/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/051221.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, December 21, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 252
Headlines
AMERICAN ITALIAN: MO Court Orders Securities Suits Consolidated
APACHE CORPORATION: Might Be Named in LA Hurricane Katrina Suit
APPLERA CORPORATION: Continues To Face CT Securities Fraud Suit
APPLERA CORPORATION: Product Antitrust Suit Still Pending in DC
BOEING CO.: Ex-Workers File KS Suit Over Non-Existent Job Offers
BRACERO PROGRAM: Thousands to Get Money From Compensation Fund
CHINA: People Pursue Suit as Toxic Slick Reaches Russian Border
CINCINNATI BELL: Continues To Face Securities Suit in S.D. Ohio
DELL INC.: Recalls Notebook Computer Batteries For Fire Hazard
DIRECTV: Agrees to Resolve Consumer Complaints Over Satellite TV
DREW INDUSTRIES: Unit Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in CA Court
ENDOLOGIX, INC.: Recalls Delivery Catheters For Tip Separation
GAYLORD CHEMICAL: LA Meeting Discusses Formal Accounting of Deal
GUIDANT CORPORATION: PA City Sues V. Faulty Medical Devices
GUY CARPENTER: Releases Study on Legislative, Judicial Advances
HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: NY Court Mulls Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
HARRY & DAVID: Recalls Olive Tapenade For Botulism Contamination
HOOPER HOLMES: Examiners Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
INTERIOR DEPARTMENT: DC Judge Orders $7M Payment in Indian Case
IRWIN HOME: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Lawsuit For FCRA Violations
IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS: Working To Settle Pending Antitrust Claims
IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS: Named in Various Fen-Phen Injury Lawsuits
IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues To Face Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits
MIRAGE RESORTS: Trial in NV Gaming Machines Suit Set Sept. 2005
MR. MEATS: Attorney General Files Suit Over Poor Quality Product
NEW JERSEY: Family Files Damages Suit Over 2004 Medford Floods
NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Working To Settle MT Securities Suit
OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Fraud Suits Still Pending in NY
PENTAIR INC.: Working To Settle M/V Horizon Disease Litigation
PFIZER INC.: Lipitor Consumers File Injury Suits in US, Canada
PFIZER INC.: Faces Consolidated Bextra, Celebrex Suits in NY, CA
PFIZER INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of MN Importation Suits
REEBOK INTERNATIONAL: Shareholders File Suit v. Adidas Merger
REWARDS NETWORK: CA Court Certifies Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
SEITEL INC.: Plaintiffs Agree To Drop TX Suit Dismissal Appeal
STAAR SURGICAL: CA Court Allows Securities Lawsuit To Proceed
THAXTON GROUP: NC Bond Seller Charged With Securities Fraud
USF CORPORATION: Inks Settlement For Employees WARN Suit in PA
WARNER-LAMBERT: NY Court Dismisses Rezulin Patient Fraud Lawsuit
WASHINGTON: City Settles Suit by "Permatemp" Workers For $11.5M
WASHINGTON: Grant County Settles Suit V. Public Defender System
WOODSMOKE PROVISIONS: Recalls Salmon For Listeria Contamination
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
New Securities Fraud Cases
DIEBOLD INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. OH
DIEBOLD INC.: Landskroner Grieco Lodges Securities Suit in OH
NASH FINCH: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MN
NASH FINCH: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
WELLS FARGO: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
*********
AMERICAN ITALIAN: MO Court Orders Securities Suits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith ordered the consolidation of
seven class action lawsuits that investors were commenced
against American Italian Pasta Co., The Kansas City Business
Journal reports.
In a written order, the judge said, "All of the cases share both
factual and legal issues, and consolidation will streamline
matters and prevent needless confusion, expense, and delay." The
Judge Smith's order also designated three Iron Workers' Union
locals as lead plaintiffs in the combined case.
Since August 1, investors, including a variety of pension funds,
filed securities class action cases alleging that the company
and its board harmed investors. Four additional derivative cases
alleged that the board harmed the company.
The ironworkers' locals had used Kent T. Perry & Co. LC of
Overland Park for local counsel. Judge Smith accepted Perry &
Co.'s motion to make the New York law firm of Pomerantz Haudek
Block Grossman & Gross lead counsel. The judge then gave
Pomerantz Haudek 30 days to file an amended complaint on behalf
of all plaintiffs.
The complaints alleged that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
The Company failed to disclose or misrepresented that the
Company failed to properly expense $6.6 million in promotional
allowances and deduction receivables, that the Company failed to
take timely write-downs for spare parts inventory, that the
Company maintained inadequate reserves for slow moving, damaged,
and discontinued inventories, the Company failed to record $1.9
million in certain fixed asset retirements, and that as a result
the Company's financials were not prepared in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"), an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (October 5, 2005) reports.
On August 9, 2005, after the market closed, Italian Pasta
announced a $60.7 million charge and an SEC inquiry into the
Company's results. Specifically, the Company stated the SEC was
investigating it for unspecified restatements and for
transactions in the Company's stock by outsiders in late 2004
and early 2005, for which the Company had received inquiries
from the New York Stock Exchange and the Philadelphia Stock
Exchange. In addition, the Audit Committee of Italian Pasta is
conducting an internal investigation of certain accounting
procedures, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (October 5,
2005) reports.
The suit is styled, "In re American Italian Pasta Company
Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:05-cv-00725-ODS," filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, under Judge Ortrie D. Smith. Plaintiff firms involved
in the case:
(1) Abbey Gardy, LLP, 212 East 39th St., New York, NY,
10016, Phone: 212-889-3700, E-mail:
info@abbeygardy.com;
(2) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com;
(3) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (New York, NY), 805 Third
Ave., 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212-687-
1980, Fax: 212-687-7714, E-mail: info@kaplanfox.com;
(4) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
MD, 21202, Phone: 410-332-0030, E-mail:
pivenlaw@erols.com;
(5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200
Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone:
631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail:
info@lerachlaw.com;
(6) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main St., Hartford, CT,
06106, Phone: 800-797-5499, Fax: 860-493-6290, E-mail:
sn06106@AOL.com;
(7) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E., Bala
Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-
7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;
(8) Schneider & Wallace, 180 Montgomery St., Suite 2000,
San Francisco, CA, 94104, Phone: (415) 421-7100, Fax:
(415) 421-7105, E-mail: info@schneiderwallace.com;
(9) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, 35 East State
St., Media, PA, 19063, Phone: 877-891-9880, Fax:
jshah@classactioncounsel.com;
(10) Smith & Smith, LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: 215-638-4847, Fax: 215-638-
4867; and
(11) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th St., New
York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310-209-2468, Fax: 310-209-
2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com.
APACHE CORPORATION: Might Be Named in LA Hurricane Katrina Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Corporation would fall within the defendant class in the
lawsuit filed against several oil and gas pipeline companies in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, styled `Barasich, et al., individually and as
representatives of all those similarly situated vs. Columbia
Gulf Transmission Co., et al, No. 05-4161,' if the lawsuit is
certified, the Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.
The suit currently names as defendants all oil and gas and
pipeline companies that drilled or dredged in the marshes of
South Louisiana. The Company has not yet been named in the
suit. The lawsuit claims defendants were negligent by
constructing canals and conducting oil and gas operations, which
plaintiffs contend is the sole and/or almost the sole cause of
the alleged destruction of the marshes in South Louisiana, which
plaintiffs blame for all and/or substantially all loss of life
and destruction of property which was incurred from Hurricane
Katrina.
The suit is styled "Barasich et al v. Columbia Gulf Transmission
Company et al., case no. 2:05-cv-04161-SSV-DEK," filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, under Judge Sarah S. Vance. Representing the
plaintiffs is Conrad S. P. Williams, III of St. Martin &
Williams, 4084 Highway 311, P. O. Box 2017, Houma, LA 70361-
2017, Phone: 985-876-3891, E-mail: duke525@msn.com.
APPLERA CORPORATION: Continues To Face CT Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Applera Corporation and some of its officers continue to face a
class action filed on behalf of purchasers of Applera-Celera
Genomics stock in the company's follow-on public offering of
Applera-Celera Genomics stock completed on March 6, 2000.
In the offering, the Company sold an aggregate of approximately
4.4 million shares of Applera-Celera Genomics stock at a public
offering price of $225 per share. The lawsuit, which was
commenced with the filing of several complaints in April and May
2000, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, and an amended consolidated complaint was filed on
August 21, 2001. The consolidated complaint generally alleges
that the prospectus used in connection with the offering was
inaccurate or misleading because it failed to adequately
disclose the alleged opposition of the Human Genome Project and
two of its supporters, the governments of the U.S. and the U.K.,
to providing patent protection to the Company's genomic-based
products. Although the Celera Genomics group has never sought,
or intended to seek, a patent on the basic human genome sequence
data, the complaint also alleges that the Company did not
adequately disclose the risk that the Celera Genomics group
would not be able to patent this data. The consolidated
complaint seeks monetary damages, rescission, costs and
expenses, and other relief as the court deems proper. On March
31, 2005, the Court certified the case as a class action.
APPLERA CORPORATION: Product Antitrust Suit Still Pending in DC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Applera Corporation and Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. continues to face
a class action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia. Molecular Diagnostics Laboratories filed
the suit, which alleges anticompetitive conduct in connection
with the sale of Taq DNA polymerase and PCR-related products.
The anticompetitive conduct is alleged to arise from the
prosecution and enforcement of U.S. Patent No 4,889,818. This
patent is assigned to Hoffmann-La Roche, with whom the Company
has a commercial relationship covering, among other things, this
patent and the sale of Taq DNA polymerase. The complaint seeks
monetary damages, costs, expenses, injunctive relief, and other
relief as the court deems proper.
This case is largely based on the same set of contentions
underlying a claim filed against the Company by Promega
Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia. The Promega claim was dismissed in August 2004
for, among other reasons, failure to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted.
The suit is styled "MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS LABORATORIES v.
HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE, INC. et al, case no. 1:04-cv-01649-HHK,"
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, under Judge Henry H. Kennedy.
Lawyers for the defendants are;
(1) Joanne M. Guerrera, David J. Lender, John E. Scribner,
David Nelson Southard, WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, L.L.P.,
1501 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202)
682-7153 Fax: 202-857-0939 E-mail:
david.southard@weil.com
(2) Heather Holden Brooks, Cathy Hoffman, Hadrian R. Katz,
Amy Elizabeth Ralph-Mudge, Joseph M. Ruggiero, Asim
Varma, ARNOLD & PORTER, LLP, 555 12th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-1206, Phone: (202) 942-6309, Fax:
(202) 942-5999, E-mail: holden_brooks@aporter.com,
cathy_hoffman@aporter.com, katzha@aporter.com,
amy_mudge@aporter.com and asim_varma@aporter.com
Lawyer for the plaintiffs are:
(i) Paul Thomas Gallagher, Michael Hausfeld, Brian A.
Ratner, COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C, 1100
New York Avenue, NW West Tower, Suite 500, Washington,
DC 20005-3934, Phone: (202) 408-4600, Fax: (202) 408-
4699, E-mail: pgallagher@cmht.com, mhausfeld@cmht.com
or bratner@cmht.com
(ii) Scott E. Gant, William A. Isaacson, BOIES, SCHILLER &
FLEXNER, 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 800,
Washington, DC 20015, Phone: (202) 237-2727, E-mail:
sgant@bsfllp.com or wisaacson@bsfllp.com
BOEING CO.: Ex-Workers File KS Suit Over Non-Existent Job Offers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Former Boeing Co. employees initiated a lawsuit in the Kansas
federal court against the aerospace giant and the buyers of its
commercial aircraft operations in Kansas and Oklahoma, alleging
age discrimination against employees in the sale, The Associated
Press reports.
Attorney Lawrence Williamson Jr. told The Associated Press that
the 75 named plaintiffs in the case are seeking class action
status. He also said that as many as 300 former workers agreed
to be part of the suit. "We believe age was a motivating factor
in decisions made," according to Mr. Williamson.
In addition to Boeing, the other named defendants are the
Canadian firm Onex Corporation and its Wichita-based subsidiary,
Spirit Aerosystems Inc. Boeing spokesman Tim Neale told The
Associated Press that the company had not received a copy of the
complaint and declined immediate comment. Spirit Aerosystems
spokesman Fred Solis also told The Associated Press that the
company had not seen the lawsuit and could not comment. Its
parent company, Onex, did not return a call for comment.
Last June, Boeing sold its Wichita commercial aircraft division
to Onex. Hundreds of Boeing workers did not receive job offers
from the new company, Spirit Aerosystems, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (December 20, 2005) reports. The workers
are seeking their jobs back, along with unspecified compensatory
damages and at least $1.5 billion in punitive damages. Mr.
Williamson alleges that after the sale, more-qualified older
workers were terminated while younger workers were hired by the
new company.
According to the complaint, of 930 workers older than age 50,
nearly 14 percent or 130 were not offered jobs. That, the suit
alleges, compares to only 10 of the 215 workers under age 40, or
4 percent, who were not offered jobs. "That disparity is
unexplainable," Mr. Williamson told The Associated Press.
The complaint also alleges that the company retaliated by not
hiring some women who had complained about discrimination and
employees who had filed workers compensation or disability
claims. In addition, it also charges that the companies did not
keep required personnel records, and that some workers were
terminated just months or weeks before they would have been
vested in their pensions.
The suit is styled, "Apsley et al. v. Boeing Company, The et
al., Case No. 6:05-cv-01368-MLB-DWB," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Kansas, under Judge Monti L.
Belot with referral to Judge Donald W. Bostwick. Representing
the Plaintiff/s are, Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr. and Uzo L.
Ohaebosim of Shores, Williamson & Ohaebosim, LLC, 301 N. Main,
1400 Epic Center, Wichita, KS 67202, Phone: 316-261-5400, Fax:
316-261-5404, E-mail: l.williamson@swolawfirm.com and
u.ohaebosim@swolawfirm.com.
BRACERO PROGRAM: Thousands to Get Money From Compensation Fund
--------------------------------------------------------------
Although over 36,000 people claim that they are former migrant
farm laborers who worked in the United States back in the 1940s
under a guest-worker program and should receive the long-overdue
back pay, only 9,000 will get paid, The El Universal reports.
According to the federal government nearly 9,000 elderly people
will receive $3,500 from a special fund. Deputy Interior
Secretary Felipe Gonz lez said at a press conference that of
36,480 people who have claimed the payment, only 8,876 have
proven that they were either guest workers or their eligible
survivors.
The former farm workers must produce original documents to prove
that they worked for the United States' War Food Administration
or Manpower Commission between 1942 and 1946. The "Bracero
Program" as it became to be known was designed to secure the
manpower to collect harvests at a time when most U.S. men were
being mobilized for service in World War II. Some of the guest
workers stayed on until 1966, when the program ended.
Braceros was the name given about 400,000 Mexican laborers who
were recruited to work in the farms and railroads of the United
States during World War II. About 10 percent of their wages was
deducted from their paychecks and placed in a savings account in
a Wells Fargo bank, from where the monies were supposed to have
been transferred to Mexico, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (September 4, 2002) reports.
Part of the reason the money was withheld was to ensure that
workers would return to Mexico once their contracts expired. The
money was placed in government accounts in Mexico, where corrupt
officials allegedly stole it and thus workers never saw any of
it.
In 1998, the former "braceros" filed a class action lawsuit in
U.S. federal courts in San Francisco and New York, demanding
that the U.S. and Mexican governments return the withheld wages.
However, Washington and U.S. banks argued that the funds all
went to Mexico, making the problem an internal matter among
Mexicans.
The California case, whose lead plaintiff is Leocadio de la
Rosa, 90, was filed in March 2001 by a group of former braceros,
who worked in the United States between 1942 and 1949. Filed in
a San Francisco federal court, the suit targeted the U.S. and
Mexican governments, Wells Fargo Bank and three Mexican banks.
The braceros sought repayment of the money deducted from their
paychecks, plus interest. While they did not specify the amount
owed, estimates put it at around $500 million, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (September 2, 2002) reports.
Aside from the U.S. and Mexican governments that suit also
listed Wells Fargo Bank and three Mexican banks as defendants.
It alleges breach of contract and violation of a financial
trust, and seeks payment of the wages withheld, plus interest,
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 17, 2001) reports.
However, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer granted
requests by the defendants to dismiss the class action. In his
ruling, Judge Breyer wrote that he did "not doubt that many of
the laborers, called braceros, never received savings fund
withholdings to which they were entitled. The court is
sympathetic to the braceros situation." He concluded though that
the braceros were not entitled to any relief from the Mexican or
American governments, or Wells Fargo, in a United States court
of law, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (September 2,
2002) reports.
The U.S. government argued in its request that Judge Breyer
should dismiss the case because the braceros' claims were barred
by the statute of limitations. The Mexican government asked for
dismissal, saying the case should not be tried in the United
States, because the court lacks jurisdiction over Mexico and
Mexican banks. Rather, the court should refer the issue to the
Mexican Congress and the president, because it is "ultimately a
question of Mexican public policy," according to attorneys for
the Mexican government. For its part, Wells Fargo said its role
in the "braceros program" was extremely limited, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (September 2, 2002) reports.
Just this year, in response to pressure from the "braceros," who
claim to number some 100,000, Congress set up the special
compensation fund. According to officials that fund will
distribute up to $54 million to those who can prove that they
worked in the U.S. program. The deadline for submitting
documents is March 10, 2006, when disbursement is scheduled to
begin.
The suit is styled, "Cruz, et al v. United States of, et al,
Case No. 3:01-cv-00892-CRB," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge
Charles R. Breyer. Representing the Plaintiff/s are:
(1) Morris J. Baller of Saperstein Goldstein Demchak &
Baller, 300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000, Oakland, CA
94612, Phone: (510) 763-9800, E-mail: mjb@gdblegal.com;
(2) Elizabeth J. Cabraser of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, 275 Battery St., 30th Flr., Embarcadero
Ctr. West, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 956-
1000, E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com;
(3) Valeriano Saucedo of Miner Barnhill & Galland, 1612 W.
Mineral King Ave., Ste. A, Visalia, CA 93291, Phone:
(209) 738-9905; and
(4) Paul Strauss of Miner Barnhill & Galland, 14 W. Erie
St., Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: (312) 751-1170, E-mail:
pstrauss@lawmbg.com.
Representing the Defendant/s are:
(i) Jonathan I. Blackman of Clearly Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton, One Liberty Plaza, New York, NY 10006, Phone:
(212) 225-2000;
(ii) Raymond C. Marshall of Bingham McCutchen, LLP, Three
Embarcadero Ctr., San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415)
393-2000, E-mail: raymond.marshall@bingham.com;
(iii) John Russel Tyler of U.S. Department of Justice, Civil
Division, Federal Programs Branch, 20 Massachusetts
Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 202-514-2356,
E-mail: john.tyler@usdoj.gov; and
(iv) Hilary E. Ware of Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, LLP,
333 Bush St., San Francisco, CA 94104-2878, Phone:
(415) 772-6000, E-mail: hware@hewm.com.
CHINA: People Pursue Suit as Toxic Slick Reaches Russian Border
---------------------------------------------------------------
As toxic slick flowing along a Chinese river reaches the border
with Russia, Chinese plaintiffs say that local courts are
dragging their feet in hearing a case against the company that
caused the spill, The South China Morning Post reports.
A slick of benzene recently moved up the frigid Songhua River,
forcing Chinese cities to shut down water supplies as it passes.
It reached the junction of the Songhua and Amur Rivers, known in
Chinese as Heilong, which forms the border between the two
countries, according to China`s official Xinhua news agency.
With the alleged legal debacle at the local level, business
owners and residents in the city of Harbin plan to take a class
action lawsuit against the chemical plant to China`s highest
court, according to the South China Morning Post.
An explosion on November 13 at Jilin Petrochemical Co., a unit
of PetroChina, spilled 100 tons of cancer-causing benzene
compounds into the Songhua River. Government officials didn`t
reveal the 80-kilometer slick`s existence to the public until 10
days later, when it threatened water supplies of the city of
Harbin.
Seventeen restaurant and public bathhouse owners and three
Harbin residents would take their case to the Supreme People`s
Court next week, if provincial courts failed to hear it soon,
according to the South China Morning Post.
Wang Baoqing, a restaurant owner seeking a symbolic compensation
of $124 (10,000 yuan), told the South China Morning Post, "I
simply want to do justice to my fellow citizens in Harbin whose
health has been under serious threats over the years by the
contaminated river."
"It appeared both provincial courts are adopting delay tactics
while waiting for instructions from higher authorities, which
may not come any time soon," the South China Morning Post quoted
Hu Fengbin, the lawyer leading the litigation, as saying. He
added, "Despite (the fact) that there is no precedence in the
country to provide compensation for large-scale environmental
damages...we will give it a try."
CINCINNATI BELL: Continues To Face Securities Suit in S.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Bell, Inc. continues to face a consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, on behalf of purchasers
of the Broadwing, Inc.'s securities between January 17, 2001 and
May 20, 2002, inclusive.
Between October and December 2002, five virtually identical
class action lawsuits were filed against Broadwing Inc. and two
of its former Chief Executive Officers, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 by, inter alia, improperly recognizing revenue associated
with Indefeasible Right of Use (IRU) agreements; and failing to
write-down goodwill associated with the Company's 1999
acquisition of IXC Communications, Inc. The plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees, and expert
expenses.
On December 30, 2002, the "Local 144 Group" filed a motion
seeking consolidation of the complaints and appointment as lead
plaintiff. By order dated October 29, 2003, Local 144 Nursing
Home Pension Fund, Paul J. Brunner and Joseph Lask were named
lead plaintiffs in a putative consolidated class action. On
December 1, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed their amended
consolidated complaint on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities between January 17, 2001 and May 21, 2002, inclusive.
This amended complaint contained a number of new allegations.
The Company was added as a defendant in this amended filing. The
Company's motion to dismiss was filed on February 6, 2004.
Plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 14, 2004 and the
Company filed its reply on June 1, 2004. On September 24,
2004, Judge Walter Rice issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss. The Order
indicates that a more detailed opinion will follow. Until the
detailed opinion is issued, there is no way of knowing which
portions of the case have been dismissed. In the interim, Judge
Rice directed that the stay of discovery will remain in effect.
The suit is styled "In re Broadwing, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:02-cv-00795-WHR," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, under Judge Walter H
Rice. Representing the Company are Peter J Beshar of Gibson
Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166, Phone:
212-351-4084, E-mail: pbeshar@gibsondunn.com; and Grant Spencer
Cowan, Frost Brown Todd LLC - 1, 2200 PNC Center, 201 E 5th
Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202-4182, Phone: 513-651-6800, Fax:
513-651-6745, E-mail: gcowan@fbtlaw.com. Representing the
plaintiffs are William Kendall Flynn and Richard Stuart Wayne,
Strauss & Troy - 1, The Federal Reserve Building, 150 E Fourth
Street, 4th Floor, Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018, Phone: 513-621-
2120, Fax: 513-621-2120, E-mail: wkflynn@strausstroy.com or
rswayne@strausstroy.com; and Paul David Young, Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY
10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-5300, Fax: 212-868-1229, E-mail:
pyoung@milberg.com.
DELL INC.: Recalls Notebook Computer Batteries For Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Dell Inc., of Round Rock, Texas is voluntarily recalling
about 22,000 units of Dell Notebook Computer Batteries,
According to Dell, these batteries can overheat, which could
pose a fire risk. Dell has received three reports of batteries
overheating. The incidents involved damage to a tabletop, a
desktop, and minor damage to personal effects. No injuries have
been reported.
The recalled batteries were sold with the following Dell
notebook computers: LatitudeT D410, D505, D510, D600, D610,
D800, D810; InspironT 510M, 600M, 6000, 8600, 9200, 9300, XPS
Gen 2; and Dell PrecisionT M20 and M70 mobile workstations. The
batteries were also sold separately, including as secondary
batteries and in response to service calls. The batteries insert
into the battery bay located on the underside of the notebook.
"Dell" and "Made in Japan" or "Made in China" are stamped on the
batteries. The identification number for each battery appears on
a white sticker. Customers should have this number available
when they contact Dell to determine if their battery is part of
the recall.
Manufactured in either Japan or China, Dell sold these batteries
with the notebook computers, as part of a service replacement,
and as individual units on its Web site and catalogs from
October 5, 2004 through October 13, 2005. The computers with
these batteries sold for between $900 and $2,650, and individual
batteries sold for between $99 and $179.
Customers should contact Dell to determine if their notebook
computer battery is part of this recall. If it is, consumers
should immediately stop using the battery as a power source for
their notebook computer. Dell will provide a free replacement
battery.
Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Dell toll-
free at (866) 342-0011 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday
through Friday, go to the firm's Web site at
http://www.dellbatteryprogram.com,or write to: Dell Inc., Attn:
Battery Program, 9701 Metric Blvd., Suite 200 Austin, Texas
78758. Firm's Media Contact: Tom Kehoe and Venancio Figueroa
III, (512) 725-0281 and (512) 723-1726, tom_kehoe@dell.com and
venancio_figueroa@dell.com.
DIRECTV: Agrees to Resolve Consumer Complaints Over Satellite TV
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General William H. Sorrell announced that he and 21
other state Attorneys General entered into a settlement with
DIRECTV addressing consumer complaints about undisclosed fees
that they were charged after ordering the satellite TV service,
or about problems in receiving local channels. As part of a five
million dollar settlement, DIRECTV has agreed to pay restitution
to consumers who complained about the following DIRECTV
practices:
(1) charging a fee to consumers who did not activate
DIRECTV in a timely way,
(2) charging for but not providing all local channels
offered to consumers, and
(3) assessing a fee for terminating service before the
"free programming offer" period expired.
Consumers with complaints about the terms contained in their
contracts, problems with installation, difficulties activating
or receiving programming, or termination fees that were charged
when they canceled their service, may be eligible to receive
restitution under the settlement. To receive restitution
consumers must either have filed complaints in the past with
either the Attorney General or DIRECTV concerning these issues
or file complaints with the Attorney General or DIRECTV by May
11, 2006. Consumers who wish to file claims for restitution
should file a complaint with Attorney General Sorrell's Consumer
Assistance Program at Consumer Assistance Program, 206 Morrill
Hall-UVM, Burlington, VT 05405. Complaint forms are available
here. Alternatively, complaints may be sent to DIRECTV at:
DIRECTV, State Complaint Program, P.O. Box 29079, Glendale, CA
91209-9079. (All complaints must be received no later than May
11, 2006.)
Attorney General Sorrell said, "For many Vermont consumers
located in rural areas, satellite television provides the only
means for accessing any form of television, and so we were
particularly concerned about complaints that DIRECTV was not
providing accurate information to consumers about the costs of
the services being provided, or the ability to access local
channels."
In addition to providing consumer restitution, DIRECTV has
agreed to clearly and accurately inform consumers about all
material aspects of the consumer's obligation if he or she
accepts a DIRECTV service or equipment offer in its
advertisements. "We are hopeful that this agreement will help
ensure that consumers will no longer be surprised when they get
their first bill from DIRECTV," said Attorney General Sorrell.
The other states that have signed this agreement are Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia.
DREW INDUSTRIES: Unit Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Drew Industries, Inc.'s indirect subsidiary Zieman Manufacturing
Company faces two actions filed on October 11, 2005 and October
12, 2005 in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Sacramento, entitled "Arlen Williams, Jr. vs. Weekend
Warrior Trailers, Inc., Zieman Manufacturing Company, et. al.,
Case No. CV027691," and "Joseph Giordano and Dennis Gish, vs.
Weekend Warrior Trailers, Inc, and Zieman Manufacturing Company,
et. al., Case No. 05AS04523."
Each case purports to be a class action on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and all others similarly situated. The complaints in
both cases are virtually identical. Plaintiffs allege that
defendant Weekend Warrior sold model years 1999 - 2005 FS2600
and FS3000 trailers, equipped with frames manufactured by
Zieman, that are defective in design and manufacture.
Plaintiffs allege that the defects cause the trailer to place
excessive weight on the trailer coach tongue and the towing
vehicle's trailer hitch, causing damage to the trailers and the
towing vehicles, and that the tires on the trailers do not
support the advertised maximum towing capacity of the trailers.
Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of residents of California
who purchased new or used model years 1999 - 2005 FS2600 and
FS3000 trailers. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an
unspecified amount (including compensatory, incidental and
consequential damages), punitive damages, restitution,
declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs.
ENDOLOGIX, INC.: Recalls Delivery Catheters For Tip Separation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Endologix, Inc. is voluntarily conducting a limited product
recall of selected Powerlinkr System delivery catheters marketed
in the U.S., which are used to deliver the Company's minimally
invasive treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). This
action does not include the Powerlink stent grafts that have
been implanted in patients. In addition, it does not include the
large diameter 34 mm Powerlink System being evaluated under an
investigational device exemption or Powerlink Systems sold
outside of the U.S., as both of these Systems utilize a
different delivery catheter. Endologix has notified the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Los Angeles District Office
and intends to initiate and rapidly complete this action.
Endologix and its regulatory legal counsel have determined this
action to be categorized as a Class 2 recall; however, final
determination of recall classification is pending FDA review. A
class 2 recall is one that involves a product or products that
may cause temporary or medically reversible adverse health
consequences or where the probability of serious adverse health
consequences is remote.
Endologix is initiating this action as a result of its ongoing
comprehensive analysis of three recent reports of tip separation
from the catheter sheath inner core during procedures. In two of
the cases the Powerlink stent graft was successfully deployed
and in one case the separation occurred before the device could
be positioned for deployment. Additional engineering and quality
evaluations, and testing of existing Powerlink inventory are
being completed, and Endologix does not anticipate any
interruption in product availability due to this action.
Corrective and preventative actions have been identified and
will be actively integrated into the manufacturing operations.
"It is important to note that this voluntary recall is due to
issues with only the bifurcated delivery catheter used with our
Powerlink device, and not with the bifurcated stent graft
itself. This voluntary recall is being undertaken as a
conservative measure in response to recent reports of tip
separation. Based on our analysis, we have already identified
opportunities for improvement in the assembly of these selected
delivery catheters used with our Powerlink device," said Paul
McCormick, President and CEO of Endologix.
"As a responsible medical device company, our focus is aimed at
providing safe, effective and reliable delivery of the Powerlink
stent graft, with an integrated process of continuous
improvement including both corrective and preventative action. I
am confident our regulatory and quality team, working closely
with the FDA and our marketing and field personnel will
effectively complete this action involving an estimated 35
catheters in an organized and efficient manner," he added.
The Company expects to take a one-time charge of approximately
$700,000 to $800,000 during the current quarter to account for
the product consumed in the evaluation and testing and any
additional inventory write down.
GAYLORD CHEMICAL: LA Meeting Discusses Formal Accounting of Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
More than 200 claimants in the 1995 Gaylord chemical release
class action case recently attended a meeting in Louisiana
sponsored by the Community Action Organization to hear an update
on the status of a request for a formal accounting of $75
million in settlement proceeds, The Bogalusa Daily News reports.
Claimants say that they have been unable to obtain an accounting
on their own, so have asked attorneys to request a formal
accounting. Covington attorneys Shawn Reed and D. Douglas
Howard, Jr. told those assembled that they have asked Ad Hoc
Judge Robert Burns to order the Plaintiff's Litigation Committee
(PLC), court-appointed Special Master Patrick Juneau and the
court-appointed disbursing agent Daniel Claveer to open their
records to the litigants in order to be accountable regarding
the disbursement.
Mr. Reed and Mr. Howard filed the motion with the court on
behalf of their client, Delores Meyers, who had reportedly been
unable to obtain an accounting of the settlement money.
According to Mr. Reed, while the court had ordered that $5
million could be disbursed upon proof of expenses, "after
speaking with the special master, court appointed disbursing
agent and a representative of the PLC, an explanation of the
expenses have only been offered for an estimated $3.5 million,
leaving $1.5 million unaccounted for." He also said that they
had "strongly urged the court that the litigants had a right to
know how their monies were spent."
In answering questions posed by Bogalusa resident Neville Carson
as to how much of the $75 million had actually gone into the
pockets of Louisiana claimants, Mr. Howard responded that "much
to our dismay, no exact figure has ever been given to inform
litigants how much money really was disbursed to Louisiana class
members. Until now, the claimants have been denied this
information."
Angie resident Willie J. Peters stated that he had tried to find
out how much interest was earned on the $75 million and if any
of it given back to the claimants. Mr. Reed confirmed that
neither Mr. Juneau nor Mr. Claveer had provided that
information, even though it had been requested. As of the
moment, Judge Burns has issued no decision on a request for a
formal accounting.
On October 23, 1995, a rail tank car of nitrogen tetroxide
exploded at the Bogalusa, Louisiana plant of Gaylord Chemical
Corporation, a wholly owned, independently operated subsidiary
of Gaylord. Following the explosion, more than 160 lawsuits were
filed against the Company, Gaylord Corporation, and third
parties alleging personal injury, property damage, economic
loss, related injuries and fear of injuries. Plaintiffs sought
compensatory and punitive damages, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (February 26, 2004) reports.
In 1997, the Washington Parish, Louisiana, trial court certified
these consolidated cases as a class action. By the deadline to
file proof of claim forms, 16,592 persons had filed and 3,978
persons had opted out of the Louisiana class proceeding, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (February 26, 2004) reports.
At trial in the Louisiana class action held during the second
half of 2003, 18 randomly selected plaintiffs presented evidence
of their claims. The jury found Gaylord Chemical was 35 percent
responsible for the accident and that other co-defendants shared
65 percent of the fault. Seven of the 18 plaintiffs were found
to have suffered no damages. The remaining 11 plaintiffs were
awarded a total of $22,832 in compensatory damages. The jury
also determined that the Company's parent was not responsible
for its conduct, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(February 26, 2004) reports.
On December 9, 2003, the Company, its parent, and certain of
their insurers agreed in principle to settle the claims from the
class action and Mississippi state court actions, including
claims for compensatory and punitive damages, arising from this
accident. In exchange for payments by certain insurance carriers
and assignment of insurance coverage rights against the non-
settling carriers, Gaylord and Gaylord Chemical will receive
releases and/or dismissals of all claims for damages, including
punitive damages. Neither Gaylord nor Gaylord Chemical
contributed to the settlement, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (February 26, 2004) reports.
GUIDANT CORPORATION: PA City Sues V. Faulty Medical Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
The city of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania is suing the Guidant
Corporation of Indianapolis, the manufacturer of thousands
medical devices, hoping to recoup medical payments the city made
for one or more of its employees, The Morning Call reports.
Health care insurance companies or individuals who used
questionable drugs or medical devices commonly file such
lawsuits. However, unlike most local governments and employers,
the city does not use a health care insurance company. Instead,
it has an internal health care insurance fund to pay for
employees' medical expenses.
The city alleges that Guidant knew about problems in its
implantable pacemakers and defibrillators three years before
Guidant disclosed the defects to health care professionals. In
the suit, the city did not disclose the number of employees who
had defective Guidant devices implanted in their chests nor did
it release any details about individual employees.
The heart device defects first came to the public's attention in
May when The New York Times reported that the company had not
told physicians about the problems. Guidant made information
public after the paper's reporters contacted the company.
Due to short circuits, the devices allegedly could fail to
operate when a person has a heart malfunction, resulting in
death or permanent injuries. Pacemakers use a mild electrical
current to stimulate and speed up a slow heartbeat. Implantable
defibrillators, designed to deal with heart failure or
abnormally fast heartbeats, shock hearts back into normal
rhythms. At least seven people have died because of the flaw,
The New York Times reported.
Working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Guidant
recalled 80,000 defibrillators in June. In September, Guidant
recalled 380,000 pacemakers.
Since then, individuals across the nation have launched suits
against Guidant, making allegations about the defects and the
lack of earlier disclosures. The suits allege that, in February
2002, Guidant discovered a design flaw that caused some of the
defibrillators to short circuit. Between April and November
2002, the company corrected the problem. But it allegedly
continued to sell the older models and it allegedly failed to
notify doctors about the defect until this year.
In a suit filed November 3, in a state trial court, the New York
State attorney general's office alleged that Guidant had engaged
in fraud by failing to make the proper disclosures. Attorney
General Eliot Spitzer said at the time, "We wouldn't permit this
type of conduct in connection with the sale of cars or washing
machines. It is simply unconscionable that it occurred with a
critical medical device."
On November 7, a judicial panel consolidated all of the federal
suits in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where Guidant has a major
manufacturing center. The city of Bethlehem filed its suit
there, asking for class action status.
Bethlehem's suit alleges that Guidant placed hundreds of
thousands of patients "unnecessarily at risk" and caused the
city and others to incur "substantially greater costs" than they
should have paid for medical treatment. It states that the city
has had to pay an unspecified amount of money for replacement
devices, replacement surgery and other medical treatment.
According to the city's suit, Guidant continued to conduct a
marketing campaign, promoting the reliably of the devices, after
it knew about their potential for failure. The suit contends
that Guidant's alleged actions constitute "unfair competition or
unfair, unconscionable, deceptive or fraudulent acts" in
violation of various states' consumer protection laws.
GUY CARPENTER: Releases Study on Legislative, Judicial Advances
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guy Carpenter & Company Inc. recently released a new study,
Recent Legislative and Judicial Trends Affecting the U.S.
Casualty Industry, on key legislative and judicial developments
and their impact on the U.S. casualty market.
The report provides an overview of enacted and pending federal
and state legislation that could impact U.S. casualty risks. In
its overall analysis, the study finds that the U.S. tort system
is growing less hostile to corporate defendants and their
insurers, providing a more level playing field with the
plaintiffs' bar.
According to Andrew Marcell, managing director and global leader
of the company's Casualty Specialty Practices, "There have been
a number of significant judicial and legislative developments on
both the federal and state fronts that could have positive
effects for U.S. corporations and their insurers - especially in
areas such as class action litigation and obesity claims." He
goes on to state, "At the same time, several recent decisions
should give insurers pause, including the World Trade Center and
Port Authority jury verdict in New York and state court rulings
in Georgia, Pennsylvania and Ohio, where tort reform legislation
has been struck down as unconstitutional. Overall, however, the
legal environment appears to be more favorable for casualty
insurers and their corporate clients than in previous years."
On the federal level, the study looks closely at key legislative
developments affecting casualty lines, including the Terrorism
Risk Insurance Act of 2002, the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005, the Fairness in
Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005, the National Catastrophe
Fund, Risk Retention Groups, and the Personal Responsibility in
Food Consumption Act of 2005. The report also assesses state
legislative developments in the areas of terrorism and tort
reform, summarizes Hurricane Katrina-related issues and examines
the impact of recent court decisions on the reinsurance
community.
In addition, the study provides a detailed overview of major
federal and state court decisions with the potential to impact
casualty risks and exposures and coverage issues. These include
tort reform rulings, "next asbestos" and "next tobacco"
litigation, developments in products liability defense,
pharmaceutical claims and environmental liabilities.
Recent Legislative and Judicial Trends Affecting the U.S.
Casualty Industry is available for download at
http://www.guycarp.com.Printed copies of the study can be
obtained by contacting Guy Carpenter: marketing@guycarp.com.
Guy Carpenter & Company, Inc. is the world's leading risk and
reinsurance specialist and a part of the Marsh & McLennan
Companies, Inc. Guy Carpenter creates and executes reinsurance
and risk management solutions for clients worldwide through
2,600 professionals across the globe. The firm's full breadth of
services includes 16 centers of excellence in Accident & Health,
Agriculture, Alternative Risk Transfer, Environmental, General
Casualty, Investment Banking*, Life & Annuity, Marine & Energy,
Professional Liability, Program Manager Solutions, Property,
Retrocessional, Structured Risk, Surety, Terror Risk, and
Workers Compensation. In addition, Guy Carpenter's Instrat(R)
unit utilizes industry-leading quantitative skills and modeling
tools that optimize the reinsurance decision-making process and
help make the firm's clients more successful.
HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: NY Court Mulls Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York has yet to rule on Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc.'s motion
to dismiss the consolidated amended securities class action
filed against it, styled "In re Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 1:04-cv-2585."
Between June 22, 2004 and July 1, 2004, five putative securities
class action complaints were filed against the Company. Four
were filed in the Eastern District of New York, namely:
(1) Twist Partners v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., et
al., No. 1:04-cv-02585 (filed 06/22/2004, E.D.N.Y);
(2) Shapiro v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., et al., No.
1:04-cv-02681 (filed 06/28/2004, E.D.N.Y.);
(3) Imperato v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., No. 1:04-cv-
02736 (filed 06/30/2004, E.D.N.Y.);
(4) Walters v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., et al., No.
1:04-cv-02826 (filed 07/01/2004, E.D.N.Y.)
One is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, styled "Browne v. Hanger
Orthopedic Group, Inc., et al., No. 1:04-cv-715 (filed
06/23/2004, E.D. Va.)."
The complaints asserted that the Company's reported revenues
were inflated through certain billing improprieties at one of
the Company's facilities. The plaintiffs in "Browne"
subsequently dismissed their complaint without prejudice, and
the four remaining cases were consolidated into a single action
in the Eastern District of New York.
On February 15, 2005, the lead plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Securities Class Action filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint.
The Amended Complaint asserts that the Company's reported
revenues were inflated through certain billing improprieties at
some of the Company's facilities. In addition, the Amended
Complaint asserts that the Company violated the federal
securities laws in connection with a restatement announced by
the Company on August 16, 2004, restating certain of the
Company's financial statements during 2001 through the first
quarter of 2004. The Amended Complaint purports to allege
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by certain of
the Company's executives as "controlling persons" of the
Company.
The suit is styled "In re: Hanger Orthopedic Group Securities
Litigation, case no. 1:04-cv-02585-FB-RLM," filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
under Judge Frederic Block. Representing the Company are Paul
H. Dawes, Patrick E. Gibbs, and Gregory Alan Harris of Latham &
Watkins, 135 Commonwealth Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025, Phone:
(650)-328-4600, Fax: (650) 463-2600, E-mail: paul.dawes@lw.com
or patrick.gibbs@lw.com. Representing the plaintiffs are:
(i) Evan Jason Smith, Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 240 Mineola
Boulevard, Mineola, NY 11501, Phone: 516-741-4977, E-
mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com;
(ii) Robert Craig Finkel, Wolf Popper LLP, 845 Third Avenue,
New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-451-9620, Fax: 212-486-
2093, E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com
(iii) Peter E. Seidman and Peter Sloane, Milberg,Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New
York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-613-5625, Fax: 212-868-1229,
E-mail: pseidman@milbergweiss.com or
psloane@milbergweiss.com
(iv) Mark Casser Gardy, Abbey, Gardy, LLP, 212 East 39th
Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700, fax:
212-684-5191, E-mail: mgardy@abbeygardy.com
HARRY & DAVID: Recalls Olive Tapenade For Botulism Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harry & David Operations Corporation, of Medford, Oregon, is
recalling 360 jars of Black and Kalamata Olive Tapenade because
they have the potential to be contaminated with Clostridium
botulinum, a bacterium which can produce a toxin that can cause
life-threatening illness or death. Consumers are warned not to
use the product even if it does not look or smell spoiled.
Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-
vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in
breathing, weakness of muscles, abdominal distension and
constipation may also be common symptoms. People experiencing
these problems should seek immediate medical attention.
The Black and Kalamata Olive Tapenade was distributed throughout
the United States only at Harry and David stores, and not
distributed through mail order. The Black and Kalamata Olive
Tapenade was distributed in 11 oz. glass jars. The lot code
recalled is 28405-941H2. The lot code is ink jetted with black
ink on the shoulder of the glass jar. The item number is located
on an adhesive label on the bottom of the jar. The adhesive
label states:
"Harry and David
888905
Tapenade Olive"
The date of distribution to the Harry and David store locations
ranges from November 17 through December 12, 2005. One
unconfirmed illness has been reported to date.
The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product
had an unstable pH. The product was produced by a co-packer,
Enterprise Custom Foods, Orange, CA, for Harry and David.
Harry & David Operations Corporation, issued a recall press
release on November 14, 2005, for a different lot of this
product. The lot number for that batch was 23405-941H2. Because
two lots of this product have proved to be unstable, Harry &
David Operations Corp., has removed this product from sale and
is asking for return of any Black and Kalamata Olive Tapenade,
of any lot, purchased after August 1, 2005. If unsure of
purchase date, customers may return product for a refund.
Consumers who have purchased or received the Olive Tapenade
product, and wish a refund should call Customer Service at
1-800-345-5655. Consumers with questions also may contact the
company at 1-800-345-5655.
HOOPER HOLMES: Examiners Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hooper Holmes, Inc. faces a class action filed in the the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, alleging
violations of California's wage and hour laws.
On January 25, 2005 Sylvia Gayed, one of the Company's examiners
in California, filed the suit, alleging that the Company failed
to pay overtime wages, to provide meal and rest periods, and
reimbursement for expenses incurred in performing examinations.
The plaintiff is attempting to have the lawsuit certified as a
class action on behalf of other examiners who perform similar
work for the Company in California.
The Company currently employs 441 examiners in California and
have employed in excess of 1,200 examiners in California over
the past 48 months. The Company believes that it has properly
paid its California examiners for overtime worked and intends to
provide a vigorous defense to the litigation, the Company stated
in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
INTERIOR DEPARTMENT: DC Judge Orders $7M Payment in Indian Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citing that the Interior Department acted in bad faith in an
ongoing lawsuit on behalf of half a million American Indians,
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the federal
government to pay $7 million in legal fees and expenses in the
case, The Associated Press reports.
The class action case involves 500,000 Native Americans who are
asking the Interior Department to account for the billions of
dollars in their ancestors' land and natural resource assets the
federal government has held in trust since 1887. The issue of
how to determine what is owed the Indians has gone back and
forth from Judge Lamberth to the appeals court repeatedly during
the last 10 years. Filed in 1996 by Blackfeet Indian Elouise
Cobell, the case styled, Cobell v. Norton, became the longest
and largest class action suit brought against the government,
involves royalties for farming, grazing, mining, logging and
other economic activities on tribal lands. The suit dates back
to the 1880s, when the government, trying to break up
reservations, "allotted" some Indian lands, giving 40 to 160
acres to some individual Native Americans. Back then the
government leased the lands for oil, gas, timber, grazing and
coal, and collected the fees to put into trust funds for Indians
and their survivors, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(December 14, 2005) reports.
In the interim award of fees and expenses, Judge Lamberth said
that the government's actions entitle the plaintiffs an
enhancement of their legal fees. In his ruling the judge pointed
out that the government ignored its responsibilities to the
Indian beneficiaries and engaged in conduct that an appeals
court concluded was unreasonable. The judge added that the
government "made numerous illegitimate representations." A
special master in the case found that the Interior Department
had violated court orders by overwriting e-mail backup tapes and
destroying potentially responsive evidence.
The $7 million amount, if broken down, is composed of legal fees
worth about $4.5 million and expenses at $2.5 million. In the
past, the government opposed the award, saying that the request
for the money was poorly documented and excessive. The Indians
originally asked for $14.5 million. The judge agreed with part
of the government's argument, saying there was insufficient
detail to justify some of the request.
The Bush administration has become so frustrated with Judge
Lamberth that it has taken the unusual step of asking he be
removed from the case. Previously, Judge Lamberth has held
Interior Secretary Gale Norton and her Clinton-era predecessor,
Bruce Babbitt, in contempt for their handling of the trust fund.
An appeals court though has often reversed Judge Lamberth's
opinions, including the contempt order against Ms. Norton.
The suit is styled "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al., on her own
behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. GALE
NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., case no. 96-1285
(RCL)," filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, under Judge Royce C. Lamberth.
Representing the defendants are Robert E. Kirschman, Jr. and
Sandra Peavler Spooner of the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 1100 L
Street, NW Suite 10008, Washington, DC 20005, Phone:
(202) 616-0328, E-mail: robert.kirschman@usdoj.gov or
sandra.spooner@usdoj.gov. Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Mark Kester Brown, 607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC
20005-2000, Phone: (775) 542-4938, Fax: 202-318-2372,
E-mail: mkesterbrown@attglobal.net
(2) Dennis M. Gingold, 607 14th Street, NW 9th Floor,
Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 824-1448, Fax: 202-
318-2372, E-mail: dennismgingold@aol.com
(3) Richard A. Guest and Keith M. Harper, NATIVE AMERICAN
RIGHTS FUND, 1712 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-
2976, Phone: (202) 785-4166, Fax: 202-822-0068, E-mail:
richardg@narf.org or harper@narf.org
(4) Elliott H. Levitas, KILPATRICK STOCKTON, LLP, 607 14th
Street, NW Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202)
508-5800, Fax: 202-508-5858, E-mail:
elevitas@kilpatrickstockton.com.
IRWIN HOME: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Lawsuit For FCRA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Home Equity Corporation asked the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California to dismiss the
class action filed against it and Irwin Union Bank and Trust
Company, styled "Putkowski v. Irwin Home Equity Corporation and
Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company."
The suit was filed on August 12, 2005, alleging the defendants
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by using or
obtaining plaintiffs' consumer reports for credit transactions
not initiated by plaintiffs and for which they did not receive
firm offers of credit. The plaintiffs also allege that the
Company failed to provide clear and conspicuous disclosures as
required by the FCRA. The complaint seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, statutory damages of $1,000 per each separate
violation and punitive damages for alleged willful violations of
the FCRA.
Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on October 4, 2005. On
October 18, 2005, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint for failure to state a claim.
The suit is styled "Putkowski v. Irwin Home Equity Corporation
et al., case no. 3:05-cv-03289-PJH," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. Representing the Company are
Virginia W. Barnhart, J. Preston Turner of Pope & Hughes, P.A.,
29 W. Susquehanna Avenue, Suite 110, Towson, MD 21204, Phone:
410-494-7777, Fax: 410-494-1658, E-mail:
virginia.barnhart@popehughes.com or jpturner@popehughes.com; and
Tomio B. Narita, Wineberg Simmonds & Narita, 44 Montgomery St.,
Ste 3880, San Francisco, CA 94104-4811, Phone: (415) 352-2200,
Fax: (415)352-2222, E-mail: tnarita@wsnlaw.com. Representing
the plaintiffs are:
(1) Douglas Bowdoin, Douglas Bowdoin, P.A., 255 South
Orange Avenue, Suite 800, Orlando, FL 32801, Phone:
407-422-0025, Fax: 407-843-2448, E-mail:
dbowdoin@bowdoinlaw.com;
(2) Gail Killefer, 417 Montgomery Street, Suite 300, San
Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415/362-8640, e-mail:
gkillefer@aol.com
(3) Kathleen Clark Knight, Terry A. Smiljanich, James,
Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich, 4830 W. Kennedy Blvd.,
Suite 550 Tampa, FL 33609, Phone: 813-286-4100 x4214,
Fax: 813-286-4174, E-mail: kknight@jameshoyer.com or
tsmiljanich@jameshoyer.com
IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS: Working To Settle Pending Antitrust Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ivax Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is working to settle the remaining
claims and lawsuits filed against it and other pharmaceutical
firms, alleging antitrust law violations.
Earlier, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida granted final approval to the settlement of
a class action filed against Ivax Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
others, styled "Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. vs. Abbott
Laboratories, Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Zenith Goldline
Pharmaceuticals, Inc." The suit alleges a violation of Section
1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Plaintiffs purport to represent
a class consisting of customers who purchased a certain
proprietary drug directly from Abbott Laboratories during the
period beginning on October 29, 1998. Plaintiffs allege that,
by settling patent-related litigation against Abbott in exchange
for quarterly payments, the defendants engaged in an unlawful
restraint of trade. The complaint seeks unspecified treble
damages and injunctive relief.
Eighteen additional class action lawsuits containing allegations
similar to those in the "Louisiana Wholesale" case were filed in
various jurisdictions between July 1999 and February 2001, the
majority of which have been consolidated with the "Louisiana
Wholesale" case.
On March 13, 2000, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced
that it had issued complaints against, and negotiated consent
decrees with, Abbott Laboratories and Geneva Pharmaceuticals
arising out of an investigation of the same subject matter that
is involved in these lawsuits. The FTC took no action against
IPI. On December 13, 2000, plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment on the issue of whether the settlement agreement
constituted a "per se" violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act in the "Louisiana Wholesale" case was granted.
On September 15, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit reversed the order. On September 20, 2001,
the District Court entered an order certifying the direct
purchaser class and in early 2002, IPI entered into a settlement
with the direct purchaser class. In November 2003, the appellate
court also issued a ruling de-certifying the class. On remand
and following class discovery, the District Court entered an
order on June 23, 2004, denying the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs'
renewed motion for class certification. In light of these
orders, on August 31, 2004, the Company elected to terminate the
Settlement Agreement with the direct purchasers and requested
the return of the settlement payment less notice and Settlement
Fund administrative fees.
On February 16, 2005, the Company announced to the Court its
willingness to re-enter into the settlement with the direct
purchasers on substantially the same terms as the previous
settlement, provided that the court certifies a settlement class
of direct purchasers that is not materially different from the
previously de-certified direct purchaser class. On February 25,
2005, the Court indicated its preliminary approval of a
settlement containing these terms and provisions. On April 19,
2005, the Court entered an Order and Final Judgment specifically
providing, "inter alia," that the settlement with the direct
purchasers is reaffirmed and remains in full force and effect.
To date, sixteen of the actions naming IPI have either been
settled or dismissed.
Subsequent to the entry of the Court Order and Final Judgment,
the plaintiff in one of those remaining actions, "Daniels v.
Abbott Laboratories, Case No. 00-CC-04975" in Superior Court,
Orange County, California, moved the court for permission to
pursue its claims against the defendants on behalf of a
purported class of California indirect purchasers. The Company
believes that any purported claims the California plaintiffs may
have had against the Company were settled and extinguished
pursuant to the Company's indirect purchaser Settlement
Agreement dated May 30, 2002, and the final judgment entered by
the Florida Federal Court pursuant to that agreement. On
October 31, 2005, the California court denied the plaintiffs'
request to lift the stay that is in place in that case. The
defendants intend to seek Summary Judgment on the issue of
whether plaintiffs' claims have been extinguished by the Florida
Federal court settlement. The defendants intend to vigorously
defend against the plaintiff's actions.
IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS: Named in Various Fen-Phen Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ivax Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (IPI) has been named in a number of
individual and class action lawsuits in both state and federal
courts involving the diet drug combination of fenfluramine and
phentermine, commonly known as "fen-phen."
Generally, these lawsuits seek damages for personal injury,
wrongful death and loss of consortium, as well as punitive
damages, under a variety of liability theories including strict
products liability, breach of warranty and negligence. The
Company did not manufacture either fenfluramine or phentermine,
but did distribute the brand equivalent version of phentermine
manufactured by Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc. (Eon) and Camall
Company. Although the Company had a very small market share, to
date, the Company has been named in approximately 5,546 cases
and has been dismissed from approximately 5,490 of these cases,
with additional dismissals pending.
Currently Eon is paying for approximately 50% of IPI's costs in
defending these suits and is fully indemnifying IPI against any
damages IPI may suffer as a result of cases involving product
manufactured by Eon. In the event Eon discontinues providing
this defense and indemnity, the Company has its own product
liability insurance. While IPI's insurance carriers have issued
reservations of rights, IPI believes that it has adequate
coverage. As of September 1, 2004, claims made against the
Company for the first time may not be afforded insurance
coverage, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues To Face Medicaid Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
IVAX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (IPI) and IVAX Corporation (IVAX)
continue to face lawsuits from several states, alleging schemes
to overcharge for prescription drugs paid for by Medicaid.
New York City and a number of counties in the State of New York
have filed complaints against IVAX and IPI and other
pharmaceutical companies alleging a scheme to overcharge for
prescription drugs paid for by Medicaid, a portion of which is
paid for by these New York municipalities and counties. IVAX
and IPI have been named as defendants in actions filed by the
County of Nassau, the County of Erie and a consolidated
complaint brought by the City of New York and thirty New York
Counties. In these cases, plaintiffs seek the recovery of
unspecified damages, including restitution, treble and punitive
damages, civil penalties, interest and attorneys fees.
Other than the County of Erie case which was originally filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Erie County but
removed by the defendants on April 15, 2005, these actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the applicable
district in New York and, thereafter, were either transferred to
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts as part of the Pharmaceutical Industry Average
Wholesale Price Multi-District Litigation, MDL 1456 (MDL), or
are in the process of being transferred to the MDL.
The "County of Suffolk vs. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. et al."
action (Suffolk Action) was previously treated as the lead New
York county case in the MDL. In the Suffolk Action, the court
dismissed IVAX and IPI from the complaint by order dated October
26, 2004. On April 8, 2005, the Court entered a further Order
dismissing the complaint with respect to the remaining
defendants based upon insufficiency of the allegations. New
York City and the New York counties, including Suffolk County,
have re-filed an amended complaint.
IVAX was named as a defendant, along with other generic drug
manufacturers, in "The Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Mylan
Laboratories, et al." filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts (Massachusetts Action). The
Massachusetts Action alleges that through fraudulent and
deceptive schemes thirteen manufacturers of generic
pharmaceuticals caused Massachusetts to overpay pharmacies. The
state seeks unspecified damages, including injunctive relief,
restitution, treble damages, civil penalties, interest, attorney
fees and investigation and litigation costs. The case is pending
before the same judge that is handling the MDL. The defendants
in the Massachusetts Action moved to dismiss the complaint and
by order dated February 4, 2005, the Court denied the motion in
part, granted the motion in part, and deferred ruling in part.
On April 5, 2005, the Court dismissed the complaint for failure
to plead with specificity the allegations of false and
fraudulent representations. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
filed an amended complaint and motions to dismiss that complaint
are pending before the Court.
A number of states have filed actions against IVAX and IPI and
other pharmaceutical companies alleging schemes to overcharge
for prescription drugs. IVAX and IPI have been named as
defendants in the following actions filed by the State of
Wisconsin, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the State of Alabama,
the State of Illinois and the State of Florida. IVAX and IPI
were added as defendants in:
(1) State of Wisconsin vs. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
al., Circuit Court of Dane County, Case No. 04 CV 1709,
filed on November 1, 2004
(2) Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. Alpharma, Inc., Franklin
Circuit Court, Case No. 04-CI-1487, filed on November
4, 2004
(3) State of Alabama vs. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.,
Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Case No. CV-2005-
219, filed on January 26, 2005
(4) The People of the State of Illinois vs. Abbott
Laboratories, Inc., Circuit Court of Cook County, Case
No. 05CH02474, filed on February 7, 2005l and
(5) State of Florida v. Alpharma, et al., Second Judicial
Circuit in and for Leon County, Florida, Case Nos. 98-
3032F and 03-CA1165A
In each of these actions, the States seek unspecified damages,
including treble and punitive damages, interest, civil penalties
and attorneys' fees. The Wisconsin, Kentucky, Alabama and
Illinois cases were removed to federal court on July 13, 2005,
and have been identified to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation for potential transfer to the MDL proceeding in
Boston. However, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Alabama and Illinois are
seeking to remand the cases to state court. Motions to dismiss
the complaints are pending in these four cases.
MIRAGE RESORTS: Trial in NV Gaming Machines Suit Set Sept. 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada's ruling granting summary judgment in favor
of Mirage Resorts, Inc. and other manufacturers, distributors
and casino operators of video poker and electronic slot machines
in the consolidated class action filed against them.
The consolidated complaint claims that the Company and the other
defendants have engaged in a course of fraudulent and misleading
conduct intended to induce people to play video poker and
electronic slot machines based on a false belief concerning how
the gaming machines operate, as well as the chances of winning.
Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the gaming machines are
not truly random as advertised to the public, but are pre-
programmed in a predictable and manipulative manner. The
complaint alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as claims of common law
fraud, unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation, and
asks for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
In December 1997, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim and ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint, which they filed in February 1998. The Company,
along with most of the other defendants, answered the amended
complaint and continue to deny the allegations contained in the
amended complaint. The parties have fully briefed the issues
regarding class certification, which are currently pending
before the court.
In June 2002, the court ruled that the plaintiffs met the
prerequisite requirements for class-action status, but the Court
denied the plaintiffs' motion for class action certification,
saying that the proposed class lacked the cohesiveness required
to settle common claims against the casino industry. The court
had previously stayed discovery pending resolution of these
class certification issues. In August 2004, the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling denying
class-action status for the case. In November 2004, the District
Court set a discovery deadline of April 2005 and a trial date in
September 2005.
After plaintiffs' dismissal of certain operator and cruise ship
defendants, the remaining defendants in April 2005 filed
dispositive motions for summary judgment. In September 2005,
the District Court entered an order granting summary judgment to
all defendants that remained in the case on all of plaintiffs'
claims, dismissed the case in its entirety and entered judgment
in favor of defendants. Later in September 2005, the defendants
who prevailed timely filed a motion for attorneys' fees and
costs. In October 2005, plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals of the judgment granting summary
judgment to defendants, and of two prior discovery orders that
had been entered in the case. The appeal remains pending.
The suit is styled "William H. Poulos v. Caesar's World, Inc.,
et al., case no. CV-S-94-1126 - RLH-RJJ," filed in the United
States District Court in Nevada, under Judge Roger L. Hunt.
Representing the plaintiffs:
(1) David Chesnoff, Goodman & Chesnoff, 520 S. Fourth St.,
Las Vegas, 89101, Phone: 702-384-5563
(2) Caryl Boies, PRO HAC VICE FIRM, 401 E. Las Olas Blvd.,
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301, Phone: 954-356-0011
(3) David Barrett, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 570
Lexington Ave, New York NY 10022, Phone: 212-446-2300
(4) Mary Boies, Boies & McInnis, P.O. Drawer 67, Bedford NY
10506, Phone: (914) 234-3700
MR. MEATS: Attorney General Files Suit Over Poor Quality Product
----------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw reports that his
office sued Mr. Meats and Bill Parsons, individually and doing
business as Mr. Meats, in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County.
Mr. Meats, located in Nitro, West Virginia, has been selling
frozen meat and seafood door-to-door in neighborhoods throughout
Kanawha County.
The lawsuit alleges that Mr. Meats sells poor quality meat,
misrepresents the type of meat being sold, fails to give
consumers their three-day right to cancel, fails to honor
legitimate buyers' requests to cancel sales, does not have a
food handling permit from the Kanawha-Charleston Health
Department, and charges unlawful bad check fees.
Since February 2004, the Attorney General has received six
complaints against Mr. Meats. One elderly consumer complained
that Mr. Meats told him that the check he used to pay for the
meat had bounced. Mr. Meats demanded the consumer write them
another check. The consumer wrote a second check, but he later
learned from his bank that the original check had not in fact
bounced. He attempted to obtain a refund from Mr. Meats, but his
request was denied.
Attorney General McGraw stated, "The meat being sold by the
defendants is inedible and frequently is not safe to consumers.
Consumers should be very careful of businesses selling
perishable food products door-to-door."
In addition to seeking refunds for consumers, Attorney General
McGraw is also asking the Court for injunctive relief and civil
penalties. If you have any questions about this matter or want
to report a problem with Mr. Meats, please call Attorney General
McGraw's Consumer Hotline at 1-800-368-8808 or 304-558-8986.
NEW JERSEY: Family Files Damages Suit Over 2004 Medford Floods
--------------------------------------------------------------
A family forced from their home by raging floodwaters of the
Rancocas Creek in 2004 in New Jersey's Medford Lakes filed
another lawsuit, The Courier-Post Online reports.
The Michael Easi family filed suit against the owners of many
private dams along the creek as well as Medford, Medford Lakes,
Evesham, Burlington County and the state. The suit accuses more
than a dozen dam owners and municipal agencies of negligence and
violation of the state Safe Dam Act.
Additionally, the suit claims that the lack of dam repairs led
to dam failures or overtopping that sent torrents of water
downstream in the creek during a rainstorm that dumped more than
a dozen inches on the region on July 12, 2004. The lawsuit seeks
property and other damages.
The family, now of Thorofare, lived at 32 Stokes Road in a
Medford Lakes home that was suddenly inundated with 6 feet of
water, forcing them to seek safety on the second floor of their
home until they could be rescued.
Several similar lawsuits have been consolidated in a class
action lawsuit being handled by former Superior Court appellate
division Judge Harold B. Wells III. However, Benjamin Folkman,
lawyer for the Easis, told The Courier-Post Online that his
clients do not want to become part of that class action, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (February 16, 2005) reports.
Before its consolidation, the suits accused dam owners, not
torrential rains, are to blame for the widespread damage caused
by the July flood. Fourteen families and three businesses in
Lumberton filed various suits against the owners of the dams
that burst. Two similar lawsuits were also filed last year
against dam owners, which include towns, homeowners associations
and a nonprofit group that runs a camp, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (February 16, 2005) reports.
According to the plaintiffs, all of whom are seeking class
action status for their suits, the dams should not be rebuilt,
if their owners will not take responsibility for the damage. The
town of Medford Lakes, a community, which is the most prone area
of some of the biggest dam bursts, is a prime defendant in the
court cases, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (February
16, 2005) reports.
NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Working To Settle MT Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Northwestern Corporation is working to resolve the class action
filed against it and other defendants in the United States
District Court for the District of Montana, styled "McGreevey,
et al. v. The Montana Power Company, et al."
The lawsuit, which was filed by former shareholders of The
Montana Power Company (most of whom became shareholders of Touch
America Holdings, Inc. as a result of a corporate reorganization
of the Montana Power Company), claims that the disposition of
various generating and energy-related assets by The Montana
Power Company were void because of the failure to obtain
shareholder approval for the transactions. Plaintiffs thus seek
to reverse those transactions, or receive fair value for their
stock as of late 2001, when plaintiffs claim shareholder
approval should have been sought. The Company is named as a
defendant due to the fact that it purchased The Montana Power
L.L.C., which plaintiffs claim is a successor to the Montana
Power Company.
On November 6, 2003, the Bankruptcy Court approved a stipulation
between the Company and the plaintiffs in the suit, providing
that litigation, as against the Company, CFB, The Montana Power
Company, The Montana Power L.L.C. and Jack Haffey, be
temporarily stayed for 180 days from the date of the
stipulation. As a result of the confirmation of our plan of
reorganization, the stay has been made permanent.
On July 10, 2004, the Company and the other insureds under the
applicable directors and officers liability insurance policies
along with the plaintiffs and the Touch America Creditors
Committee reached a tentative settlement through mediation.
Among the terms of the tentative settlement, the Company, CFB
and other parties will be released from all claims in this case,
the plaintiffs in McGreevey will dismiss their claims against
the third party purchasers of the generation assets and non-
regulated energy assets of Montana Power Company, including PPL
Montana, and a settlement fund in the amount of $67 million (all
of which will be contributed by the former Montana Power Company
directors and officers liability insurance carriers) will be
established. The settlement is subject to the occurrence of
several conditions, including approval of the proposed
settlement by the Bankruptcy Court in our bankruptcy proceeding,
and approval of the proposed settlement by the Federal District
Court for the District of Montana, where the class actions are
pending.
On April 29, 2005, the Federal District Court in Montana denied
the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement without prejudice and ordered the parties to work out
their differences and present a global settlement agreement in
60 days; otherwise, the court will order the parties to resume
trial preparations. Even though the parties requested
additional time to continue to negotiate to reach a consensus on
a global settlement agreement, the Federal District Court
requsted the parties to respond to certain issues by August 12,
2005.
OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Fraud Suits Still Pending in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., certain of its executive officers and
the members of its board of directors continue to face several
purported shareholder class action lawsuits filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The lawsuits were brought on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock during certain
periods in 2004, which periods differ in the various complaints.
The complaints allege that defendants have made material
misstatements concerning the survival benefit associated with
Tarceva and the size of Tarceva's potential market upon the
FDA's approval of the drug. The complaints allege violations of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints seek
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.
The first identified suit in this litigation is styled
"Kassover, et al. v. OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., case no.
04-CV-05505," filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, under Judge Joanna Seybert.
Plaintiff firms in this litigation are Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801
East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO, 80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003,
Fax: 800.711.6483, E-mail: info@dyershuman.com; and Schoengold &
Sporn, P.C., 233 Broadway 39Th Floor, New York, NY, 10279,
Phone; 212.964.0046.
PENTAIR INC.: Working To Settle M/V Horizon Disease Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair Inc. continues to work on the resolution of all
litigation filed against Essef Corporation, which it acquired in
August 1999, and certain of Essef's subsidiaries, relating to
the Legionnaire's disease infections on the M/V Horizon from
December 1993 through July 1994.
The Company faces twenty-eight separate lawsuits involving 29
primary plaintiffs, a class action, and claims for indemnity by
Celebrity Cruise Lines, Inc. (Celebrity), alleging that
Celebrity sustained economic damages due to loss of use of the
M/V Horizon while it was dry-docked.
The claims against the Company and its involved subsidiaries
were based upon the allegation that the Company designed,
manufactured, and marketed two sand swimming pool filters that
were installed as a part of the spa system on the Horizon, and
allegations that the spa and filters contained Legionnaire's
disease bacteria that infected certain passengers on cruises
from December 1993 through July 1994.
The individual and class claims by passengers were tried and
resulted in an adverse jury verdict finding liability on the
part of the Essef defendants (70%) and Celebrity and its sister
company, Fantasia (together 30%). After exhaustion of post-
trial appeals, the Company paid all outstanding punitive damage
awards of $7.0 million in the Horizon cases, plus interest of
approximately $1.6 million in January 2004. The company had
reserved for the amount of punitive damages awarded at the time
of the Essef acquisition. A reserve for the $1.6 million
interest cost was recorded in 2003.
All of the personal injury cases have now been resolved through
either settlement or trial. The only remaining unresolved
claims in this case are those brought by Celebrity Cruise Lines,
Inc. for damages resulting from the outbreak. Celebrity filed an
amended complaint seeking attorney fees and costs for prior
litigation as well as out-of-pocket losses, lost profits, and
loss of business enterprise value. Discovery commenced late in
2004, and was completed in August 2005. Celebrity's claims for
damages exceed $185 million. Assuming matters of causation,
standing, indemnity and proof are decided against Essef, the
Company's experts believe that damages should amount to no more
than approximately $16 to $25 million. Dispositive motions in
this matter were filed in August 2005, which the Company
believes will be decided in the fourth quarter of 2005. Trial
will be scheduled after resolution of these motions.
PFIZER INC.: Lipitor Consumers File Injury Suits in US, Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, Inc. faces a number of purported class actions filed in
various federal courts alleging claims relating to the promotion
of Lipitor. In each of the actions, the plaintiffs seek to
represent a nationwide class consisting of women (regardless of
age) and men over age 65 who in each case had no history of
heart disease or diabetes and who purchased Lipitor within the
last four years. In certain of the actions, the plaintiffs also
seek to represent health insurers, employee benefit plans and
other third-party payors that paid for Lipitor used by
individuals in either of the aforementioned two groups.
The plaintiffs in these actions allege that the Company engaged
in false and misleading advertising in violation of state
consumer protection laws by allegedly promoting Lipitor for the
prevention of heart disease in the aforementioned two groups.
The actions seek monetary and injunctive relief, including
treble damages.
In addition, a purported class action on behalf of residents of
the Province of Quebec has been filed against the Company in
Canada that asserts claims under Canadian law and seeks relief
substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief
sought in the U.S. actions.
PFIZER INC.: Faces Consolidated Bextra, Celebrex Suits in NY, CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, Inc. is a defendant in a number of product liability,
consumer fraud, securities, fiduciary duty and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) actions,
including purported class and derivative actions, relating to
Celebrex and Bextra. Certain current and former officers,
directors and employees of Pfizer and Pharmacia also are named
as defendants in some of those actions.
In June 2005, the federal securities, fiduciary duty and ERISA
actions were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York for consolidated pre-trial
proceedings. In September 2005, the federal product liability
and consumer fraud actions were transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California for consolidated
pre-trial proceedings.
PFIZER INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of MN Importation Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota's dismissal of the consolidated antitrust
class action filed against Pfizer, Inc. and several other
pharmaceutical manufacturers.
A number of purported class actions were filed in 2004, alleging
that the defendants violated federal and state civil antitrust
laws by conspiring to prevent the importation of brand-name
prescription drugs from Canada. These suits all were
consolidated into a single action, which sought to represent a
nationwide class consisting of all persons who purchased or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of prescription drugs
manufactured and marketed by defendants that also are available
in Canada.
In August 2005, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss this action, and the plaintiffs have appealed the
decision.
The previously reported California state court action by a
number of independent pharmacists in California that asserts
similar claims under California antitrust and unfair business
practices laws is still pending. The defendants' motion to
dismiss the California action was partially granted and
partially denied in July 2005.
REEBOK INTERNATIONAL: Shareholders File Suit v. Adidas Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reebok International, Ltd. and its directors face a class action
styled "Bryan Jennings v. Reebok International Ltd., et al.
(C.A. No. 05-4355 BLS)," challenging the transactions
contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
August 2, 2005 between adidas-Salomon AG (adidas), Ruby Merger
Corporation (Merger Sub) and the Company. Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into the
Company (the Merger), with the Company continuing as the
surviving corporation. The lawsuit is pending in Suffolk County
Superior Court in The Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The complaint alleges that the Company's directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, and
claims, among other things, that the Merger Consideration (as
defined in the Merger Agreement) to be paid to the Company's
shareholders in the Merger is unfair and grossly inadequate and
that the defendants failed to sufficiently ascertain the true
value of the Company through open bidding or a market check
mechanism. The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive
relief to enjoin the completion of the Merger, rescind the
Merger Agreement and direct the defendants to sell or auction
the Company for the highest possible price, and damages,
including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.
REWARDS NETWORK: CA Court Certifies Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted class certification to the lawsuit filed
against Rewards Network, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries.
Bistro Executive, Inc., Westward Beach Restaurant Holdings, LLC
and MiniBar Lounge, all of which were participants in the
Company's Dining Credits Purchase Program (the "Dining Plan"),
and their respective owners filed the suit on May 25, 2004, a
complaint was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
The suit was filed on behalf of a class consisting of all
restaurants located in California who participated in the Dining
Plan and all persons in California who provided personal
guaranties of obligations under the Dining Plan. The complaint
claims that amounts we paid under the Dining Plan constituted
loans, and asserts claims for damages and equitable and
injunctive relief for violations of California usury laws and
the California Unfair Business Practices Act and declaratory
relief. The complaint seeks, among other relief, disgorgement
of all purported "interest" and profits earned by us from the
Dining Plan in California, which plaintiffs allege to be a
significant portion of an amount in excess of $300 million, and
treble damages for all purported "interest" paid within one year
prior to the filing of the complaint.
On June 25, 2004, the action was removed to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. On
October 11, 2005, plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
granted certifying two classes as follows: all California
restaurants which, from May 25, 2000 to May 25, 2004,
participated in the Dining Plan and which took a cash advance
from the Company pursuant to its California Dining Plan
agreements; and all persons who, from May 25, 2000 to May 25,
2004, guaranteed payment of cash advances underlying the
Company's California Dining Plan agreements. Trial has been set
for April 24, 2006.
SEITEL INC.: Plaintiffs Agree To Drop TX Suit Dismissal Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs agree to drop their appeal of the dismissal of the
class action filed against Seitel, Inc. and its subsidiary,
Seitel Data, Ltd., styled "Juan O. Villarreal v. Grant
Geophysical, Inc., et al., Cause No. DC-00-214."
The suit, filed in the 229th District Court of Starr County,
Texas, alleges geophysical trespass. The plaintiffs allege that
certain defendants conducted unauthorized 3-D seismic
exploration of the mineral interests by obtaining seismic data
on adjoining property, and sold the information obtained to
other defendants. The plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of
damages.
All defendants obtained summary judgments dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims, and the plaintiffs appealed to the San
Antonio Court of Appeals under Cause No. 04-02-00674-CV. During
the pendency of the Company's bankruptcy proceedings, the San
Antonio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision as
to the Company's co-defendants and stayed the appeal as to the
Company. The Texas Supreme Court denied plaintiffs Petition for
Certiorari, refusing to hear the matter. The San Antonio Court
of Appeals will not reinstate plaintiffs' appeal as to the
Company's summary judgment against plaintiffs until the
plaintiffs obtain a certified order lifting the bankruptcy stay.
The plaintiff filed an unliquidated claim (amount unspecified)
in the Chapter 11 Cases. The Company objected to this claim,
which was withdrawn by order of the Bankruptcy Court dated June
29, 2005. This June 2005 order includes the plaintiffs'
agreement to dismiss their appeal, and the parties are preparing
an agreed order of dismissal to be filed with the San Antonio
Court of Appeals.
STAAR SURGICAL: CA Court Allows Securities Lawsuit To Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California refused to dismiss consolidated securities class
action against Staar Surgical Co. and its Chief Executive
Officer, alleging violations of federal securities laws.
Since September 1, 2004, multiple class action lawsuits have
been filed in the United States District Courts for the
Central District of California and the District of New Mexico on
behalf of all persons who acquired the Company's securities
during various periods between April 3, 2003 and September 28,
2004. On December 15, 2004, the Court ordered consolidation of
the complaints that had been filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California and directed that
the plaintiffs file a consolidated complaint as soon as
practicable. The New Mexico action was voluntarily dismissed on
January 28, 2005. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated suit on April
29,2005
The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
issuing false and misleading statements regarding intraocular
lenses and implantable lenses, and failing timely to disclose
significant problems with the lenses, as well as the existence
of serious injuries and/or malfunctions attributable to the
lenses, thereby artificially inflating the price of the
Company's Common Stock. The plaintiffs generally seek to
recover compensatory damages, including interest.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss, which the court denied in
an order filed September 19, 2005. While permitting the case to
proceed, the Order effectively narrowed the proposed class to
purchasers of the Company's securities between October 6, 2003
and January 6, 2004 by limiting the statements of the Company
that the plaintiffs may challenge. The Company has filed a
motion requesting certification of the Order for interlocutory
appeal, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims
asserted in the consolidated amended complaint.
The suit is styled "In re STAAR Surgical Co. Securities
Litigation, No. CV 04-8007S," filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, under
Judge James Otero. Representing the plaintiffs is Avi N. Wagner
of Glancy Binkow and Goldberg, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite
311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150. Representing
the Company are Dan Marmalefsky and Mark R. McDonald of Morrison
& Foerster, 555 W 5th St, Ste 3500, Los Angeles, CA 90013-1024,
Phone: 213-892-5200, E-mail: mmcdonald@mofo.com.
THAXTON GROUP: NC Bond Seller Charged With Securities Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------
The top seller of junk bonds for failed investment company
Thaxton Group was recently charged with committing securities
fraud, TheState.com reports.
The South Carolina State Grand Jury issued an indictment
charging James T. Garrett Jr. with 10 counts of securities fraud
for his role in the company's collapse that left investors owed
$120 million. The Charlotte resident faces a maximum penalty of
95 years in prison and fines of $455,000. Despite the
indictment, Mr. Garrett's lawyer, Columbia attorney Dick
Harpootlian told TheState.com that his client would be
vindicated.
Thaxton Group filed for bankruptcy in October 2003, leaving
6,800 investors many of them South Carolina retirees holding
worthless bonds. Two months later, just a few days before
Christmas, company president James Thaxton committed suicide.
Mr. Harpootlian told TheState.com, "With the suicide of Mr.
Thaxton, folks are looking for someone to blame. Mr. Garrett had
a job he was paid to do."
Mr. Garrett's Carolinas First Investments Inc. sold the junk
bonds that kept the Thaxton Group alive even as its debt level
soared past $100 million. His company was a Thaxton Group
subsidiary. This is why Mr. Garrett is considered by many
involved with the Thaxton bankruptcy to be among the highest
ranking insiders.
The state claims Mr. Garrett developed the doomed investment
company's sales script, used by sales agents to give investors a
false sense of security. The indictment says Mr. Garrett's pitch
worked to "undermine the cautionary effect of the prospectus and
the warnings to investors."
Those comments to potential investors included statements the
government says were false, such as:
(1) "Investments in Thaxton subordinated notes are as safe
as those in a bank."
(2) "FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) is not
very important."
(3) "Thaxton has a $250 million line of credit."
While unrelated to the civil lawsuits filed against Thaxton's
largest creditor and outside consultants, Mr. Garrett's fate is
now being closely watched by attorneys involved in those court
actions.
Attorney Gilbert Bagnell, who represents investors in a class
action lawsuit against Thaxton's largest creditor, told
TheState.com that the indictment could help his clients' case.
His firm, Bagnell and Eason, is currently locked in a battle
with Arizona-based Finova Capital Corporation over who has first
rights to an estimated $160 million in frozen assets. Mr.
Bagnell is trying to return the bulk of this money to jilted
investors, but Finova argues that it is owed the bulk of this
money.
A conviction, according to Mr. Bagnell, would give investors
leverage to use against Finova. A conviction or guilty plea, he
says, "does help a jury understand something illegal happened."
USF CORPORATION: Inks Settlement For Employees WARN Suit in PA
--------------------------------------------------------------
USF Corporation faces several class actions filed in
Pennsylvania and New York federal courts, alleging violations of
the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
(WARN).
On November 19, 2004, the Teamsters National Freight Industry
Negotiating Committee (TNFINC) filed a complaint against the
Company, USF Red Star Inc. and USF Holland Inc. in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
In connection with the shut down of USF Red Star, the Teamsters
claimed certain violations of the National Labor Relations Act
(the NLRA), alleging (among other things) that the shut down was
in breach of USF Red Star's labor contract. The Teamsters asked
for unspecified damages. On January 13, 2005, service of
process was effectuated on all three USF defendants. TNFINC
alleges certain violations of the National Labor Relations Act
and asks for damages.
Additionally, the Teamsters filed a class action suit on behalf
of the employees of USF Red Star alleging violations of the
federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (Act),
seeking 60 days back compensation for USF Red Star employees due
to allegedly shutting down USF Red Star without adequate notice
under the WARN Act. The Teamsters also requested the National
Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to issue a complaint against USF,
USF Red Star and USF Holland for allegedly unfair labor
practices for these same allegations.
Including the Teamsters WARN action mentioned above, either or
both of USF or USF Red Star are currently named in five class
action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal WARN Act.
These suits have been consolidated into one action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The plaintiffs in these suits are seeking 60 days back
compensation for USF Red Star employees due to allegedly
shutting down Red Star without adequate notice under the WARN
Act.
USF Red Star has sued the Teamsters in connection with their
strike on USF Red Star in the Northern District of New York,
alleging that the strike was in breach of Teamsters' labor
contract and that the strike was illegal secondary conduct under
the NLRA, intending to pressure USF Dugan to allow organizing
efforts at USF Dugan to succeed. USF Red Star sought unspecified
damages from the Teamsters in connection with this lawsuit.
The Teamsters, the Company, USF Holland, USF Red Star and the
WARN class action plaintiffs have tentatively settled all of
these disputes arising out of the USF Red Star shutdown.
Pursuant to the tentative settlement, USF Red Star would pay the
WARN Act plaintiffs $7 million; the WARN Act plaintiffs would
release USF Red Star, USF Holland and USF from any further
liability; the unfair labor practice charges before the NLRB
would be withdrawn; and certain related labor grievances would
be settled. The tentative settlement is subject to final
approval of the court.
The suit is styled "IN RE: USF RED STAR INC. WORKER NOTIFICATION
LITIGATION, case no. 2:05-md-01655-PBT," filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana,
under Judge Petrese B. Tucker. Representing the Company are
Steven Brenneman and Craig R. Thorstenson, MATKOV SALZMAN, 55
East Monroe St., Suite 2900, Chicago IL 60603, Phone:
312-332-0777, E-mail: brenneman@matkovsalzman.com or
thorstenson@matkovsalzman.com; and Nicholas N. Price, SCHNADER
HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP, 1600 Market St., Ste 3600,
Philadelphia PA 19103, Phone: 215-751-2196, Fax: 215-751-2205.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Charles A. Ercole, KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG &
ELLERS LLP, 260 SOUTH BROAD STREET, 4TH FLOOR,
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102, Phone: 215-569-4282, Fax: 215-
568-6603, E-mail: cercole@klehr.com
(2) THOMAS HERMAN KOHN, MARKOWITZ & RICHMAN, 121 S. BROAD
STREET, SUITE 1100, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107, Phone: 215-
875-3129, E-mail: tkohn@markowitzandrichman.com
(3) JAMES A. MC CALL, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, SPECIAL COUNSEL, 25 LOUISIANA AVENUE, NW,
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
(4) ROBERT F. O'BRIEN, O'BRIEN BELLAND & BURSHINSKY, LLC
2111 NEW ROAD, SUITE 101, NORTHFIELD, NJ 08225, Phone:
609-677-7930
(5) RAYMOND M. PFEIFFER, 70 NIAGARA ST., SUITE 500,
BUFFALO, NY 14202, Phone: 716-847-0003, E-mail:
willett_2@msn.com
(6) RICHARD T. SPONZO, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE LABOR
RELATIONS, 55 ELM STREET, P.O. BOX 120, HARTFORD, CT
06101, Phone: 860-808-5050, E-mail:
richard.sponzo@po.state.ct.us
WARNER-LAMBERT: NY Court Dismisses Rezulin Patient Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed the class action filed against Warner-Lambert
Company purportedly on behalf of a class consisting of all
health benefit providers that paid for or reimbursed patients
for the purchase of Rezulin between February 1997 and April
2001.
In April 2001, Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company and
Eastern States Health and Welfare Fund filed the consolidated
complaint. In September 2005, the court granted the Company's
motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. In
November 2005, the plaintiffs appealed the decision.
WASHINGTON: City Settles Suit by "Permatemp" Workers For $11.5M
---------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Seattle, Washington agreed to pay $11.5 million to
settle claims in a class action lawsuit that accuses it of
improperly denying benefits to about 2,000 workers that it
classified as "temporary" between 1996 and 2005, The Associated
Press reports.
Four "permatemp" city workers brought the suit in 2002. Two of
those workers worked full-time for city-owned golf courses for
four years without being granted the benefits of regular city
workers. The other workers also worked for the city, one as an
employee for the Seattle Public Utilities and the other as a job
counselor.
King County Superior Court Judge Douglas McBroom recently gave
preliminary approval to the settlement. He is scheduled to hold
a hearing on final approval in March 2006.
Aside from the monetary compensation, the city also promised
that from now on it would limit temporary assignments to less
than one year, unless the position involves less than half-time
employment.
The case was the second brought against the city alleging abuse
of temporary workers. In 1989, the city agreed to pay $5 million
to settle claims it had improperly denied benefits. After the
current case was filed, the city created more than 220 new
regular positions to accomplish work previously performed by
temps.
WASHINGTON: Grant County Settles Suit V. Public Defender System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Grant County officials recently settled a class action lawsuit
over the adequacy of the county's public defender system, The
Associated Press reports.
Brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and Columbia Legal
Services, the suit accuses the county of using lawyers who were
overworked, unqualified or bound by contracts that discouraged
full and fair representation for the poor. The case was seen as
emblematic of the problems faced by other financially hard-
pressed public defender programs around the state of Washington.
Provisions of the settlement in the closely watched case
included a limit on the number of cases a lawyer can handle as a
public defender, assurances that defenders won't suffer
financially for diligent representation of their clients and the
use of a monitor to assure compliance.
Previously, Kittitas County Superior Court Judge Michael Cooper
ruled that the suit should go to trial, because indigents
charged with a crime in the county have reason to fear that they
will not be adequately represented. In that ruling, the judge
essentially denied the county's request to dismiss the case. The
ACLU and Columbia Legal Services sought a court order requiring
the county to offer adequate defense for people who can't afford
an attorney, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (October 25,
2005) reports.
WOODSMOKE PROVISIONS: Recalls Salmon For Listeria Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Woodsmoke Provisions, LLC is voluntarily recalling twenty eight
pounds (28 lbs.) / 112 individual packages of Premium Smoked
Salmon Pastrami Style packed in 4 oz. vacuum packages with the
specific lot code 301-05 855 which was manufactured October
28th, 2005 and distributed through a limited number of The Fresh
Market, Inc. stores located in FL, AL, TN, NC, VA, GA, and LA
because they have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes.
Listeria monocytogenes is a common organism found in nature that
can cause serious complications for pregnant women. Other
problems can manifest in people with compromised immune systems.
It can also cause serious flu-like symptoms in healthy
individuals.
The problem was discovered after routine sampling by the Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Subsequent
analysis of 4 oz. Premium Smoked Salmon Pastrami Style from lot
code 301-05 855 conducted by the Department's food laboratory
personnel revealed the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in
only one of the three tested packages. No illnesses have been
reported to date.
Consumers who have purchased the 4 oz. Premium Smoked Salmon
Pastrami Style Woodsmoke Provisions brand product with the code
301-05 855 retailed at the above-mentioned stores should not
consume it, and are urged to return it to the place of purchase
for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
Woodsmoke Provisions at 404-355-5125.
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
January 14, 2005
TORTS PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB
San Francisco Hilton and Towers, San Francisco
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
January 14, 2005
TORTS PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB
Wilshire Grand Hotel and Centre, Los Angeles
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
January 18-19, 2006
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE FOR THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com
January 19-20, 2006
LPL / LEGAL MALPRACTICE
American Conference Institute
Miami
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com
January 21, 2005
TORTS PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB
Doubletree Hotel, Sacramento
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
January 21, 2005
TORTS PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB
San Diego County Bar Association, San Diego
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
January 23-24, 2006
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com
January 23-24, 2005
4TH ANNUAL ADVANCED INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
January 24, 2005
TORTS PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB
PLI California Center, San Francisco
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
January 25, 2006
CONCRETE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Laguna Niguel, Dana Point, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
January 26-27, 2006
DEFENSE STRATEGIES IN PHARMACEUTICAL LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Laguna Niguel, Dana Point, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
January 26-27, 2006
AUTO INSURANCE CLAIMS AND LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Las Vegas
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com
January 28, 2005
TORTS PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB
Santa Clara Convention Center, Santa Clara
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
January 28, 2005
TORTS PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB
Sheraton Anaheim, Anaheim
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
February 2-3, 2006
SOLVENT SCHEMES OF ARRANGEMENT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
February 9, 2006
LEXISNEXIST PRESENTS WALL STREET FORUM: ASBESTOS Mealey
Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
February 13-14, 2006
FUNDAMENTALS OF ASBESTOS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
February 13-14, 2006
FUNDAMENTALS OF INSURANCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
February 16-17, 2006
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Coral Gables, Miami, Florida
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
February 23-24, 2006
LITIGATING DISABILITY INSURANCE CLAIMS
American Conference Institute
Miami
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com
February 27-28, 2006
REINSURANCE AGREEMENTS
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com
March 9-10, 2006
TOXIC TORT UPDATE: TEXAS
Mealey Publications
Las Colinas Four Seasons, Dallas, Texas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 23-24, 2006
FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE LITIGATION & ARBITRATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 30, 2006
EMAIL DISCOVERY & RETENTION POLICIES CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Grand Hyatt, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March, 2006
BIRTH CONTROL PATCH LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Dallas, TX
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
April 5-8, 2006
13TH INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 25-26, 2006
INSURANCE COVERAGE 2006: CLAIM TRENDS & LITIGATION
Practising Law Institute
New York
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu
September 28-30, 2006
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
December 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
December 01-30, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
December 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
December 01-30, 2005
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
December 01-30, 2005
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org
________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
New Securities Fraud Cases
DIEBOLD INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Diebold Inc.
(NYSE: DBD) between October 22, 2003 and September 21, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio. 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.
DIEBOLD INC.: Landskroner Grieco Lodges Securities Suit in OH
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Landskroner Grieco Madden, Ltd. commenced a class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio on behalf of purchasers of Diebold, Inc. ("Diebold")
(NYSE:DBD) common stock during the period between October 22,
2003 and September 20, 2005 (the "Class Period"). Landskroner
Grieco Madden, Ltd.is an Ohio-based law firm whose attorneys are
licensed and regularly practice in the federal courts of Ohio.
The complaint charges Diebold and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Diebold is primarily engaged in the manufacture, sale,
installation and service of automated self-service transaction
systems, electronic and physical security products, election
systems and software.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false statements about the Company's business, products,
financial results and prospects causing the Company's stock to
trade at artificially inflated levels. Then on September 21,
2005, before the market opened, the Company announced it was
"lowering its third quarter and full-year earnings per share
guidance for 2005." Upon release of this news, Diebold's stock
collapsed to $37.27 per share on volume of 6.1 million shares.
Diebold's CEO and Chairman has since resigned from the Company.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:
(1) Diebold's financial statements in 2004 and the first
two quarters of 2005 were misstated due to its improper
accounting for commission expenses;
(2) the Company's internal controls were woefully
deficient;
(3) Diebold was losing market share in North America to NCR
such that its ATM business would not be nearly as
favorable in 2005 as the market had been led to
believe;
(4) Diebold's election machines continued to have severe
problems that would hurt the Company in the future due
to adverse publicity and reduced sales; and
(5) due to these problems, Diebold was not on track to
report the favorable 2005 EPS being projected for the
Company.
For more details, contact Jack Landskroner and Debra Spaller,
Paralegal of Landskroner Grieco Madden, Ltd., Phone:
216-522-9000, E-mail: jack@landskronerlaw.com and
debra@landskronerlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.landskronerlaw.com.
NASH FINCH: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of Nash Finch Company ("Nash Finch" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq: NAFC), between February 24, 2005 and October
20, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").
The action, Civil Action number 05-cv-2934, is pending before
the Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota against defendants Nash
Finch, Ron Marshall (CEO), and Le Anne M. Stewart (CFO and
Senior Vice President). 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 Nash Finch operates in three
segments: Food Distribution, Military Food Distribution, and
Food Retailing. During the Class Period, the Company operated 85
corporate-owned stores and, through its distribution operations,
served independent retailers and military commissaries. In the
summer of 2004, in order to strengthen the Company, Nash Finch
announced a restructuring that included eliminating non-
performing assets, restructuring the Company's credit lines, and
issuing hundreds of millions of dollars in then-unregistered
convertible debt. On February 24, 2005, the inception of the
Class Period, defendants announced a $220 million acquisition of
Roundy's Distribution Center ("Roundy's"), a Midwest food
distributor, which, according to defendants, was expected to add
nearly $1 billion in yearly sales to the Company, be immediately
accretive to earnings, and create approximately $10 million per
year in cost savings. Unbeknownst to investors, however,
defendants' statements were materially false and misleading
because defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that:
(1) the Company was operating far below expectations;
(2) Nash Finch had significantly under-reserved for the
Roundy's acquisition;
(3) the integration of Roundy's was not proceeding
according to plan; and
(4) the Company's core business was under-performing
guidance.
On October 20, 2005, the last day of the Class Period, the
Company issued a press release announcing significantly lower
fiscal 2005 earnings guidance of $3.00 to $3.25 per share, from
its previous guidance of $3.70 and $3.89. The Company attributed
the lowered guidance to "a decline in retail gross profit
margins, primarily reflecting inadequate execution in pricing
across the Company's retail operations; depressed wholesale
gross profit margins principally relating to manufacturer
promotional spending; and higher than expected acquisition
integration costs." Defendant Marshall stated that the Company
"experienced serious erosion in retail and wholesale gross
profit margins" and that "the impact has been deeper than we
anticipated and margins will take longer to rebound than we had
thought or fiscal 2005." In reaction to this news, the price of
Nash Finch stock fell $12.76 per share, or 28.6%, from its
closing price of $42.08 on October 20, 2005, to close at $30.04
on the following trading day. Defendants were motivated to
engage in the fraudulent and wrongful conduct to sell more than
$300 million in notes in a private placement and in order for
Company insiders, including defendant Marshall, to sell more
than $17 million of their privately-held Nash Finch shares while
in possession of material adverse non-public information about
the Company.
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.
NASH FINCH: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of Nash Finch Co. (Nasdaq:NAFC) between Feb. 24,
2005 and Oct. 20, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also
included are all those who acquired Nash Finch through its
acquisition of Roundy's Distribution Center ("Roundy's").
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements. Specifically, defendants announced a $220 million
acquisition of Roundy's, which, according to defendants, was
expected to add nearly $1 billion in yearly sales. Throughout
the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company was operating far below expectations;
(2) that the Company had significantly under-reserved for
the Roundy's acquisition;
(3) the integration of Roundy's was not proceeding
according to plan; and
(4) Nash Finch's core business was underperforming
guidance.
While investors were unaware of the conditions that were
adversely affecting Nash Finch, defendants sold more than $300
million in notes in a private placement and Company insiders
sold more than $17 million of their Nash Finch shares.
October 20, 2005, Nash Finch announced significantly lower
fiscal 2005 earnings guidance of $3.00 to $3.25 per share, from
its previous guidance of $3.70 and $3.89. The Company attributed
the lowered guidance to "a decline in retail gross profit
margins, primarily reflecting inadequate execution in pricing
across the Company's retail operations; depressed wholesale
gross profit margins principally relating to manufacturer
promotional spending; and higher than expected acquisition
integration costs." On this news, the price of Nash Finch stock
fell $12.76 per share, to close at $30.04 on the next trading
day.
For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of
Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail:
sn06106@aol.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 Dreyfus
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 Dreyfus mutual funds and their respective symbols are as
follows:
Dreyfus A Bonds Plus (NASDAQ: DRBDX)
Dreyfus Appreciation (NASDAQ: DGAGX)
Dreyfus Balanced Fund, Inc. (NASDAQ: DRBAX)
Dreyfus Basic S&P 500 Stock Index (NASDAQ: DSPIX)
Dreyfus Basic US Mortgage Securities (NASDAQ: DIGFX)
Dreyfus Bond Market Index (NASDAQ: DBIRX) (NASDAQ: DBMIX)
Dreyfus CA Intermediate Muni Bond (NASDAQ: DCIMX)
Dreyfus California Municipal Income Inc. (NASDAQ: XDCGX)
Dreyfus CT Intermediate Muni Bond (NASDAQ: DCTIX)
Dreyfus Disciplined Stock (NASDAQ: DDSTX)
Dreyfus Emerging Leaders (NASDAQ: DRELX)
Dreyfus FL Intermediate Muni Bond (NASDAQ: DFLIX)
Dreyfus Founders Balanced (NASDAQ: FRIDX) (NASDAQ: FRIBX)
(NASDAQ: FRICX)
(NASDAQ: FRINX) (NASDAQ: FRIRX) (NASDAQ: FRIUX)
Dreyfus Founders Discovery (NASDAQ: FDIDX) (NASDAQ: FDIEX)
(NASDAQ: FDICX)
(NASDAQ: FDISX) (NASDAQ: FDIRX) (NASDAQ: FDITX)
Dreyfus Founders Equity Growth (NASDAQ: FRMAX) (NASDAQ: FRMEX)
(NASDAQ: FRMDX) (NASDAQ: FRMUX) (NASDAQ: FRMRX) (NASDAQ: FRMVX)
Dreyfus Founders Government Secs (NASDAQ: FGVSX)
Dreyfus Founders Growth (NASDAQ: FRGDX) (NASDAQ: FRGEX) (NASDAQ:
FRGFX)
(NASDAQ: FRGRX) (NASDAQ: FRGYX) (NASDAQ: FRGZX)
Dreyfus Founders International Eq (NASDAQ: FOIAX) (NASDAQ:
FOIDX)
(NASDAQ: FOICX) (NASDAQ: FOIEX) (NASDAQ: FOIRX) (NASDAQ: FOIUX)
Dreyfus Founders Mid-Cap Growth (NASDAQ: FRSDX) (NASDAQ: FRSFX)
(NASDAQ: FRSCX) (NASDAQ: FRSPX) (NASDAQ: FRSRX) (NASDAQ: FRSVX)
Dreyfus Founders Passport (NASDAQ: FPSAX) (NASDAQ: FPSBX)
(NASDAQ: FPSCX)
(NASDAQ: FPSSX) (NASDAQ: FPSRX) (NASDAQ: FPSTX)
Dreyfus Founders Worldwide Growth (NASDAQ: FWWAX) (NASDAQ:
FWWBX)
(NASDAQ: FWWCX) (NASDAQ: FWWGX) (NASDAQ: FWWRX) (NASDAQ: FWWTX)
Dreyfus General California Muni (NASDAQ: GCABX)
Dreyfus General Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: GMBDX)
Dreyfus GNMA (NASDAQ: DRGMX)
Dreyfus Growth & Income (NASDAQ: DGRIX)
Dreyfus Growth Opportunity (NASDAQ: DREQX)
Dreyfus High Yield Strategies Fund (NASDAQ: XDHFX)
Dreyfus Inflation-Adjusted Sec (NASDAQ: DIASX) (NASDAQ: DIAVX)
Dreyfus Instl Yield Advantage Inst (NASDAQ: DIYAX)
Dreyfus Instl Yield Advantage Inv (NASDAQ: DYAIX)
Dreyfus Insured Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: DTBDX)
Dreyfus Intermediate Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: DITEX)
Dreyfus Intermediate-Term Inc (NASDAQ: DITIX) (NASDAQ: DRITX)
Dreyfus Intl Stock Index (NASDAQ: DIISX)
Dreyfus LifeTime Growth & Income (NASDAQ: DGIIX) (NASDAQ: DGIRX)
Dreyfus LifeTime Growth (NASDAQ: DLGIX) (NASDAQ: DLGRX)
Dreyfus LifeTime Income (NASDAQ: DLIIX) (NASDAQ: DLIRX)
Dreyfus MA Intermediate Muni Bond (NASDAQ: DMAIX)
Dreyfus Massachusetts Tax Exemp (NASDAQ: DMEBX)
Dreyfus MidCap Index (NASDAQ: PESPX)
Dreyfus Midcap Value (NASDAQ: DMCVX)
Dreyfus Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: DRTAX)
Dreyfus Municipal Income Inc. (NASDAQ: XDMFX)
Dreyfus New York Municipal Income Inc. (NASDAQ: XDNMX)
Dreyfus NJ Intermediate Muni Bond (NASDAQ: DNJIX)
Dreyfus NY Tax-Exempt Bond (NASDAQ: DRNYX)
Dreyfus NY Tax-Exempt Interm Bond (NASDAQ: DRNIX)
Dreyfus PA Intermediate Muni Bond (NASDAQ: DPABX)
Dreyfus Premier Alpha Growth (NASDAQ: DPWAX) (NASDAQ: BSFBX)
(NASDAQ: BSFCX) (NASDAQ: DPARX) (NASDAQ: BSFAX)
Dreyfus Premier Balanced (NASDAQ: PRBAX) (NASDAQ: PRBBX)
(NASDAQ: DPBCX)
(NASDAQ: PDBLX) (NASDAQ: DBFTX)
Dreyfus Premier Balanced Opportunity (NASDAQ: DBOAX) (NASDAQ:
DBOBX)
(NASDAQ: DBOCX) (NASDAQ: THPBX) (NASDAQ: DBORX) (NASDAQ: DBOTX)
(NASDAQ: DBOZX)
Dreyfus Premier Blue Chip (NASDAQ: DBCAX) (NASDAQ: DBCBX)
(NASDAQ: DBUCX)
(NASDAQ: TPBCX) (NASDAQ: DBCRX) (NASDAQ: DBCTX)
Dreyfus Premier CA Tax Exempt Bond (NASDAQ: DCAAX) (NASDAQ:
DCABX)
(NASDAQ: DCACX) (NASDAQ: DRCAX)
Dreyfus Premier California Muni (NASDAQ: DPACX) (NASDAQ: PRCAX)
(NASDAQ: PRCBX)
Dreyfus Premier Core Bond (NASDAQ: DSINX) (NASDAQ: DRCBX)
(NASDAQ: DRCCX)
(NASDAQ: DRCRX)
Dreyfus Premier Core Equity (NASDAQ: DLTSX) (NASDAQ: DPEBX)
(NASDAQ: DPECX)
(NASDAQ: DPERX) (NASDAQ: DCETX)
Dreyfus Premier Core Value (NASDAQ: DCVIX) (NASDAQ: DBCVX)
(NASDAQ: DCVCX)
(NASDAQ: DCVFX) (NASDAQ: DTCRX) (NASDAQ: DCVTX)
Dreyfus Premier Corporate Bond (NASDAQ: DCBAX) (NASDAQ: DCBBX)
(NASDAQ: DCBCX) (NASDAQ: DCBRX)
Dreyfus Premier Emerging Markets (NASDAQ: DRFMX) (NASDAQ: DBPEX)
(NASDAQ: DCPEX) (NASDAQ: DRPEX) (NASDAQ: DTPEX)
Dreyfus Premier Enterprise (NASDAQ: DPMGX) (NASDAQ: DMCGX)
(NASDAQ: DMCCX)
(NASDAQ: DMCTX)
Dreyfus Premier Financial Services (NASDAQ: DFSFX) (NASDAQ:
DFSBX)
(NASDAQ: DFVCX) (NASDAQ: DFVRX) (NASDAQ: DFVTX)
Dreyfus Premier Future Leaders (NASDAQ: DFLAX) (NASDAQ: DFLBX)
(NASDAQ: DPFCX) (NASDAQ: DFLRX) (NASDAQ: DFLTX)
Dreyfus Premier GNMA (NASDAQ: PSGNX) (NASDAQ: PGMBX) (NASDAQ:
DPGCX)
Dreyfus Premier Greater China (NASDAQ: DPCAX) (NASDAQ: DPCBX)
(NASDAQ: DPCCX) (NASDAQ: DPCRX) (NASDAQ: DPCTX)
Dreyfus Premier Growth & Income (NASDAQ: PEGAX) (NASDAQ: PEGBX)
(NASDAQ: DGICX) (NASDAQ: DRERX) (NASDAQ: DGITX)
Dreyfus Premier Health Care (NASDAQ: DHCAX) (NASDAQ: DHCBX)
(NASDAQ: DHCCX)
(NASDAQ: DHCRX) (NASDAQ: DHCTX)
Dreyfus Premier High Income (NASDAQ: DIMAX) (NASDAQ: DIMBX)
(NASDAQ: DIMCX)
(NASDAQ: DIMRX)
Dreyfus Premier International Eq (NASDAQ: DIEAX) (NASDAQ: DIEBX)
(NASDAQ: DIECX) (NASDAQ: DIERX) (NASDAQ: DIETX)
Dreyfus Premier International Gr (NASDAQ: DRGLX) (NASDAQ: DGLBX)
(NASDAQ: DIGCX) (NASDAQ: DIGRX) (NASDAQ: DPITX)
Dreyfus Premier International Opp (NASDAQ: DPAVX) (NASDAQ:
DPBVX)
(NASDAQ: DPCVX) (NASDAQ: DPRVX) (NASDAQ: DPVTX)
Dreyfus Premier International Sm-Cp (NASDAQ: DSMAX) (NASDAQ:
DSMBX)
(NASDAQ: DSMCX) (NASDAQ: DSMRX) (NASDAQ: DSMTX)
Dreyfus Premier International Value (NASDAQ: DVLAX) (NASDAQ:
DIBVX)
(NASDAQ: DICVX) (NASDAQ: DIRVX) (NASDAQ: DITVX)
Dreyfus Premier Japan Fund Class (NASDAQ: DPJAX) (NASDAQ: DPJBX)
(NASDAQ: DPJCX) (NASDAQ: DPJRX) (NASDAQ: DPJTX)
Dreyfus Premier Intrinsic Value (NASDAQ: DPVAX) (NASDAQ: BLCBX)
(NASDAQ: BLCCX) (NASDAQ: BSLYX) (NASDAQ: BLCAX)
Dreyfus Premier Large Company Stock (NASDAQ: DRDEX) (NASDAQ:
DRLBX)
(NASDAQ: DLCCX) (NASDAQ: DEIRX) (NASDAQ: DLSTX)
Dreyfus Premier Limited-Term Income (NASDAQ: DPIAX) (NASDAQ:
DPIBX)
(NASDAQ: DPICX) (NASDAQ: PLTIX)
Dreyfus Premier Ltd-Term High Yld (NASDAQ: DPLTX) (NASDAQ:
DLTBX)
(NASDAQ: PTHIX) (NASDAQ: DLHRX)
Dreyfus Premier Managed Income (NASDAQ: PMNIX) (NASDAQ: DTMBX)
(NASDAQ: DTMCX) (NASDAQ: DTMRX)
Dreyfus Premier Midcap Stock (NASDAQ: DPMAX) (NASDAQ: DMSBX)
(NASDAQ: DMSCX) (NASDAQ: DDMRX) (NASDAQ: DMSTX)
Dreyfus Premier MidCap Value (NASDAQ: DMVPX) (NASDAQ: DMVBX)
(NASDAQ: DMVCX) (NASDAQ: DMVRX) (NASDAQ: DMVTX)
Dreyfus Premier Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: PTEBX) (NASDAQ: PMUBX)
(NASDAQ: DMBCX) (NASDAQ: DMBZX)
Dreyfus Premier Natural Leaders (NASDAQ: DNLAX) (NASDAQ: DLDBX)
(NASDAQ: DLDCX) (NASDAQ: DLDRX) (NASDAQ: DLDTX)
Dreyfus Premier New Leaders (NASDAQ: DNLDX) (NASDAQ: DNLBX)
(NASDAQ: DNLCX) (NASDAQ: DNLRX) (NASDAQ: DNLTX)
Dreyfus Premier NJ Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: DRNJX) (NASDAQ:
DBNJX)
(NASDAQ: DCNJX)
Dreyfus Premier NY Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: PSNYX) (NASDAQ:
PRNBX)
(NASDAQ: PNYCX)
Dreyfus Premier Consumer Fd Cl (NASDAQ: DCOAX) (NASDAQ: DCOBX)
(NASDAQ: DCOCX) (NASDAQ: DCORX) (NASDAQ: DCOTX)
Dreyfus Prem NexTech Fd (NASDAQ: DPNTX)
Dreyfus Premier S&P Stars (NASDAQ: DPPAX) (NASDAQ: BSPBX)
(NASDAQ: BSPCX)
Dreyfus Premier S&P Stars Opp (NASDAQ: DPOAX) (NASDAQ: BSOBX)
(NASDAQ: BSOCX) (NASDAQ: DSORX) (NASDAQ: BSOAX) (NASDAQ: BSSPX)
(NASDAQ: BSPAX)
Dreyfus Premier Sel Intm Muni Bond (NASDAQ: DPASX) (NASDAQ:
DPBSX)
(NASDAQ: DPCSX) (NASDAQ: DBIMX)
Dreyfus Premier Sel Mid-Cap Growth (NASDAQ: DASMX) (NASDAQ:
DBSMX)
(NASDAQ: DCSMX) (NASDAQ: DRSMX) (NASDAQ: DMGTX)
Dreyfus Premier Sel Municipal Bond (NASDAQ: DMUAX) (NASDAQ:
DMUBX)
(NASDAQ: DMUCX) (NASDAQ: DRMBX)
Dreyfus Premier Select Growth Fund (NASDAQ: DASGX) (NASDAQ:
DBSGX)
(NASDAQ: DCSGX) (NASDAQ: DRSGX) (NASDAQ: DGRTX)
Dreyfus Premier Select (NASDAQ: DSLAX) (NASDAQ: DSLBX) (NASDAQ:
DSLCX)
(NASDAQ: THPSX) (NASDAQ: DSLRX) (NASDAQ: DSLTX)
Dreyfus Premier Short Term Income (NASDAQ: DSHAX) (NASDAQ:
DSHBX)
(NASDAQ: DSTIX) (NASDAQ: DSHPX)
Dreyfus Premier Sht-Intm Muni Bond (NASDAQ: DSBAX) (NASDAQ:
DSBBX)
(NASDAQ: DSIBX) (NASDAQ: DSBPX)
Dreyfus Premier Small Cap Equity (NASDAQ: DSEAX) (NASDAQ: DSEBX)
(NASDAQ: DSECX) (NASDAQ: DSERX) (NASDAQ: DSETX)
Dreyfus Premier Small Cap Value (NASDAQ: DSVAX) (NASDAQ: DSVBX)
(NASDAQ: DSVCX) (NASDAQ: DSVRX) (NASDAQ: DSVTX)
Dreyfus Premier Small Company Gr (NASDAQ: DSGAX) (NASDAQ: DSGBX)
(NASDAQ: DSGCX) (NASDAQ: DSGRX) (NASDAQ: DSGTX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond CT (NASDAQ: PSCTX) (NASDAQ:
PMCBX)
(NASDAQ: PMCCX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond FL (NASDAQ: PSFLX) (NASDAQ:
PSFBX)
(NASDAQ: PSFCX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MA (NASDAQ: PSMAX) (NASDAQ:
PBMAX)
(NASDAQ: PCMAX) (NASDAQ: PMAZX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MD (NASDAQ: PSMDX) (NASDAQ:
PMDBX)
(NASDAQ: PMDCX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MI (NASDAQ: PSMIX) (NASDAQ:
PMIBX)
(NASDAQ: PCMIX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MN (NASDAQ: PSMNX) (NASDAQ:
PMMNX)
(NASDAQ: PMNCX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond NC (NASDAQ: PSNOX) (NASDAQ:
PMNBX)
(NASDAQ: PNCCX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond OH (NASDAQ: PSOHX) (NASDAQ:
POHBX)
(NASDAQ: POHCX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond PA (NASDAQ: PTPAX) (NASDAQ:
PPABX)
(NASDAQ: PPACX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond TX (NASDAQ: PTXBX) (NASDAQ:
PSTBX)
(NASDAQ: PTXCX)
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond VA (NASDAQ: PSVAX) (NASDAQ:
PVABX)
(NASDAQ: PVACX)
Dreyfus Premier Strategic Value (NASDAQ: DAGVX) (NASDAQ: DBGVX)
(NASDAQ: DCGVX) (NASDAQ: DRGVX) (NASDAQ: DTGVX)
Dreyfus Premier Structured Lg Cp Val (NASDAQ: DLVAX) (NASDAQ:
DLVBX)
(NASDAQ: DLVCX) (NASDAQ: DLVRX) (NASDAQ: DLVTX)
Dreyfus Premier Structured Midcap (NASDAQ: DPSAX) (NASDAQ:
DPSBX)
(NASDAQ: DPSCX) (NASDAQ: DPSRX) (NASDAQ: DPSTX)
Dreyfus Premier Tax-Managed Growth (NASDAQ: DTMGX) (NASDAQ:
DPTMX)
(NASDAQ: DPTAX) (NASDAQ: DPTRX) (NASDAQ: DPMTX)
Dreyfus Premier Technology Growth (NASDAQ: DTGRX) (NASDAQ:
DTGBX)
(NASDAQ: DTGCX) (NASDAQ: DGVRX) (NASDAQ: DPTGX)
Dreyfus Premier Third Century (NASDAQ: DTCAX) (NASDAQ: DTCBX)
(NASDAQ: DTCCX) (NASDAQ: DRTCX) (NASDAQ: DTCTX) (NASDAQ: DRTHX)
Dreyfus Premier Value (NASDAQ: DRSIX) (NASDAQ: DSTBX) (NASDAQ:
DPVCX)
(NASDAQ: DPVRX) (NASDAQ: DTPVX)
Dreyfus Premier Worldwide Growth (NASDAQ: PGROX) (NASDAQ: PGWBX)
(NASDAQ: PGRCX) (NASDAQ: DPWRX) (NASDAQ: DPWTX)
Dreyfus Premier Yield Advantage (NASDAQ: DPYAX) (NASDAQ: DPYBX)
(NASDAQ: DYADX) (NASDAQ: DPYPX) (NASDAQ: DPYSX)
Dreyfus S&P 500 Index (NASDAQ: PEOPX)
Dreyfus Short-Intermediate Government (NASDAQ: DSIGX)
Dreyfus Small Cap Stock Index (NASDAQ: DISSX)
Dreyfus Small Company Value (NASDAQ: DSCVX)
Dreyfus Strategic Municipal Bond Fund Inc. (NASDAQ: XDSMX)
Dreyfus Strategic Municipals Inc. (NASDAQ: XLEOX)
Dreyfus U.S. Treasury Intrm-Term (NASDAQ: DRGIX)
Dreyfus U.S. Treasury Long-Term (NASDAQ: DRGBX)
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 * * *