ET AL. (C.A. No. 1745-N).
In general, the complaints allege, among other things:
(1) breaches of fiduciary duty by Vector, the Company and
the members of the Company's board in connection with
the Offer and the subsequent merger;
(2) that the consideration Vector is offering is
inadequate; and
(3) that Vector is acting to further its own interests at
the expense of the holders of Company common shares.
Among other remedies, the complaints seek to enjoin the Offer
and subsequent merger or, alternatively, damages in an
unspecified amount and rescission in the event the merger
occurs. The Company is not aware of any purported class action
complaints other than those referenced above.
In the TOMBS matter, on November 3, 2005, the plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint. On October 21, 2005, the plaintiffs moved
to expedite discovery and that motion, which was opposed by the
defendants, was heard on November 8, 2005. Further argument has
been set for November 10, 2005. Plaintiffs have filed a motion
to consolidate the PILL and LINDSTROM cases, and the PILL
plaintiff has filed a motion to certify the case, which motions
defendants do not oppose.
In the PILL matter, New Valley and the Special Committee have
filed answers on October 25, 2005 and November 2, 2005,
respectively. On November 1, 2005, the plaintiffs moved to amend
their complaint to, among other things, add VGR Holding Inc. as
a defendant, sought preliminary injunction and expedited
discovery. Defendants have agreed that the amended complaint may
be filed with the Delaware Court of Chancery and have agreed to
a discovery schedule, as a result of which plaintiff is no
longer proceeding with his motion to expedite discovery.
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Suit By Jobless Avondale Mills Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney hopes to bring class action status to a lawsuit
filed against railroad owner Norfolk Southern on behalf of 350
workers laid off by Avondale Mills months after a deadly train
wreck and chlorine spill in Graniteville, South Carolina, The
Associated Press reports.
Attorney Douglas Schmidt filed the lawsuit seeking back pay and
lost benefits for those employees who lost their jobs in job
layoffs that occurred last October. He told The Associated Press
that the workers have lost their livelihood and it's not
Avondale's fault they had to do the layoffs.
The Norfolk Southern freight train was carrying chlorine gas,
when it struck a parked train about 2:30 a.m. on January 6,
2005, at an Avondale Mills facility in the textile town near the
Georgia line. Thirteen cars were derailed. Most of the injured
were treated for respiratory ailments and released, authorities
said. At least 46 people remained in the hospital, including 13
who were in critical condition, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (January 11, 2005) reports.
Three of the 42 cars on the moving train were carrying chlorine.
Chlorine gas can damage the throat, nose and eyes and can be
fatal. Those who were exposed were told to report to
decontamination units at two schools. Others in the area were
told to stay inside their homes. Two other hazardous materials,
cresol and sodium hydroxide, were also being carried on the
train in liquid form. Those materials are corrosive, but only in
cases of direct contact, so they are of less concern than the
chlorine gas. It is not yet known if either spilled, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (January 11, 2005) reports.
More than a half-dozen textile plants operated by Avondale Mills
in Graniteville and Warrenville were closed because of the
wreck. Four area schools were also closed, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (January 11, 2005) reports.
OREGON STATE: Group Sues Over Hospital Assaults, Overcrowding
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Advocacy Center initiated a class action lawsuit in
federal court alleging "dangerous" conditions at the Oregon
State Hospital, The OregonLive.com reports.
Filed in federal district court against the hospital's
superintendent, the director of the Oregon Department of Human
Services and Gov. Ted Kulongoski, the case outlines several
complaints, including the claim that crowded conditions and
inadequate staffing in the hospital's forensic units have
contributed to 143 patient injuries and 140 staff injuries
between January and September 2005. Nine patients are listed as
plaintiffs and are claiming that they have been assaulted by
other patients and forced to sleep in overcrowded rooms or day-
use areas without bathrooms.
The suit also claims that because of inadequate staffing,
patients do not see psychiatrists regularly or receive other
group or individual therapy as often as needed. It once again
focuses a spotlight on the 122-year-old state hospital in Salem
and problems within Oregon's mental health care system.
In May, state-hired consultants found patients are housed in
masonry buildings that do not meet state or national building
codes. Consultants also recommended moving about 100 patients
housed in the J-Building complex, which could collapse in an
earthquake.
State officials had hoped to head off a lawsuit over hospital
conditions by spending the past month in negotiations with the
Oregon Advocacy Center, a nonprofit organization that monitors
patients' rights. However, Bob Joondeph, the center's executive
director, told The OregonLive.com that the state's proposals
didn't move fast enough to improve staff/patient ratios through
additional hiring and moving patients to community treatment
centers. He adds, "It's not as if everybody isn't aware of the
problem, because they are. And it's not as if people don't want
to fix the problem, because they do."
Additionally, he told The OregonLive.com, "We think this is a
crisis situation. They have obligations when they take people
into custody and one of those obligations is to keep people safe
and to make sure they receive at least enough treatment that
they don't get worse."
The Oregon State Hospital has about 690 patients and 1,200
employees. The Oregon Advocacy Center recently studied state
hospital staffing and found Oregon's level well below national
standards, according to Mr. Joondeph.
PDI INC.: To Ask NJ Court To Dismiss Amended Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
PDI Inc. intends to ask the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action filed against PDI Inc., its chief executive officer
and its chief financial officer alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The suit was filed under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 established thereunder, and is
styled "In re PDI Securities Litigation, Master File No. 02-CV-
0211." The complaint purports to state claims against the
Company on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
Common Stock between May 22, 2001 and August 12, 2002 and seeks
money damages in unspecified amounts and litigation expenses
including attorneys' and experts' fees.
The essence of the allegations in the Second Consolidated and
Amended Complaint is that the Company intentionally or
recklessly made false or misleading public statements and
omissions concerning its financial condition and prospects with
respect to its marketing of Ceftin in connection with the
October 2000 distribution agreement with GSK, its marketing of
Lotensin in connection with the May 2001 distribution agreement
with Novartis, as well as its marketing of Evista(R) in
connection with the October 2001 distribution agreement with Eli
Lilly and Company.
In February 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Consolidated and Amended Complaint under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Rules 9(b) and
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On August 22,
2005, the court dismissed the Second Consolidated and Amended
Class Action Complaint in "In re PDI Securities Litigation
(Civil Action No.02-cv-0211-JLL) without prejudice to
plaintiffs. On October 22, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Third
Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint.
The Third Consolidated and Amended Complaint (like the
previously dismissed Second Consolidated and Amended Complaint)
names the Company, its former chief executive officer and its
chief financial officer as defendants; purports to state claims
against the Company on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between May 22, 2001 and August 12, 2002;
and seeks money damages in unspecified amounts and litigation
expenses including attorneys' and experts' fees.
The essence of the allegations in the Third Consolidated and
Amended Complaint is that the Company intentionally or
recklessly made false or misleading public statements and
omissions concerning its financial condition and prospects with
respect to its marketing of Ceftin in connection with the
October 2000 distribution agreement with GSK, its marketing of
Lotensin in connection with the May 2001 distribution agreement
with Novartis, as well as its marketing of Evista® in
connection with the October 2001 distribution agreement with Eli
Lilly and Company.
The suit is styled, "KESSEL v. PDI SECURITIES, et al, Case No.
2:02-cv-00211-JLL-RJH," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New Jersey, under Judge Jose
L. Linares, with referral to Judge Ronald Hedges. Representing
the Plaintiff/s are Allyn Zissel Lite and Joseph DePalma of
LITE, DEPALMA, GREENBERG AND RIVAS, LCC, Two Gateway Center,
12TH Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-
mail: alite@ldgrlaw.com and jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com. Representing
the Defendant is Alan S. Naar of GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS,
Metro Corporate Campus one, P.O. Box 5600, Woodbridge, NJ 07095-
0988, Phone: (732) 549-5600, E-mail: anaar@greenbaumlaw.com.
PDI INC.: Current, Former Employees File Labor Suit in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
PDI Inc. faces a class action filed in the San Francisco County
Superior Court in California, on September 26, 2005, on behalf
of certain current and former employees, alleging violations of
certain sections of the California Labor Code.
In October 2005, the Company filed an answer to the complaint
generally denying the allegations set forth in the complaint.
The Company has accrued approximately $3.3 million for potential
penalties and other settlement costs, the Company stated in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
POZEN INC.: NC Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina has yet to rule on Pozen, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against
it and certain of its current and former officers.
Holders of the Company's securities filed five purported class
action lawsuits in 2004, alleging violations of securities
laws,. These actions were filed as a single consolidated class
action complaint on December 20, 2004. The consolidated
complaint alleges, among other claims, violations of federal
securities laws, including Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company and a current
officer, arising out of allegedly false and misleading
statements made by the Company concerning its product
candidates, MT 100 and MT 300, during the class period.
On January 27, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint. Oral arguments were made
before the North Carolina Business Court on August 9, 2005. The
Court has not yet ruled the motion to dismiss.
The suit is styled "In Re: POZEN, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case 04-CV-505," filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina, under Judge Frank W.
Bullock, Jr. Lead counsel for the plaintiffs is Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (New York, NY), 825 Third
Avenue - 30th Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.838.7797,
Fax: 212.838.7745, E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com. Representing the
defendants is Pressly McAuley Millen of Womble Carlyle Sandridge
& Rice, POB 831 Raleigh, NC 27601, USA, Phone: 919-755-2100
SAKS INC.: Clothing Vendors File Suit For Markdowns, Overcharges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adamson Apparel Inc. and several other clothing vendors who
claim they are owed millions of dollars for improper markdowns
and for being overcharged for returns sued Saks Inc., The
NewYorkBusiness.com reports.
Selling clothes under the XOXO and Baby Phat brands until it
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2004, Manhattan-based Adamson
Apparel is leading a class action suit against Saks that seeks
millions of dollars in compensation, fees and other costs.
Lieff, Cabrase, Heimann & Bernsten attorney Rachel Geman, who
filed the suit with four other law firms told The
NewYorkBusiness.com, "We are seeking to get our money back."
The lawsuit charges that, starting in 1999, Birmingham, Alabama-
based Saks collected millions of dollars from vendors in
improper markdowns and charge backs, which are fees deducted
from vendor payments for defective merchandise. According to the
complaint, the vendors are claiming, "they were deprived of a
reasonable opportunity to inspect the goods in the condition in
which they were delivered [or] to investigate alleged breaches."
Earlier this year, an investigation by Saks found that $20
million of improperly collected vendor fees, prompting the
retailer to announce in March that it would restate nearly six
years of financial results and led to the sacking of several top
executives. The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New
York and the Securities and Exchange Commission launched an
investigation into the matter in May.
SALEM COMMUNICATIONS: Forges Settlement for CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Salem Communications Corporation reached a tentative settlement
for the securities class action filed in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Ventura. The suit also names as
defendants the Company's directors, certain of its officers and
certain underwriters of its April 2004 public offering of Class
A common stock.
On March 9, 2005, Pipefitters, Locals 522 & 633 Pension Trust
Fund filed the suit, alleging claims under the Securities Act on
behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the
Company's equity securities pursuant or traceable to that
offering. The complaint alleges that the offering documents
failed to disclose that the Company's financial statements
overstated its fixed assets and that the Company's internal
controls were flawed with respect to its ability to value fixed
assets and, that the offering documents contained misstatements
regarding the Company's fixed assets and internal controls. The
complaint seeks rescission or damages in excess of $5 million,
interest, attorneys fees and other costs, as well as equitable
and injunctive relief.
The complaint was served on the Company on March 15, 2005. The
parties have tentatively agreed to settle this matter. During
the quarter ended June 30, 2005, the Company recorded a $0.7
million accrual for this matter.
The suit is styled "Pipefitters Locals 52 & 633 Pension v. Salem
Communications Corporation, case no. CIV-232456," filed in
California Superior Court for the County of Ventura.
Representing the plaintiffs is Darren J. Robbins of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 9601 Wilshire Blvd,
Suite 510 Los Angeles, CA 90210 Phone: (310) 859-3100 Fax:
(310) 278-2148 Website: http://www.lerachlaw.com.
SOLUTIA INC.: Flexsys Continues to Face Rubber Antitrust Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Flexsys, Solutia, Inc.'s 50/50 venture with Akzo Nobel NV, and
other rubber chemical producers continue to face 23 class
actions filed in various state courts, alleging violations of
antitrust law.
The Company is only named as a defendant in one of these cases,
David Pearman and Pearman Agri Services, Inc. v Akzo Nobel
Chemicals, Inc., et. al., pending in the Circuit Court for
Claiborne County, Tennessee, which was automatically stayed as
against the Company.
In 20 of these cases, plaintiffs seek actual and treble damages
under state law on behalf of all retail purchasers of tires in
that state since as early as 1994. In the other three cases,
plaintiffs make similar allegations and seek similar relief on
behalf of all consumers of products containing rubber, including
tires.
Eleven of these cases remain pending at the trial level in
procedural stages or are pending on appeal following dismissal
as to Flexsys either by plaintiffs or by the trial court on
procedural grounds. The remaining cases have been dismissed
voluntarily by plaintiffs or by the court on procedural grounds
and are not on appeal.
SOLUTIA INC.: Employee Pension Plan Faces ERISA Suit in S.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Solutia Inc. Employees Pension Plan faces a class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois, styled "Davis, et. al. v. Solutia, Inc.
Employees' Pension Plan," by a class of participants in the Plan
who allege that the method of calculating their benefits under
the Plan was unlawful.
Specifically, the Davis plaintiffs allege that the Plan violated
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by reducing
their accrued benefit as a result of the attainment of a certain
age, reducing their rate of benefit accrual because of the
attainment of a certain age, computing benefits in an unlawful
method and, finally, by "backloading" benefits resulting in
accruals occurring slowly over time so that very little of the
accrued benefit is vested prior to the attainment of age 65.
None of the Debtors has been named as a defendant in this case.
SOLUTIA INC.: Faces Rubber Chemical Antitrust Lawsuits in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flexsys, Solutia Inc.'s 50/50 venture with Akzo Nobel, continues
to face several class actions in Canadian courts, alleging
violations of antitrust laws.
In May 2004, two class actions were filed in the Province of
Quebec, Canada, against Flexsys and other rubber chemical
producers alleging that collusive sales and marketing activities
of the defendants damaged all persons in Quebec during the
period July 1995 through September 2001. Plaintiffs seek
statutory damages of (CAD) $14.6 along with exemplary damages of
(CAD) $0.000025 per person. A hearing will be scheduled to
determine which case will be allowed to go forward. Solutia is
not a defendant in either of these class actions.
In May 2005, Solutia became aware of a case filed in Ontario,
Canada against Flexsys and other rubber chemical producers
alleging the same claims as the Quebec cases and seeking on
behalf of the citizens of Ontario (CAD) $95 in damages. No
response is yet due nor has any been filed by defendants in the
Ontario case. Solutia is not a defendant in that case.
In August 2005, Solutia became aware of a case filed in British
Columbia, Canada against Flexsys and other rubber chemical
producers alleging the same claims as the Quebec and Ontario
cases and seeking unspecified damages under a variety of
theories on behalf of all purchasers of products containing
rubber chemicals in British Columbia. No responses are yet due
nor have any been filed by defendants in any of these cases.
Solutia is not a defendant in any of these cases.
SOLUTIA INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended ERISA Lawsuit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia, Inc.'s former officers and employees and its Employee
Benefits Plans Committee and Pension and Savings Funds Committee
face an amended class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
On October 7, 2004, a class action captioned `Dickerson v.
Feldman, et al.' was filed. The company was not named as a
defendant. The action alleges breach of fiduciary duty under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and
seeks to recover alleged losses in the Solutia Inc. Savings and
Investment Plan (SIP Plan) arising from the alleged imprudent
investment of SIP Plan assets in Solutia's common stock during
the period from December 16, 1998 through the date the action
was filed. The investment is alleged to have been imprudent
because of the Company's legacy environmental and litigation
liabilities and because of Flexsys' alleged involvement in the
matters described above under "Flexsys Related Litigation". The
action seeks monetary payment to the SIP Plan to compensate for
the losses resulting from the alleged breach of fiduciary
duties, as well as injunctive and other appropriate equitable
relief, reasonable attorney's fees and expenses, costs and
interest.
In addition, the plaintiff in this action filed a proof of claim
for $269 against Solutia in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York. The plaintiff then sought to
withdraw the reference of his ERISA claim from the bankruptcy
court to the district court so that the proof of claim and the
class action could be considered together by the district court.
On March 11, 2005 the district court denied without prejudice
plaintiff's motion to withdraw the reference. In May 2005, the
plaintiff filed an amended and then a second amended complaint.
Although the ERISA violations alleged are very similar to those
asserted in the original complaint, the second amended complaint
added new allegations largely similar to those made in `In Re
Solutia Securities Litigation.' This second amended complaint
also adds twelve new defendants, including former and current
directors and officers of Solutia. The directors are alleged to
have breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by failing to
monitor the plan's fiduciaries, and by failing to recognize that
the fiduciaries were not themselves properly managing the plan.
On September 1, 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended proof of
claim against Solutia solely to raise the purported amount of
the claim to $290. On September 7, 2005 the plaintiff filed a
motion in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
New York seeking leave to file a single proof of claim against
Solutia on behalf of all members of the class.
The suit is styled "In Re: Solutia Inc. ERISA Litigation, case
no. 1:04-cv-09735-LAP," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Loretta
A. Preska. Representing the Plaintiff is Ronen Sarraf of Sarraf
Gentile, L LP, 485 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10018, Phone:
(212) 868-3610, Fax: (212)918-7967, E-mail:
ronen@sarrafgentile.com. Representing the Company are Peter
Andrew Bellacosa, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, 153 East 53rd Street
New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-446-4800, Fax: 212-446-4900, E-
mail: pbellacosa@kirkland.com; and M. Natasha Labovitz, Gibson,
Dunn & Crutchers LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166-0193,
Phone: 212-351-4000.
TENNESSEE: County Ready to Settle Lawsuit Over Jail Conditions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee's Hawkins County might end up paying up to $15,000 in
attorneys' fees for the individuals who filed a lawsuit over
jail conditions and agreeing to have all inmates transferred to
a new jail sometime in July 2007 as part of a settlement
agreement to a federal lawsuit that the County Commissioner will
consider later this month, The Rogersville Review reports.
If approved, the private settlement agreement would resolve the
federal class action lawsuit filed last December by plaintiffs
Sherry Arnold and Donnie Brooks claiming conditions at the jail,
including overcrowding, resulted in an "inhumane" environment
and violated the civil rights of inmates.
The settlement resolution notes all attorneys involved in the
case have reviewed the document, along with county officials. It
states, "As a result, and at the request of insurance counsel
representing Hawkins County, said settlement is hereby presented
for approval, it being deemed in the best interest of Hawkins
County to so approve same."
After the county commissioners approve the agreement, the
federal court must then approve it. Once the judge approves, the
plaintiffs will agree to have their case dismissed, with both
parties accepting the terms of the settlement as a binding
contract.
The wording of the agreement states it will eliminate the need
for "judicial intervention or oversight regarding the
constitutionality of conditions" at the jail, with the court
only becoming involved if the county failed to live up to the
contractual obligations, and the lawsuit was then re-filed.
In the original lawsuit the plaintiffs sought an injunction to
restrict overcrowding, a formal plan to address alleged
constitutional violations cited in the suit as well as
unspecified damages and attorneys fees.
The settlement agreement would require the county, or county's
insurance carrier, to pay $15,000 for attorneys' fees as well as
$2,000 this year and $2,000 for "compliance monitoring costs"
for this year and 2006. However, no compensatory or punitive
damages are involved and no fines would be levied if the county
exceeds a certain jail capacity.
The wording of the settlement notes the county purchased the
former Kmart site on Highway 11W and is planning the
construction of a 220-bed jail that will be designed and built
to comply with federal constitutional standards and standards of
the Tennessee Corrections Institute. The agreement also includes
a jail project timeline that calls for demolition work at the
Kmart site to be completed by April 21, 2006, the construction
bidding process to be completed by May 18, 2006 and construction
at the site to begin by June 5, 2006 and be "substantially
completed by mid-2007."
Other provisions that the county must comply with include:
(1) providing hot and cold running water to sinks in the
inmate housing areas;
(2) providing functioning toilets and making certain
inmates have access to the toilets;
(3) repairing holes in the walls of the area housing female
inmates and providing adequate lighting in the cell
block;
(4) having all air vents cleaned and the heating and
cooling system "in proper working order," with a
stipulation a repair person will be called within a day
if the system malfunctions;
(5) hiring a dietitian to plan and approve inmate meals;
(6) having clean jail uniforms available for each inmate;
(7) maintaining a jail staff of 15 full-time jailers and a
part-time jailer who oversees the exercise yard; and
(8) allowing volunteer ministers to conduct religious
services in the jail.
The settlement also requires the county to implement a new
system of classifying inmates, with greater emphasis on
segregating individuals charged with misdemeanors and felonies.
It notes that under the current circumstances the county will be
limited in the ability to separate the different
classifications.
Under the terms of the agreement inmates will be provided with
cleaning supplies on a daily basis to clean each cellblock and
could be eligible to receive personnel hygiene supplies, such as
soap, shampoo, toothpaste at no cost if they are considered
indigent. The county would also be required to "post and
enforce" inmate disciplinary rules where inmates can see them,
require jail personnel to file disciplinary reports of incidents
involving inmates and, in cases involving a physical assault or
injury, refer the incident to the District Attorney General's
office for possible criminal prosecution.
Finally, under the terms of the agreement the county will also
provide the attorneys for the plaintiffs with population counts,
quarterly progress reports and will allow quarterly access to
the jail to evaluate compliance with all terms and provisions.
The suit styled, "Arnold et al v. Hawkins County, TN et al, Case
No. 2:04-cv-00427," filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee, under Judge J. Ronnie
Greer with referral Judge Dennis H. Inman. Representing the
Plaintiff/s are, John E. Eldridge of Eldridge, Irvine & Gaines,
PLLC, P.O. Box 84, Knoxville, TN 37901-0084, Phone:
865-523-7731, Fax: 865-523-0341, E-mail: johneldrid@aol.com; and
Jonathan M. Holcomb, Holcomb Law Office, P.O. Box 1658,
Morristown, TN 37816, Phone: 423-581-9797, E-mail:
holcomblawoffice@charter.net. Representing the Defendant/s are,
Thomas J. Garland, Jr. and Jeffrey M. Ward of Milligan &
Coleman, P.O. Box 1060, Greeneville, TN 37744-1060, Phone:
423-639-6811, Fax: 423-639-2078, E-mail:
tgarland.milligancoleman@adelphia.net and
jward.milligancoleman@adelphia.net.
TCI INVESTMENT: Southwestern Ontario Investors Launch $785M Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hundreds of disgruntled investors in Southwestern Ontario
launched a $785 million class action lawsuit against leaders of
an Internet investment club after a three-year struggle to find
their money, The London Free Press reports.
"Where is the money?" London lawyer David Kirwin asked when
announcing the legal action. Mr. Kirwin told The London Free
Press that the staggering amount of money sought and the number
of people behind the action might rise.
He also told The London Free Press that he already has about 200
people behind the lawsuit, but as many as 5,000 people may have
invested in TCI Investment Club, an online organization that
promised monthly returns of three to 15 per cent on minimum
investments of $10,000.
In a brief interview at his south London estate, Mr. Alexander
told The London Free Press that he wasn't prepared to talk about
the company or the lawsuit. He pinted out, "There are obviously
two sides to this story. When this has some resolve, that's the
best time to respond."
The statement of claim that was filed on November 25 in the
Superior Court of Justice in London, says Ross Alexander of
London and William Rath of Uniondale, a community southeast of
St. Marys, controlled TCI. The lawsuit is seeking an estimated
$15 million in principal invested and another $750 million in
returns allegedly promised by TCI, returns many people were
counting on as retirement nest eggs. It also wants TCI to
deliver all its financial records to investors.
Mr. Kirwin told The London Free Press, "If they come through
with a credible return-of-money plan for these people, the
lawsuit is at an end." He also told The London Free Press that
he's assuming the money is held somewhere, but the lawsuit is
seeking $300 million in damages if there's fraud involved.
London-area resident Nancy Swinkels has become a reluctant
standard bearer for the hundreds and perhaps thousands of people
across North America looking for their money. She invested
$325,000 in the club, an amount that according to TCI statements
had grown to nearly $3.2 million by June 1. "I don't like the
idea of having my name out there or my personal information, but
somebody has to do it," Mr. Swinkels told The London Free Press.
The statement of claim also names Charles Gordon, the name of a
man who sent regular e-mails and newsletters to investors. IN
addition, it also names John Doe to represent any other
unidentified managers involved in the handling of money.
The statement of claim alleges:
(1) Starting in 1998, an organization called Arcadia
Resources started soliciting investors often through
individual marketers.
(2) Later known as TCI Investment Club, the group collected
money from investors across North America.
(3) Members of the club were told TCI managers would invest
the money in several high-yield investments.
(4) Members were allowed to get their principal and the
returns back at certain time periods.
(5) The members were given access to a secure website that
gave regular updates on how their investments were
doing.
(6) Investors in Canada put in an estimated $10 million.
Investors in the U.S. put in an estimated $5 million.
Since February 2002, neither Ms. Swinkles nor other investors
have received any money they requested, the statement of claim
says. Nor have they been able to determine the status of their
investments.
WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Consolidated Lawsuit in W.D. WA
--------------------------------------------------------------
WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. faces a consolidated securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington on behalf of a class of Company
stockholders.
The suit, which also names as defendants some of its current and
former officers, alleging violations of the federal securities
laws arising out of, among other things, its announcement on
March 15, 2005 that it was restating some of its financial
results for interim periods of 2004. Subsequently, a number of
other related purported class action suits also alleging
violations of the federal securities laws were filed by holders
of the company's common stock. The various actions have been
consolidated by the Court, and are referred to herein as the
Action. On October 3, 2005, a consolidated amended complaint
was filed in the action. The Company's response to that
complaint was filed on December 2, 2005.
In addition, two related shareholder derivative suits against
some of the Company's current and former directors and officers
have subsequently been filed in the Superior Court of the State
of Washington, King County and in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington, respectively,
which are referred to as the Derivative Actions.
Plaintiffs in the Action and the Derivative Actions seek
unspecified compensatory damages. The company is obligated to
indemnify its officers and directors to the extent permitted by
applicable law in connection with the Action, and has insurance
for such individuals, to the extent of the limits of the
applicable insurance policies and subject to potential
reservations of rights.
WORKERS TEMPORARY: Appeal Planned in Day Laborer's Case in FL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Liner, who started work in 2001 as a day laborer through
Seminole County, Florida-based Workers Temporary Staffing Inc.
is accusing his former employer of overcharging him for
transportation to his daily jobs, The Daily Business Review
reports.
Represented by David George of Boca Raton, Florida, Mr. Liner,
who has a college degree, once worked as an insurance adjuster
in Georgia and was financially broke after a divorce in 2000,
was paid minimum wage to a dollar over minimum wage to perform
manual labor. In a class action suit filed in Broward Circuit
Court in June 2004, he alleges that his transport charges should
be the same as Broward public bus fares, $1 for a one-way trip,
or $2.50 for an all-day pass. The labor pool charged Liner $1.50
for a one-way trip, and $3 for a round trip to work.
The suit was one of eight Mr. George filed in Florida on behalf
of day laborers. They claim that the transport charges violated
provisions of the 1995 Labor Pool Act and that the law requires
temporary labor firms to base their fees on the price of the
local bus fare.
Last month, however, after a bench trial, Broward Circuit Judge
Robert B. Carney ruled in favor of the defense and declared the
Labor Pool Act, which was previously untested, unconstitutional.
The ruling could lead to an important appellate test of the
statute, which offered unprecedented protections for Florida's
thousands of day laborers, who are some of the state's poorest
and most vulnerable workers. Mr. George's actions are the first
known lawsuits under the act. The alleged violations cited in
his lawsuits could result in millions of dollars in fines.
Mr. George, a partner at Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins, told The Daily Business Review that temporary labor
firms frequently violate the state law by overcharging day
laborers from 50 cents to $1 a day over and above the typical
public bus fare of $1 to $1.50. "That may not sound like a lot
of money," according to him, "but for people that make $30 or
$50 a day, it adds up."
A victory for day laborers in these cases could result in hefty
judgments against the temporary labor companies, which include
some large national firms, such as the publicly traded Labor
Ready, one of the nation's largest employers. Under the state
law, every incident of violating the law carries a $1,000 fine.
There is no official estimate of how many day laborers work in
Florida's 50 to 60 labor halls. Mr. George estimated that the
numbers of day laborers in the state total tens of thousands.
With thousands of alleged violations daily, fines could total in
the millions of dollars.
However, if the temporary labor companies succeed in having the
law declared unconstitutional, it would strip away protections
for one of society's most marginalized groups. Day laborers
typically earn $30 to $50 a day from the firms.
Workers Temporary Staffing was represented by Thomas R. Tatum of
Brinkley McNerney Morgan Solomon & Tatum in Fort Lauderdale and
by T. Todd Pittenger, a partner at Lowndes Drosdick Doster
Kantor & Reed in Orlando.
Temporary labor companies supply other businesses with temporary
workers, who provide manual, unskilled labor. Day laborers
typically earn minimum wage.
The companies are paid by the businesses they serve, such as
construction companies. They typically pay the workers only
about one-third of what they receive as payment from the
companies needing the labor. Prior to 1995, the labor pools also
tacked on additional charges for food, transport and check
cashing.
Day laborers show up at staffing agency work halls to receive
daily work assignments, and are transported by the firms to the
work site. Many day laborers are homeless, and some suffer
substance abuse and mental health problems. Labor pools long
have served as a work opportunity for this population of people,
who have poor prospects for more permanent, better paying jobs.
"Most of these people are poor people with low levels of
education, so operators took advantage of them," Republican Rep.
Luis Rojas, now a partner at Adorno & Yoss in Coral Gables told
The Daily Business Review. He explained that the temporary labor
companies were deducting so much from the workers' meager
salaries for various services that there was little left over at
the end of the day.
The remaining seven cases filed by Mr. George -- six in Broward
County and the one in Manatee County -- are at various stages.
Each of the Broward cases was filed as a class action, though
not all have received class certification. An attempt by the
plaintiffs this year to consolidate the cases was denied.
In the Liner case, defendant Workers Temporary Staffing argued
that the Labor Pool Act was too vague and that it violated due
process. In addition, the defense argued, based largely on the
testimony of a transportation expert, it is unreasonable to
require temporary labor firms to base their transportation fee
on the local public bus fare, since many of the work sites were
inaccessible by public bus.
Mr. George presented evidence that the Legislature explicitly
intended that the companies base their transport fees on the
prevailing public bus fare. But the law does not say exactly how
much the fee should be, or how it should be calculated. He told
The Daily Business Review that he plans to appeal Judge Carney's
ruling. "The day laborers have virtually no bargaining power,
and no ability to complain," according to him, "Because if they
squawk too loudly, they might not get hired."
New Securities Fraud Cases
EVCI CAREER: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of EVCI Career
Colleges Holdings Corporation (NASDAQ: EVCI) between February
23, 2004 and October 20, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. 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.
EVCI CAREER: Roy Jacobs Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Roy Jacobs & Associates initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased EVCI Career Colleges Holdings Corporation common stock
or other securities during the period from February 23, 2004 to
October 20, 2005 (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit was filed against EVCI Career Holdings Corporation
("EVCI" or "the Company") (Nasdaq:EVCI), and its top executives,
and alleges fraud, involving statements made to public
investors. The case has been assigned to the Hon. Charles
Brieant.
The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, EVCI
omitted and misrepresented material facts concerning the manner
in which its educational business was being run, including facts
concerning the degree of student support it provided, its
admission practices and its graduation rates. EVCI's practices
have led to criticism by the New York State Education
Department, and adverse action which, when revealed, led to
sharp declines in the price of the stock.
For more details, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs &
Associates, Phone: (888) 884-4490, E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.com.
EVCI CAREER: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Smith & Smith, LLP, filed a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock of EVCI Career Colleges Holdings Corporation
("EVCI") (Nasdaq:EVCI) between November 14, 2003 and October 19,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period which
misrepresented EVCI's business, financial results and prospects
to the investing public, by touting the Company's strong
revenue, earnings and student enrollment growth while failing to
disclose, among other things, that EVCI's growth could not be
sustained because it was enrolling more students than its
resources and teaching staff could handle. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.
For more details, contact Howard Smith, Esq. of Smith & Smith,
LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020, Phone:
(866) 759-2275, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com.
EVCI CAREER: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Popper, LLP, initiated a securities fraud
lawsuit against EVCI Career Colleges Holding Corporation
("EVCI") (Nasdaq: EVCI) and certain of its officers and
directors, on behalf of all persons who purchased EVCI
securities on the open market during the period November 14,
2003 through October 19, 2005. The action was filed in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The
complaint can be obtained from the Court or by contacting Wolf
Popper.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, EVCI,
through its wholly owned subsidiary, Interboro Institute, Inc.
("Interboro"), entered into an aggressive campaign to increase
student enrollment. Undisclosed to investors however, was the
fact that Interboro did not maintain adequate libraries,
equipment and teaching staff to support these additional
students, in violation of the New York State Education
Department's ("NYSED") educational minimum standard
requirements. As a result, defendants misled investors
concerning EVCI's earning and enrollment growth and obtained
millions of dollars in proceeds from the sales of EVCI's
inflated stock price, when they knew or recklessly disregarded
that the Company would have to curtail its growth and spend
millions of dollars to increase its resources and teaching staff
in order to meet the minimum standard requirements.
On October 19, 2005, EVCI stunned the market when it revealed
its true financial condition and prospects, informing investors
that the Company received a draft report of a compliance review
undertaken by the NYSED which included assertions of
irregularities in its admissions practices and a proposed
determination to deny extension center status for Interboro's
college site, located in Yonkers, New York. The press release
also revealed that the NYSED recommended that EVCI increase the
number and percent of full-time faculty, improve its libraries,
facilities and equipment resources, and improve the quality of
student learning. On December 6, 2005, the Company further
disclosed that the NYSED's final determination was to deny
extension center status for its' Yonkers location. In addition,
the Company announced that the NYSED required EVCI to downsize
its student enrollment at all of its college site locations in
New York City. In immediate response to this news, EVCI's share
price continued to downward spiral, falling to a low of $1.81 on
December 6, 2005.
For more details, contact Emily DeMuro, Investor Relations or
James Kelly-Kowlowitz, Esq. of Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Ave.,
New York, NY 10022, Phone: +1-212-451-9610, 212-759-4600 or
877-370-7703, Fax: +1-212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704, E-mail:
edemuro@wolfpopper.com, Jkelly@wolfpopper.com and
irrep@wolfpopper.com.
FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of FARO
Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: FARO) between May 6, 2004 and
November 3, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, against defendant
FARO and one or more of its officers and/or directors. The
action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.
For more details, contact The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt St.,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in FL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, initiated
a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of FARO Technologies Inc.
("FARO" or the "Company") (NasdaqNM: FARO), between May 6, 2004,
and November 3, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").
The action, case no. 05-CV-1810, is pending before the Honorable
Anne C. Conway in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida against defendants FARO, Simon Raab
(CEO and Chairman), Gregory A. Fraser (Executive VP, Secretary,
Treasurer and a director), and Barbara R. Smith (CFO). According
to the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market during the Class
Period.
The complaint alleges that FARO and its subsidiaries develop and
market software and devices for manufacturers in the automotive,
aerospace, power generation, heavy equipment, and electronics
industries to meet precision measurement requirements. The
Company claimed that its products could increase productivity
and profitability by eliminating manufacturing errors. At or
about the beginning of the Class Period, the Company represented
that it had implemented "lean manufacturing" principles that
purportedly increased the Company's production capacity, among
other improvements, by "eliminating wastes," such as
overproduction, wait time, inefficient processes, and product
defects. During the Class Period, defendants issued strong
results and positive guidance which defendants attributed to, in
material part, the Company's purported implementation of
adequate controls and efficient practices. Unbeknownst to
investors, however, these statements were materially false and
misleading, and known or recklessly disregarded by defendants as
such, because the Company's internal inventory and accounting
controls and procedures were wholly defective and inadequate
during the Class Period.
The truth began to emerge on July 18, 2005. On that day, the
Company issued a press release revealing that it had a backlog
of unfilled customer orders that had grown significantly in the
second quarter of 2005 and that, as a result, the Company
significantly lowered its earnings guidance for that quarter. On
November 3, 2005, after the market closed, the Company announced
that it had incurred $1.6 million in "inventory costing and
consumption variances . . . due to processing problems relating
to the implementation of our new accounting and inventory
management systems." Defendant Simon Raab later admitted that
the Company had not been able to keep up with customer orders,
in particular, "late arriving Asian orders in Q2," resulting in
"substantially more complex inventory management situations, and
. . . substantial inventory increases." In reaction to this
news, the price of FARO stock plummeted $4.39, or 19.6%, from
its closing price of $22.38 on November 3, 2005, to finally
close on November 4, 2005, at $17.99, on unusually heavy volume.
As a result of defendants' materially false and misleading
statements, the price of FARO securities became artificially
inflated during the Class Period. Defendants were motivated to
engage in the wrongful and fraudulent conduct alleged in the
complaint to sell over 1.48 million of their personally held
FARO shares for profits of over $40.9 million, and to complete
the acquisition of iQvolution AG using FARO stock.
For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
and Andrei V. Rado of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone:
(800) 320-5081, E-mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com, Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com.
STONE ENERGY: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, initiated
a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Stone Energy Corporation (NYSE: SGY) between June 17, 2005
and October 6, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").
The action, numbered 05-2109, is pending in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana against
Stone Energy, David H. Welch (CEO), Kenneth H. Beer (CFO), D.
Peter Canty (former CEO), and James H. Prince (former CFO).
The complaint alleges that defendants violated accounting rules
and guidelines relating to the valuation of oil reserves. Stone
Energy is a Louisiana-based company, which, according to its
press releases, engages in "the acquisition and subsequent
exploration, development, operation and production of oil and
gas properties." One of the key factors to a proper evaluation
of companies like Stone Energy is the accurate and reliable
information on oil and gas reserves and the expected future cash
flows generated from these reserves. During the Class Period,
defendants reported Stone Energy's proved reserves in SEC
filings and press releases assuring investors that these
reserves were reported in accordance with SEC guidelines. In
response, the stock traded at over $62 per share during
September 2005. On October 6, 2005, defendants revealed for the
first time that an internal reserve review conducted during the
third quarter showed that Stone Energy would need to take
significant downward revisions to the Company's previously
reported reserves. In response to the news, Stone stock plunged
from $56.0 to $48.14 on unusually high trading volumes of over
4.1 million shares, far greater than the average trading volume
of around 560,000 shares.
The bad news, however, was far from over. On November 8, 2005,
defendants announced that Stone Energy will restate results from
2001 through the second quarter of 2005. The Company revealed
that an outside investigation indicated that Stone Energy may
have violated regulatory requirements for reserve booking and
that management set a "tone of optimism and aggressiveness"
regarding reserves. Two days later, the Company announced that
the SEC commenced an informal inquiry into the reserve revision.
On December 5, 2005, defendants admitted that the Company did
not follow SEC guidelines with respect to reserves and revealed
that Stone Energy received an inquiry from the Philadelphia
stock exchange about trading activity before its reserve
estimate revision in October. As a result of defendants' fraud,
investors have sustained significant losses. In fact, the full
extent of investors losses has not yet been revealed, as the
magnitude of the restatement has not yet been disclosed.
For more details, contact Maya Saxena or Joseph White of
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, 5200 Town Center Circle,
Suite 600, Boca Raton, FL 33486, E-mail:
msaxena@milbergweiss.com or jwhite@milbergweiss.com; and Steven
G. Schulman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone:
(800) 320-5081, E-mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com, Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com.
WELLS FARGO: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.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 and certain
of its affiliates, on behalf of those who purchased Hartford
mutual funds from Wells Fargo Investments, LLC ("Wells Fargo
Investments") during the period between June 30, 2000 and June
8, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Hartford mutual funds and their respective symbols are as
follows:
Hartford Advisers (NASDAQ: ITTAX) (NASDAQ: IHABX) (NASDAQ:
HAFCX)
(NASDAQ: IHAYX) (NASDAQ: HADAX) (NASDAQ: HAIBX)
Hartford Blue Chip (NASDAQ: HBCIX)
Hartford Capital Appreciation (NASDAQ: ITHAX) (NASDAQ: IHCAX)
(NASDAQ: HCACX) (NASDAQ: HCAYX) (NASDAQ: HIACX) (NASDAQ: HIBCX)
Hartford Capital Opportunities (NASDAQ: HCOIX)
Hartford Disciplined Equity (NASDAQ: HAIAX) (NASDAQ: HGIBX)
(NASDAQ: HGICX) (NASDAQ: HGIYX) (NASDAQ: HIAGX) (NASDAQ: HBGIX)
Hartford Dividend & Growth (NASDAQ: IHGIX) (NASDAQ: ITDGX)
(NASDAQ: HDGCX)
(NASDAQ: HDGYX) (NASDAQ: HIADX) (NASDAQ: HDGBX)
Hartford Equity Income (NASDAQ: HQIAX) (NASDAQ: HQIBX) (NASDAQ:
HQICX)
(NASDAQ: HQIYX) (NASDAQ: HIAEX) (NASDAQ: HIBEX)
Hartford Focus (NASDAQ: HFFAX) (NASDAQ: HFFBX) (NASDAQ: HFFCX)
(NASDAQ: HFFYX) (NASDAQ: HIAFX) (NASDAQ: HFCBX)
Hartford Global Advisers (NASDAQ: HGAAX) (NASDAQ: HGABX)
Hartford Global Communications (NASDAQ: HGCAX) (NASDAQ: HGCBX)
(NASDAQ: HGCCX) (NASDAQ: HGCYX) (NASDAQ: HGCIX) (NASDAQ: HBGCX)
Hartford Global Financial Svcs (NASDAQ: HGFAX) (NASDAQ: HGFBX)
(NASDAQ: HGFCX) (NASDAQ: HGFYX) (NASDAQ: HFIAX) (NASDAQ: HBGFX)
Hartford Global Health (NASDAQ: HGHAX) (NASDAQ: HGHBX) (NASDAQ:
HGHCX)
(NASDAQ: HGHYX) (NASDAQ: HIAHX) (NASDAQ: HBGHX)
Hartford Global Leaders (NASDAQ: HALAX) (NASDAQ: HGLBX) (NASDAQ:
HGLCX)
(NASDAQ: HGLYX) (NASDAQ: HIALX) (NASDAQ: HBGLX)
Hartford Global Technology (NASDAQ: HGTAX) (NASDAQ: HGTBX)
(NASDAQ: HGTCX)
(NASDAQ: HGTYX) (NASDAQ: HIATX) (NASDAQ: HBGTX)
Hartford Growth (NASDAQ: HGWAX) (NASDAQ: HGWBX) (NASDAQ: HGWCX)
(NASDAQ: FECHX) (NASDAQ: HGIAX) (NASDAQ: HBGRX) (NASDAQ: FECLX)
(NASDAQ: FECBX) (NASDAQ: FECCX)
Hartford Growth Opportunities (NASDAQ: HGOAX) (NASDAQ: HGOBX)
(NASDAQ: HGOCX) (NASDAQ: FGRHX) (NASDAQ: HAGOX) (NASDAQ: HBGOX)
(NASDAQ: FGRWX) (NASDAQ: FGRBX) (NASDAQ: FGRCX) (NASDAQ: HGOYX)
(NASDAQ: FGRZX) (NASDAQ: HGWYX)
Hartford High Yield (NASDAQ: HAHAX) (NASDAQ: HAHBX) (NASDAQ:
HAHCX)
(NASDAQ: HIAYX) (NASDAQ: HBHYX) (NASDAQ: HAHYX)
Hartford Income (NASDAQ: HTIAX) (NASDAQ: HTIBX) (NASDAQ: HTICX)
(NASDAQ: HTIYX)
Hartford Index (NASDAQ: HIAIX) (NASDAQ: HBIDX)
Hartford Inflation Plus (NASDAQ: HIPAX) (NASDAQ: HIPBX) (NASDAQ:
HIPCX)
(NASDAQ: HIPYX)
Hartford International Opp (NASDAQ: HIAOX) (NASDAQ: HBIOX)
Hartford International Stock (NASDAQ: HAISX)
Hartford Intl Capital Appr (NASDAQ: HNCAX) (NASDAQ: HNCBX)
(NASDAQ: HNCCX)
(NASDAQ: HNCYX) (NASDAQ: HNCIX) (NASDAQ: HBICX)
Hartford Intl Opportunities (NASDAQ: IHOAX) (NASDAQ: HIOBX)
(NASDAQ: HIOCX) (NASDAQ: HAOYX)
Hartford Intl Small Company (NASDAQ: HNSAX) (NASDAQ: HNSBX)
(NASDAQ: HNSCX) (NASDAQ: HNSIX) (NASDAQ: HBISX) (NASDAQ: HNSYX)
Hartford Large Cap Growth (NASDAQ: HLGCX)
Hartford Mid Cap Value (NASDAQ: HMVAX) (NASDAQ: HMVBX) (NASDAQ:
HMVCX)
(NASDAQ: HMVYX)
Hartford Midcap (NASDAQ: HFMCX) (NASDAQ: HAMBX) (NASDAQ: HMDCX)
(NASDAQ: HIMCX) (NASDAQ: HBMCX) (NASDAQ: HMDYX)
Hartford MidCap Stock (NASDAQ: HMCSX)
Hartford MidCap Value (NASDAQ: HMVIX) (NASDAQ: HBMVX)
Hartford Mortgage Securities (NASDAQ: HMSIX) (NASDAQ: HBMGX)
Hartford Short Duration (NASDAQ: HSDAX) (NASDAQ: HSDBX) (NASDAQ:
HSDCX)
(NASDAQ: HSDYX)
Hartford Small Cap Growth (NASDAQ: HSLAX) (NASDAQ: HSLBX)
(NASDAQ: HSLCX)
(NASDAQ: FACHX) (NASDAQ: FACAX) (NASDAQ: FACBX) (NASDAQ: FACCX)
(NASDAQ: HSLYX)
Hartford Small Cap Value (NASDAQ: HSCGX) (NASDAQ: HBSCX)
Hartford Small Company (NASDAQ: IHSAX) (NASDAQ: HSCBX) (NASDAQ:
HSMCX)
(NASDAQ: HIASX) (NASDAQ: HDMBX) (NASDAQ: HSCYX)
Hartford SmallCap Growth (NASDAQ: HISCX) (NASDAQ: HBSGX)
Hartford Stock (NASDAQ: IHSTX) (NASDAQ: ITSBX) (NASDAQ: HSFCX)
(NASDAQ: HSTAX) (NASDAQ: HIBSX) (NASDAQ: HASYX)
Hartford Tax-Free CA (NASDAQ: HTFAX) (NASDAQ: HTFBX) (NASDAQ:
HTFCX)
Hartford Tax-Free MN (NASDAQ: HTMAX) (NASDAQ: HTMBX) (NASDAQ:
HTMCX)
(NASDAQ: FTMNX) (NASDAQ: FTMHX) (NASDAQ: FTMAX) (NASDAQ: FTMBX)
(NASDAQ: FTMCX) (NASDAQ: HTMYX)
Hartford Tax-Free National (NASDAQ: HTNAX) (NASDAQ: HTNBX)
(NASDAQ: HTNCX)
(NASDAQ: FTNLX) (NASDAQ: FTNHX) (NASDAQ: FTNAX) (NASDAQ: FTNBX)
(NASDAQ: FTNKX) (NASDAQ: HTNYX)
Hartford Tax-Free NY (NASDAQ: HTYAX) (NASDAQ: HTYBX) (NASDAQ:
HTYCX)
Hartford Total Return Bond (NASDAQ: ITBAX) (NASDAQ: ITBBX)
(NASDAQ: HABCX)
(NASDAQ: HIABX) (NASDAQ: HBNBX) (NASDAQ: HABYX)
Hartford U.S. Government Secs (NASDAQ: HAUSX) (NASDAQ: HBUSX)
(NASDAQ: HUSAX) (NASDAQ: HUSBX) (NASDAQ: HUSCX) (NASDAQ: FIUGX)
(NASDAQ: FIUHX) (NASDAQ: FIUAX) (NASDAQ: FIPBX) (NASDAQ: FIUCX)
(NASDAQ: HUSYX)
Hartford Value (NASDAQ: HVFAX) (NASDAQ: HVFBX) (NASDAQ: HVFCX)
Hartford Value (NASDAQ: HIAVX) (NASDAQ: HBVLX)
Hartford Value Opportunities (NASDAQ: HVOAX) (NASDAQ: HVOBX)
(NASDAQ: HVOCX) (NASDAQ: FVAHX) (NASDAQ: HAVOX) (NASDAQ: HBVOX)
(NASDAQ: FVAAX) (NASDAQ: FVABX) (NASDAQ: FRVCX) (NASDAQ: HVOYX)
Hartford Value (NASDAQ: HVFYX)
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.
*********
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 * * *