/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060110.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, January 10, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 7
Headlines
AEROSONIC CORPORATION: FL Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
AMERICA ONLINE: Proposes Settlement For IL Improper Billing Suit
ARKANSAS: Property Tax Refunds Mailed as January Deadline Nears
ARKANSAS: Lawsuit V. Contractor Fees Remanded to Miller County
BANK OF AMERICA: FL Man Sues For Division of Trust, Bank Assets
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Derailment Suits March Through MN, ND Courts
CHICO'S FAS: CA Court Preliminarily OKs Wardrobing Lawsuit Pact
CHICO'S FAS: Faces Consumer Privacy Lawsuit In CA State Court
CHICO'S FAS: Employees File Overtime Wage Suit in CA State Court
CLEAR CHANNEL: Judge Nixes Suit Over Unwanted Telemarketing Call
CONCORD CAMERA: Trial in FL Securities Suit Set November 2006
CONCORD CAMERA: Discovery Continues in FL Securities Fraud Suits
DOLE FOOD: Competitors File Banana Antitrust Lawsuits in S.D. FL
DOLLAR GENERAL: Working To Resolve AL FLSA Violations Litigation
DOLLAR GENERAL: Current, Former Store Managers File LA Wage Suit
FMFG INC.: Agrees To Halt Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
GOODY'S FAMILY: GA Court Retains Jurisdiction in Race Bias Suit
GOODY'S FAMILY: Asks TN Court To Dismiss Lawsuits v. Sun Merger
KENTUCKY: Appeals Court Reverses 2004 Municipal-Bond Tax Ruling
LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: FL Court Mulls Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
NEW YORK: NATSO Joins Suit V. U.S. Banks Over Interchange Fees
PRESTIGE BRANDS: FL, MA Lawsuits V. Dextromethorpan Dismissed
PRESTIGE BRANDS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ROYAL AHOLD: MD Judge gives Preliminary OK to $1.1B Settlement
SIRVA INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in N.D. IL
SONY BMG: NY Judge Gives Preliminary OK to Consumer Settlement
SPYWARE FIRMS: Two Firms To Settle FTC Deceptive Trade Charges
SYCAMORE NETWORKS: NY Court Affirms Tentative Suit Pact Approval
U.S. AGGREGATES: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set March 24, 2006
WASHINGTON: Judge Orders Agency to Give Ferry Workers Back Pay
New Securities Fraud Cases
DIEBOLD INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH
SERACARE LIFE: Pomerantz Haudek Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Federman & Sherwood Files FL Securities Suit
SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Zwerling Schachter Lodges FL Securities Suit
*********
AEROSONIC CORPORATION: FL Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action field against Aerosonic
Corporation and:
(1) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, former independent
registered certified public accounting firm,
(2) J. Mervyn Nabors, a former director and former
President and CEO of the Company,
(3) Eric J. McCracken, a former Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, and
(4) Michael T. Reed, a former Controller of the Company
On November 12, 2003, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
by Sebastian P. Gaeta, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated. The action alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated under that act, including, among other things,
that the Company made materially false statements concerning the
Company's financial condition and its future prospects. The
plaintiff alleges that he suffered damages as the result of his
purchase and sale of the Company's Common Stock during the
asserted "Class Period" from November 13, 1998 through March 17,
2003. The action seeks compensatory and other damages, and
costs and expenses associated with the litigation.
Shortly after the Gaeta Suit was filed, two other putative class
actions were filed against the same defendants as in the Gaeta
Suit and predicated upon alleged violations of the same
securities laws, asserting that plaintiffs purchased the
Company's stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period and have been damaged thereby. The Pratsch Suit and
Suarez Suit assert a Class Period from May 3, 1999 through March
17, 2003.
At a February 27, 2004 hearing, plaintiffs in the Suarez Suit
voluntarily withdrew their complaint. On February 27, 2004, the
Court entered an order consolidating the Gaeta Suit and Pratsch
Suit into one case entitled "In re Aerosonic Corporation
Securities Litigation," appointing the Miville Group as lead
plaintiffs, approving the selection of Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel
(Berger & Montague P.C.).
On April 27, 2004, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended and
consolidated class action complaint that alleges violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
including, among other things, that the Company made materially
false statements concerning the Company's financial condition
and its future prospects. The amended complaint also added as a
defendant, Andrew Nordstrud, a former employee of the Company.
On June 28, 2004, the Company responded to the amended complaint
by filing a motion to dismiss, and each of the other defendants
also moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 27, 2004
Lead Plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law as a comprehensive
opposition to the motion to dismiss.
On April 1, 2005, the Company and the other named defendants in
the litigation filed a Notice of Settlement with the court,
confirming that all parties had executed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the plaintiffs to settle the
litigation. On July 13, 2005, all parties to the securities
class action lawsuit filed a Stipulation of Settlement. The
Stipulation provides for a payment by or on behalf of the
defendants to the plaintiffs of approximately $5.35 million. Of
this amount, the Company is obligated to pay $800,000, which had
been accrued in the consolidated financial statements as of July
29, 2005 and January 31, 2005. The balance of the settlement is
expected to be paid by Zurich American Insurance Company on
behalf of the Company and the individual defendants under the
Company's directors' and officers' insurance policy, and by
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.
On August 9, 2005, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement and set a fairness hearing on November 18, 2005 to
consider final approval of the settlement. On August 29, 2005,
the Company remitted $800,000 in satisfaction of this
obligation. On November 18, 2005, the court granted final
approval to the settlement as proposed. There were no
objections to, or exclusions from, the settlement. However, in
light of a recent bankruptcy petition filing by Eric McCracken,
the Company's former Chief Financial Officer and a defendant in
the litigation, the court also entered a supplemental order
directing that no settlement funds be disbursed for thirty days
in order to give the bankruptcy court or the bankruptcy trustee
an opportunity to file any objection to the settlement. Mr.
McCracken's counsel represents that Mr. McCracken is petitioning
the bankruptcy court to provide relief from the bankruptcy
automatic stay.
AMERICA ONLINE: Proposes Settlement For IL Improper Billing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
America Online Inc. (AOL) is proposing a class action settlement
with plaintiffs in Illinois state court to dispose of claims
that the Company wrongfully billed its customers for online
services and products without consent or authorization, The
Newsinferno.com reports.
Specifically, the proposed deal would cover claims that the
Company and its customer representatives billed consumers for
services, accounts, and goods after the consumers had tried to
cancel the account or service or attempted to return the
unordered product. The unwanted services included AOL Credit
Alert as well as merchandise such as AOL Desk Planners. A
provider of outsourced customer management services, known as
ICT Group Inc., was also named as a defendant in the lawsuit
alongside the Company.
In an e-mailed statement, the Company told The Newsinferno.com
that "The settlement announced today consolidates and resolves a
series of cases that have been pending for several years. AOL
denies the allegations contained in the original lawsuit, and
we've defended the cases accordingly." ICT also denied any
wrongdoing in the matter.
There would be three tiers of compensation within the proposed
settlement, which will all depend on whether consumers can
provide documentation showing they incurred unauthorized
charges. In addition, consumers must have also complained to AOL
at the time the improper charges were made to be eligible for
the deal. Compensation will be in cash payments and/or AOL
account credits ranging between $25 and $80 per customer.
Alternatively, plaintiffs can choose free AOL accounts for
periods lasting between three to six months, depending on the
tier of compensation. AOL will also forgive any amounts owed for
any unauthorized charges.
The Company's e-mail also stated, "AOL goes to great lengths to
provide high-quality, best-in-class customer service -- taking
extraordinary efforts to prevent, address, and resolve billing
issues. Consistent with that approach, the settlement allows any
consumer with an outstanding issue the opportunity to obtain a
potential full refund."
If the settlement is approved, the Company agrees to obtain AOL
members' authorization before giving out their account
information to third parties and before charging members'
accounts. AOL must also "clearly and conspicuously disclose all
material payment terms and offers made." The Company also agreed
to make a donation valued at $1 million to one or more
charitable organizations. AOL is also to pay some legal and
administrative costs.
The proposed settlement still needs to obtain court approval
though. On February 22, Judge Michael O'Malley is due to hold a
hearing in St. Clair County, Illinois, to determine if the
settlement should be approved.
The suit is styled, "O'Leary V. America Online, Inc., Case No.
03-L-491," filed in the Circuit Court, Twentieth Judicial
District, St. Clair County, Illinois, under Judge Michael
O'Malley. Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Daniel C. Girard,
Jonathan Levine and Allison Ehlert of Girard Gibbs &
DeBartolomeo, LLP, 601 California St., Suite 1400, San
Francisco, CA 94108, Phone: 415-981-4800, Fax: 415-981-4846; and
C. Brooks Cutter, Mark J. Tamblyn and Stuart Talley of Kershaw,
Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP, 980 9th St., Suite 1900, Sacramento, CA
95814, Phone: 916-448-9800, Fax: 916-669-4499.
For more details, contact The Garden City Group, Inc., 105
Maxess Road, Melville, New York 11747, Phone: 631-470-5000 or
800-327-3664, Fax: 631-470-5100. Additional information
concerning the proposed settlement can be found online at
http://www.unauthorizedchargeslitigation.com.
ARKANSAS: Property Tax Refunds Mailed as January Deadline Nears
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 150,000 property tax refunds coming from the $5.89 million
settlement of a class action lawsuit filed in 1997 against
Benton County, the cities of Rogers and Lowell, Northwest
Arkansas Community College and school districts in Rogers,
Bentonville, Siloam Springs and Gravette, were recently mailed
to those affected by the case, The Morning News reports.
The Benton County Amendment 59 property tax lawsuit, a complex
case expected to address the question of whether taxes are paid
correctly and voluntarily, alleges that property owners in
Benton County were overtaxed. Dale Evans, one of the attorneys
who filed it previously told The Morning News that as soon as it
was filed, property taxes in the county were considered "paid
under protest" -- allowing them to be questioned in court, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (June 29, 2005) reports.
Taxes paid before then traditionally could not be challenged,
however attorneys are protesting that fact, and the state
Supreme Court in 2000 said they can pursue their argument: That
taxpayers had no way of knowing the assessments were illegal, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (June 29, 2005) reports.
Mr. Evans and Kent Hirsch both of whom filed the lawsuit back in
1997 on behalf of taxpayers, claims local school districts and
governments violated Amendment 59 to the Arkansas Constitution
by over collecting property taxes for several years in the
1990s. Amendment 59 limits the increase in property tax revenue
from reappraisals to 10 percent per year for each taxing entity
such as a school district or city. When a taxing entity's
revenue collection would increase more than 10 percent because
of property reappraisal, Amendment 59 triggers a mileage
rollback though the limit does not apply to increases resulting
from new construction or improvements, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (June 29, 2005) reports.
The county settled its portion in 2005 for $2.3 million. In
doing so, taxpayers forfeited more than $600,000 of those
refunds by not cashing their checks, according to Duane Neal,
whom Circuit Judge Tom Keith appointed as special master for the
process. More than 10,000 residents filled out green forms back
last year stating they voluntarily paid property taxes and
didn't want refunds. Those residents will not receive checks
from this latest round of settlements.
Mr. Neal though told The Morning News, "But we've still already
had a lot of calls from people asking, 'What do I do if I don't
want to cash my check? The key is, if you don't present your
check for payment the money will automatically go back to the
school or city." The deadline for cashing checks is on July 31,
2006.
When settlement checks were mailed for the county settlement,
37,000 were returned for reasons such as insufficient or
incorrect addresses. Me Neal explains, "We tried to clean up the
addresses as much as we could, using the list of those
returned." He also told The Morning News, "For the ones we
received back before, we're holding those checks in our office."
Those who don't receive refunds, but think they are entitled,
can call 271-1099 or visit an office in the Benton County
Administration Building in downtown Bentonville, Arkansas.
Originally, Circuit Judge Tom Keith had set a January 1, 2006
deadline for mailing refunds, but admitted that the date may be
optimistic. Mr. Neal told The Morning Post that getting checks
out before stamp prices increases saved thousands of dollars in
postage. Additionally, under the deal, the defendants agreed to
pay about $1.4 million to the attorneys who filed the suit.
ARKANSAS: Lawsuit V. Contractor Fees Remanded to Miller County
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Robert T. Dawson ordered a lawsuit filed
against the country's top home insurance companies over
contractor fees, remanded to Miller County, The Texarkana
Gazette reports.
The ruling overrode a move by leading insurance firms like
Allstate and State Farm. At the center of the controversy are
the fees customers say the insurance companies should pay:
general contractors to oversee reconstruction when there is a
loss.
The suit relates to the fees customers say the insurance
companies should pay, like having a general contractor to
oversee reconstruction when there is a loss. In general,
homeowners have had to foot the bill for the general
contractor's profit and overhead, however they believe insurance
companies were liable for these costs, which could range from
$100 to $5,000. The insurance companies though argue that the
general contractor supervises subcontractors and does not
actually perform any work. The suit was filed against:
(1) State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.,
(2) Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.,
(3) Foremost Insurance Co.,
(4) Allstate County Mutual Insurance Co.,
(5) Farmers Insurance Co. Inc.,
(6) Nationwide General Insurance Co. and
(7) Chubb Lloyd's Insurance Co. of Texas
The suit also names the major companies' subsidiary or sister
companies as defendants, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(December 22, 2004) reports.
Following the filing of the lawsuit on September 8, 2004, the
case began to move along but was snatched out of Miller County
Circuit Court by the companies and moved to federal court in
Texarkana, Arkansas, on June 20, 2005.
Both sides wrangled with the issues of trying the case in state
and federal court. The companies argued that if it were to be
tried at all, it should be tried in federal court. But, the
customers wanted the case tried in Miller County, arguing that
the lead plaintiffs live there.
In Judge Dawson's recently issued ruling, he said, "While the
court agrees that specific proof of plaintiffs' claim of civil
conspiracy appears to be lacking at this stage of the
litigation, we find that plaintiffs have at the very least
stated a `colorable' claim of civil conspiracy against
defendants."
However, Mike Angelovich, a lawyer with Nix, Patterson & Roach,
who represents the customers with another Texarkana firm, Keil &
Goodson, told the Texarkana Gazette, "The only issue presented
in federal court was whether the federal courts have
jurisdiction. He found they do not have jurisdiction and that
State Farm and Allstate wrongly removed the case."
The legal team is hoping the case will be back on track for a
class certification hearing within six months. This is a hearing
where circuit judge Kirk Johnson must decide if the customers
have a common complaint that necessitates having one lawsuit
instead of individual lawsuits. "We're very fortunate to have
such knowledgeable and fair judges at both the state and federal
level," John C. Goodson, who also represents the customers, told
The Texarkana Gazette.
The insurance companies say that the class action lawsuit is not
new or novel and there have been nine similar lawsuits where
class certification had not been granted in the United States.
The suit is styled, "Chivers, et al v. State Farm, et al, Case
No. 4:05-cv-04045-RTD," filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas, under Judge Robert
T. Dawson. Representing the Plaintiff/s are:
(1) Michael B Angelovich and Anthony K. Bruster of Nix,
Patterson & Roach, LLP, 2900 Saint Michael Drive, Suite
500, Texarkana, TX 75503, Phone: (903) 223-3999, Fax:
(903) 223-8520, E-mail: mangelovich@nixlawfirm.com and
akbruster@nixlawfirm.com;
(2) Stephen C. Engstrom of Wilson, Engstrom, Corum &
Coulter, 200 South Commerce, Suite 600, P.O. Box 71,
Little Rock, AR 72203, Phone: (501) 375-6453,
stephen@wecc-law.com;
(3) John C. Goodson of Keil & Goodson, P.O. Box 618,
Texarkana, AR 75504, Phone: (870) 772-4113, Fax: (870)
773-2967, E-mail: jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com; and
(4) Chad Ihrig of Whitten, Nelson, McGuire & Roselius, One
Leadership Square, 211 N. Robinson, Suite 400, Oklahoma
City, OK 73102, Phone: (405) 239-2522.
Representing the Defendant/s are:
(i) Leah R Bruno and Mark L. Hanover of Sonnenschein Nath &
Rosenthal, 8000 Sears Tower, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone:
312-876-8000, Fax: 312-876-7934, E-mail:
lbruno@sonnenschein.com;
(ii) Dan F. Bufford, Sr. of Laser Law Firm, P.A., 101 S.
Spring St., Suite 300, Little Rock, AR 72201-2488,
Phone: (501) 376-2981, Fax: (501) 376-2417, E-mail:
dbufford@laserlaw.com;
(iii) Joseph A. Cancila, Jr. and James P. Gaughan of Schiff
Hardin, LLP, 6600 Sears Tower, Chicago, IL 60606-6473,
Phone: (312) 876-1000, Fax: (312) 258-5600, E-mail:
jgaughan@schiffhardin.com;
(iv) William J Cobb, III of Jackson Walker, LLP, 100
Congress Ave., Suite 1100, Austin, TX 78701, Phone:
512-236-2000, Fax: 512-236-2002, E-mail: bcobb@jw.com;
(v) Craig A. Cohen and Martin Karo of Nelson Levine de Luca
& Horst, LLC, Four Sentry Parkway, Suite 300, Blue
Bell, PA 19422, Phone: (610) 862-6500;
(vi) Richard E. Griffin of Jackson Walker, L.L.P., 1401
McKinney St., Suite 1900, Houston, TX 77010, Phone:
(713) 752-4212;
(vii) Claire Shows Hancock of Wright, Lindsey & Jennings,
LLP, 200 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 2300, Little Rock, AR
72201-3699, Phone: (501) 371-0808, Fax: (501) 376-9442,
E-mail: chancock@wlj.com;
(viii) J. Hawley Holman of Holman & Langdon, L.L.P., 2222 St.
Michael Drive, P.O. Box 5367, Texarkana, TX 75505,
Phone: (903) 792-4513, Fax: (903) 792-3762, E-mail:
jhholman@hlatty.com; and
(ix) John E. Moore, 1900 Regions Center, 400 W. Capitol,
Suite 1900, Little Rock, AR 72201, Phone: 501-374-6535,
Fax: 501-374-5906, E-mail: john.moore@hmrmlaw.com;
BANK OF AMERICA: FL Man Sues For Division of Trust, Bank Assets
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Boca Raton, Florida man, his two sisters, and others in
several states are seeking "hundreds of millions" in ongoing
litigation against Bank of America, The Boca News reports.
According to attorney Richard Greenfield, an attorney for Craig
Williams of Boca Raton, the class action suit has been brought
to prevent "major banks from treating trust accounts as piggy
banks." He further told The Boca News, "the Williams case
reflects the problems of beneficiaries who have seen fiduciary
accounts taken over by larger and larger banks with less
personal service and higher expenses." And the structural remedy
sought by the litigation is something Mr. Greenfield called a
"China Wall."
Following the stock market crash of 1929, the government sought
to provide a separation between banks and brokerage firms to
avoid the conflict of interest between objective analysis and a
successful stock offering. These regulations became known as a
China Wall because the rules were meant to create a barrier as
effective as the Great Wall of China between the two operations.
In turn, the ethical barrier between different divisions of a
financial institution is to eliminate conflict of interest. A
Chinese wall is said to exist, for example, between the
corporate-advisory area and the brokering department to separate
those giving corporate advice on takeovers from those advising
clients about buying stocks. That "wall" is thrown up to prevent
leaks of corporate inside information, which could influence a
clients investment buying decisions, and allow staff to take
advantage of facts that are not yet known to the general public.
Mr. Greenfield told The Boca News that that in the big picture,
the current litigation seeks the same kind of barrier between a
bank's trust department and the ultimate assets of the bank. He
specifically said, "the Williams' case reflects the problems of
beneficiaries who have seen fiduciary accounts taken over by
larger and larger banks with less personal service and higher
expenses."
The case is about trust beneficiaries having "no control" over
long-standing trust agreements. This prevents, according to Mr.
Greenfield, the trust beneficiaries, "from picking up and going
somewhere else," if the bank's trust department doesn't manage
the trust's assets well. As such, Mr. Greenfield told The Boca
News that the suit alleges that Bank of America breached
fiduciary and other duties to the plaintiffs by "converting"
assets in the family's trust accounts into shares of the Nations
Funds, a family of mutual funds established and controlled by
Bank of America subsidiaries." Additionally, the suit was also
filed as a class action, alleging that the Williams trio, "and a
class of other beneficiaries of fiduciary accounts, including
trusts, estates and employee benefit accounts of Bank of
America," was similarly affected.
Mr. Greenfield told The Boca News, "The traditional concept of
personal service to trust beneficiaries has largely disappeared
at most major national banks. Instead of individually caring for
the assets of these beneficiaries and dealing with their
personal issues, the large banks are channeling assets into
their own mutual funds, thus 'double dipping,' sending the
beneficiaries to be "serviced" by remote "Call Centers" and
otherwise reducing what they do for the higher fees these large
banks receive." He adds, "All they (the banks) are concerned
about is making money, and that may not be in the best interest
of persons with trust accounts."
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Derailment Suits March Through MN, ND Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits stemming from a deadly derailment west of Minot four
years ago are continuing in state and federal courts in
Minnesota and North Dakota, The Associated Press reports.
Fargo lawyer Mike Miller, who represents two people suing the
Canadian Pacific Railway in a trial scheduled for January 16 in
Minneapolis told The Associated Press, "It's amazing how long
this has gone on." He adds, "You talk to a lot of people (in
Minot), and they still have tears, thinking back to that night."
Thirty-one cars on the 112-car Canadian Pacific train derailed
on the west edge of Minot and five broke open early on the
morning of January 18, 2002. John Grabinger, who lived close to
the wreck site, died and hundreds of people were injured when
the derailment spilled anhydrous ammonia farm fertilizer,
sending a toxic cloud into the air. Federal investigators
described the tank car ruptures as "catastrophic." The National
Transportation Safety Board said the wreck was caused by
inadequate track maintenance and inspections, a conclusion
disputed by Canadian Pacific, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (July 11, 2005) reports.
Since the derailment, about 450 lawsuits in Minnesota state
court and North Dakota are pending against Canadian Pacific. The
suits filed in Minneapolis, which is home of the railroad's U.S.
operations, were grouped together to help them move through the
courts. Mr. Miller represents nearly 1,000 people in a separate
class action case in North Dakota.
Company lawyer Tim Thornton told The Associated Press that he is
weighing each case. Three cases, including a wrongful death
lawsuit, were settled before trial in October 2005. The railroad
Company has admitted liability in a second round of lawsuits
scheduled for trial this month.
Hennepin County District Court Judge Tony Leung is scheduled to
preside over the January 16 trial in Minneapolis, in which
jurors will be asked to determine the amount of damages for
plaintiffs in five lawsuits.
Minot lawyer Mark Larson told The Associated Press that a sixth
case was settled on January 5, 2006. He also said that he filed
nearly 60 new lawsuits in Minneapolis last week for about 85
plaintiffs clients injured after the derailment. Another
wrongful death lawsuit is pending in North Dakota.
Last fall, Judge Leung dismissed tank car manufacturers as
defendants in the suits, determining that the companies were
protected under federal law. His signed order was filed with the
court on December 29.
In July 2005, Congress ordered the Federal Railroad
Administration to set tougher standards for railroad tank cars,
which are to take effect in 2008. The Federal Railroad
Administration also called for more detailed track inspections.
CHICO'S FAS: CA Court Preliminarily OKs Wardrobing Lawsuit Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California, County of San
Francisco granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
class action filed against Chico's FAS, Inc., styled "Charissa
Villanueva v. Chico's FAS, Inc.
The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of
California law, has in place a mandatory uniform policy that
requires its employees to purchase and wear Chico's clothing and
accessories as a condition of employment.
The Company denied the allegations, saying that no such
mandatory uniform policy exists. Although the Company believed
it had strong defenses to the allegations in this case, the
Company agreed to participate in a voluntary private mediation
on November 10, 2004. A settlement was reached at the
mediation, and the parties are in the process of preparing and
finalizing the settlement documents. On July 27, 2005, the
Court gave its preliminary approval to the settlement. The class
members were notified of the settlement and given until October
24, 2005 to submit notice of their intention to partake in or
opt out of the settlement. The settlement is still subject to
the Court's final approval.
The suit is styled "Charissa Villanueva v. Chico's FAS, Inc.,
Case Number CGC-03-420380," filed in the California Superior
Court for San Francisco County, under Judge Arlene T. Borick.
Representing the Company is David S. Bradshaw of JACKSON LEWIS
LLP, 801 K Street Ste 2300, Sacramento, CA 95814 USA Phone:
(916) 341-0404. Representing the plaintiffs is Patrick R.
Kitchin of LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK R. KITCHIN 807 Montgomery St.,
San Francisco CA 94133 USA Phone: (415) 627-9117.
CHICO'S FAS: Faces Consumer Privacy Lawsuit In CA State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. faces a putative class action suit filed in
the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, styled "Marie Nguyen v. Chico's FAS, Inc."
The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of
California law, requested or required its customers, in
connection with the sign-up process for its Passport Club and as
such, as part of a credit card transaction, to provide certain
personal identifying information. The Company filed an answer
denying the material allegations of the Complaint.
CHICO'S FAS: Employees File Overtime Wage Suit in CA State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. faces a putative class action suit filed in
the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San
Bernardino, styled "Carol Schaffer v. Chico's FAS, Inc., et al."
The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of
California law, failed to:
(1) pay overtime wages,
(2) permit rest periods, and
(3) timely pay separation wages
The Company believes that the case is without merit, in large
part because the claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the
settlement reached in the "Carmen Davis v. Chico's FAS, Inc."
class action, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities
and Exchange Commission. Thus, the Company does not believe that
the case should have any material adverse effect on its
financial condition or results of operations. The Company
timely filed its Answer to the Complaint.
CLEAR CHANNEL: Judge Nixes Suit Over Unwanted Telemarketing Call
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Manhattan federal judge threw out a lawsuit against Clear
Channel Communications Inc., alleging one of its radio stations
violated federal laws designed to curb unwanted telemarketing
calls, The Poughkeepsie Journal reports.
In his order, U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr., dismissed
allegations that WLTW (106.7 FM) in New York violated federal
rules on prerecorded telephone calls back in June 2005 by making
thousands of unsolicited prerecorded telephone calls to
residences advertising the station. His ruling was against a
suit filed by Mark Leyse, a New York resident, who was seeking
class action status for it.
Federal law limits the use of prerecorded calls without prior
consent and provides consumers the ability to register their
phone numbers on a national do-not-call registry to limit
unwanted solicitations.
The suit is styled, "Leyse v. Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-06031-HB," filed in the United States
District Court foe the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Harold Baer, Jr. Representing the Plaintiff/s is Todd C.
Bank of The Law Office of Todd C. Bank, 119-40 Union Turnpike,
Fourth Floor, Kew Gardens, NY 11415, Phone: 718-520-7125, Fax:
718-999-9999, E-mail: TBLaw101@aol.com. Representing the
Defendant/s is Judith A. Archer of Fulbright & Jaworski, L.L.P.,
666 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10103, Phone: (212)-318-3342, Fax:
(212) 318-3400, E-mail: jarcher@fulbright.com.
CONCORD CAMERA: Trial in FL Securities Suit Set November 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the securities class action filed against Concord
Camera Corporation and certain of its officers is set for
November 13,2006 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.
In July 2002, individuals purporting to be shareholders of the
Company filed the suit. On August 20, 2002, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint and in December 2002, the court
granted the Company's motion and dismissed the complaint. In
January 2003, an amended class action complaint was filed adding
certain of the Company's current and former directors as
defendants. The lead plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint sought
to act as representatives of a class consisting of all persons
who purchased the Company's Common Stock issued pursuant to the
Company's September 26, 2000 secondary offering (the "Secondary
Offering") or during the period from September 26, 2000 through
June 22, 2001, inclusive.
On April 18, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint and on August 27, 2004, the court dismissed
all claims against the defendants related to the Secondary
Offering and dismissed all claims against the defendants related
to allegations of misconduct occurring before February 2001 or
after April 2001 (the period February 2001 through April 2001
hereinafter referred to as the "Shortened Class Period"). The
allegations remaining in the Amended Complaint are centered
around claims that the Company failed to disclose, in periodic
reports it filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") and in press releases it made to the public during the
Shortened Class Period regarding its operations and financial
results, that a large portion of its accounts receivable was
represented by a delinquent and uncollectible balance due from
then customer, KB Gear Interactive, Inc. ("KB Gear"), and claims
that such failures artificially inflated the price of the Common
Stock. The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs of suit and unspecified other
and further relief from the court.
On September 8, 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and certified as plaintiffs all persons
who purchased the Common Stock between January 18, 2001 and June
22, 2001, inclusive, and who were allegedly damaged thereby (the
period January 18, 2001 through June 22, 2001 hereinafter
referred to as the "Class Period").
The suit is styled "Berger, et al. v. Concord Camera Corp., et
al.," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, under Judge Patricia Seitz. The plaintiff
firms in this litigation are:
(1) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock,
AR), P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR, 72221-5438,
Phone: 501.312.8500, Fax: 501.312.8505,
(2) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com
(3) Leo W. Desmond, 2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite
204, West Palm Beach, FL, 33409, Phone: 561.712.8000,
E-mail: stocklaw@bellsouth.net
(4) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (Boca Raton,
FL), 5355 Town Center Road - Suite 900, Boca Raton, FL,
33486, Phone: 561.361.5000, Fax: 561.367.8400,
(5) Emerson Poynter LLP, P.O. Box 164810, Little Rock, AR,
72216-4810, Phone: 800.663.981, E-mail:
tanya@emersonfirm.com
(6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
CONCORD CAMERA: Discovery Continues in FL Securities Fraud Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is continuing in the litigation filed against Concord
Camera Corporation and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida by
individuals purporting to be shareholders of the Company. If
not dismissed by the court, the Company expects these cases to
be consolidated into one case.
The plaintiffs in these class actions seek to act as
representatives of a class consisting of all persons who
purchased the Company's Common Stock during either the period
from August 14, 2003 through May 10, 2004, inclusive, or the
period from August 14, 2003 through October 4, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), and who were allegedly damaged thereby.
The allegations in the complaints are centered around claims
that the Company failed to disclose, in periodic reports it
filed with the SEC and in press releases it made to the public
during the Class Period regarding its operations and financial
results, the full extent of the Company's excess, obsolete and
otherwise impaired inventory, and claims that such failures
artificially inflated the price of the Common Stock. The
complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
costs of suit and unspecified other and further relief from the
court.
The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Martin Brustein, et al. v. Concord Camera Corporation, et al.,
case no. 04-CV-61159," filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge Andrea M.
Simonton. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(1) Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 800.424.6690, Fax:
215.875.4604, E-mail: investorprotect@bm.net;
(2) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com;
(3) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
sn06106@AOL.com;
(4) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;
(5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com;
(6) Vianale & Vianale LLP, The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355 Town
Center Road, Boca Raton, FL, 33486, Phone:
561.391.4900, Fax: 561.368.9274, E-mail:
info@vianalelaw.com
DOLE FOOD: Competitors File Banana Antitrust Lawsuits in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dole Food Company, Inc. faces several class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida. The suits, which also name several of the company's
competitors, were filed on behalf of entities that directly or
indirectly purchased bananas from the defendants, and allege
that the defendants conspired to artificially raise or maintain
prices and control or restrict output of bananas.
At least eight complaints have been filed against the Company
and Chiquita Brands International, both U.S. companies, Fresh
Del Monte Produce, which is registered in the Cayman Islands,
with management offices in Coral Gables and Grupo Noboa, the
largest banana producer in Ecuador, is run by the Noboa family
out of Guayaquil. The suits allege that these four companies
along with their associates exchanged information that helped
fix the price of the most popular fruit in the world, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (September 2,2005) states. The
suits further allege that the companies formed a cartel,
exchanged information about prices and sales volumes, arranged
to sell bananas at agreed-upon prices and agreed to reduce
production capacity. The suits noted that the price of bananas
ranged from $5.40 a box to more than $10 a box from May of 2003
to September 2004.
Among the produce companies and buyers that have brought the
suits so far are:
(1) Harvin Foods of Pennsylvania;
(2) RBest Produce of the Bronx, NY;
(3) Susan Jockers, a Florida resident;
(4) Joelle Prochera, an Arizona resident;
(5) Tim McGraw, a Kansas resident;
(6) the Syracuse Banana Co., of Syracuse, NY;
(7) Brookshire Ltd. of Lufkin, Texas;
(8) Brigiotta's Farmland Produce and Garden Center,
Jamestown, NY;
(9) VIP Sales, Tulsa, OK; and
(10) Christopher Farms, of Wimauma, FL
DOLLAR GENERAL: Working To Resolve AL FLSA Violations Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation is working to resolve litigation
filed against it in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
On March 14, 2002, a complaint, styled "Edith Brown, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated v. Dolgencorp. Inc.,
and Dollar General Corporation, CV02-C-0673-W," was filed. The
suit is a collective action against the Company on behalf of
current and former salaried store managers claiming that these
individuals were entitled to overtime pay and should not have
been classified as exempt employees under the FLSA. Plaintiffs
seek to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages, declaratory
relief and attorneys' fees.
On January 12, 2004, the court certified an opt-in class of
plaintiffs consisting of all persons employed by the Company as
store managers at any time since March 14, 1999, who regularly
worked more than 50 hours per week and either:
(1) customarily supervised less than two employees at one
time;
(2) lacked authority to hire or discharge employees without
supervisor approval; or
(3) sometimes worked in non-managerial positions at stores
other than the one he or she managed.
The Company's request to appeal the certification decision on a
discretionary basis to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
was denied. Notice was sent to prospective class members and
the deadline for individuals to opt in to the lawsuit was May
31, 2004. Approximately 5,000 individuals opted in. Although
the Company has several pending motions that may dispose of all
or portions of the case, the Company is unable at this time to
predict whether or the extent to which any of these motions will
be successful. A trial date has not been set.
Three additional lawsuits, styled `Tina Depasquales v. Dollar
General Corp. (Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division,
CV 404-096, filed May 12, 2004)', `Karen Buckley v. Dollar
General Corp. (Southern District of Ohio, C-2-04-484, filed June
8, 2004)', and `Sheila Ann Hunsucker v. Dollar General Corp. et
al. (Western District of Oklahoma, Civ-04-165-R, filed February
19, 2004),' were filed asserting essentially the same claims as
the Brown case, and were subsequently consolidated in the
Northern District of Alabama where the Brown litigation is
pending. The plaintiffs in the Depasquales and the Hunsucker
lawsuits have since dismissed their cases and opted into the
Brown case. The Buckley plaintiff has represented to the Court
an intent to abandon the federal FLSA claim in order to pursue a
class action under Ohio's state law equivalent of the FLSA.
The suit is styled "Brown, et al v. Dollar Gen Stores, et al.,
case no. 7:02-cv-00673-UWC," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama under Judge U W
Clemon. Representing the plaintiffs are Jere L Beasley, W.
Daniel Miles III, Roman A. Shaul, BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN
PORTIS & MILES PC, PO Box 4160, Montgomery, AL 36103-4160,
Phone: 1-334-269-2343, Fax: 1-334-954-7555, E-mail:
jere.beasley@beasleyallen.com, dee.miles@beasleyallen.com,
roman.shaul@beasleyallen.com. Representing the Company are Joel
S Allen and Ronald Manthey, BAKER & MCKENZIE, 2300 Trammell Crow
Center, 2001 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75201, Phone:
1-214-978-3000, Fax: 1-214-978-3099, E-mail:
joel.allen@bakernet.com, ron.manthey@bakernet.com; and Keith D
Frazier, J. Trent Scofield, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK &
STEWART, Suntrust Center, Suite 800, 424 Church Street,
Nashville, TN 37219, Phone: 1-615-254-1900, Fax: 1-615-254-1908,
E-mail: keith.frazier@odnss.com or trent.scofield@odnss.com.
DOLLAR GENERAL: Current, Former Store Managers File LA Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana, styled "Moldoon, et al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., et al.,
case no. CV05-0852."
The suit, filed on May 19, 2005, is a putative collective action
in which five current or former store managers claim to have
been improperly classified as exempt executive employees under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiffs seek injunctive
relief, back wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees.
Although the Company has answered the Moldoon complaint,
discovery has not yet begun. At this time, it is not possible to
predict whether the Court will permit this action to proceed
collectively or whether the action will be consolidated with the
Brown litigation.
The suit is styled "Moldoon et al v. Dolgencorp Inc et al., case
no. 2:05-cv-00852-JTT-APW," filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana, under Judge James T
Trimble, Jr. Representing the plaintiffs is L Clayton Burgess,
Law Office of L Clayton Burgess, P O Drawer 5250, Lafayette, LA
70502-7573, Phone: 337-234-7573, Fax: 337-233-3890, E-mail:
lcburgess@clayburgess.com.
FMFG INC.: Agrees To Halt Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
People may sleep better if the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
succeeds in its effort to stop a marketer of adjustable beds
from calling telephone numbers listed on the National Do Not
Call (DNC) Registry, the FTC announced in a recent press
release.
The FTC further stated that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
has filed a complaint on its behalf against the Nevada-based
company and its chief executive for allegedly making at least
900,000 unlawful calls since October 2003. FMFG, Inc. allegedly
called consumers asking to take a survey of their sleep habits
and then made a sales pitch - genuine survey calls are exempt
from the DNC provisions of the Commission's Telemarketing Sales
Rule. They also allegedly called consumers to schedule sales
presentations in their homes.
"This should be a warning to all telemarketers," said Lydia
Parnes, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection.
"You can't evade the Do Not Call Rule by disguising sales calls
as surveys."
According to the Commission, the defendants broke federal laws
when they, or others on their behalf, called DNC-registered
phone numbers, "abandoned" calls by failing to connect the call
to a sales representative within two seconds of a phone being
answered, and made telemarketing calls without first paying the
annual fee for access to phone numbers listed on the DNC
registry.
The company, owned by Kurt G. Cuddy, also did business as
American Adjustable Beds, Tranquility Adjustable Beds, and
California Sleep Research.
The Commission is seeking civil penalties and a permanent
injunction against the defendants. The Commission authorized the
complaint filing by a 4-0 vote. On December 29, the DOJ filed
the complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has "reason to
believe" that the law has been or is being violated, and it
appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public
interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the
defendant has actually violated the law. The case will be
decided by the court.
Copies of the complaint are available from the FTC's Web site at
http://www.ftc.govand from the FTC's Consumer Response Center,
Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.
The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive,
and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide
information to 150 consumer topics, call toll-free,
1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form at
http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing,
identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer
Sentinel, a secure, online database help consumers spot, stop,
and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish
(bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to
get free information on any of available to hundreds of civil
and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.
For more details, contact Mitch Katz, Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2161 or Frank Dorman, Office of Public Affairs,
202-326-2674; or contact Sarah Schroeder, Linda K. Badger, Laura
Fremont Western Region Office - San Francisco, 415-848-5186 or
visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/01/casleepresearch.htm.
GOODY'S FAMILY: GA Court Retains Jurisdiction in Race Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia retained jurisdiction over litigation filed against
Goody's Family Clothing, Inc., alleging race discrimination
against its African-American employees.
In February 1999, 20 named plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against
the Company and Robert M. Goodfriend, its Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer, generally alleging that the Company
discriminated against a class of African-American employees at
its retail stores through the use of discriminatory selection
and compensation procedures and by maintaining unequal terms and
conditions of employment. The plaintiffs further alleged that
the Company maintained a racially hostile working environment.
On February 28, 2003, a proposed Consent Decree was filed with
the District Court for its preliminary approval. The proposed
Consent Decree sets forth the proposed settlement of the class
action race discrimination lawsuit. Ultimately, class action
certification was sought in the lawsuit only with respect to
alleged discrimination in promotion to management positions and
the proposed Consent Decree is limited to such claims.
Generally, the proposed settlement provides for a payment by the
Company in the aggregate amount of $3.2 million to the class
members (including the named plaintiffs) and their counsel, as
well as the Company's implementation of certain policies,
practices and procedures regarding, among other things, training
of employees. The proposed Consent Decree explicitly provides
that it is not an admission of liability by the Company and the
Company continues to deny all of the allegations.
On April 30, 2003, the District Court granted preliminary
approval of the proposed Consent Decree, and a hearing was held
on June 30, 2003, regarding the adequacy and fairness of the
proposed settlement. On March 3, 2004, the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia issued an
Order granting final approval of the Consent Decree. On
February 23, 2004, a purported class member filed an appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the
"Eleventh Circuit"), alleging, among other things, misconduct on
the part of the District Court and the plaintiff's/appellant's
counsel; the Eleventh Circuit dismissed this appeal on March 5,
2004.
On March 12, 2004, a Motion to set aside the dismissal was filed
with the Eleventh Circuit. On May 28, 2004, the Eleventh
Circuit dismissed all appeals regarding this matter. In August
2004, a purported class member filed a Petition for a Writ of
Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court regarding the
Eleventh Circuit's dismissal of all appeals on this matter; on
January 20, 2005, the United States Supreme Court denied the
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. Pursuant to the terms of the
March 3, 2004, Order, the District Court will maintain
jurisdiction of this matter until July 2006 to monitor the
parties' compliance with the Consent Decree.
The suit is styled "Bonds v. Goody's Family, case no.
1:99-cv-00091-WLS," filed in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia, under Judge W. Louis Sands.
Lawyer for the defendant is Marcus Benton Calhoun, Jr., P.O. Box
1199, Columbus, GA 31902-1199, Phone: 706-324-0251, E-mail:
mbc@psstf.com. Representing lead plaintiff Cathy Bonds is
Joseph Calhoun Nelson, III, P.O. Box 109, Athens, GA 30603,
Phone: 706-549-5598.
GOODY'S FAMILY: Asks TN Court To Dismiss Lawsuits v. Sun Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goody's Family Clothing, Inc. asked the Chancery Court for Knox
County, Tennessee to dismiss the complaints filed against it in
connection with the Company's Acquisition Agreement and
Agreement and Plan of Merger with certain affiliates of Sun
Capital Partners, Inc. (Sun Capital) on October 7,
2005, pursuant to which the Sun Capital affiliates were to have
purchased the Company at a cash price of $8.00 per share.
The complaint, which names the Company, its directors and
certain executive officers as defendants, seeks, among other
things, certification as a class action, injunctive relief and
unspecified damages. The complaint generally alleges that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by accepting an
inadequate offer, by failing to address other acquisition
proposals, by taking steps to discourage other acquisition
proposals, including an excessive termination fee, and by
generally failing to maximize shareholder value. The complaint
also alleges that the sale is motivated by the self-interest of
the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Robert M.
Goodfriend.
On October 12, 2005, two additional complaints were filed in
connection with the Sun Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby. The complaints, which name both the
Company and its directors as defendants, were also brought in
the Chancery Court, and are seeking, among other things,
certification as a class action, a determination that fiduciary
duties were breached, injunctive relief against the proposed
transaction (and in one case in the alternative to injunctive
relief, rescission of the proposed transaction if it has been
consummated and unspecified damages). Together, the complaints
allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
accepting an inadequate offer, by failing to address other
acquisition proposals, by taking steps to discourage other
acquisition proposals, including an excessive termination fee
(in one case), and by generally failing to maximize shareholder
value.
At a proceeding in the Chancery Court on October 14, 2005, the
plaintiff in one of the cases filed on October 12, 2005, sought
a temporary restraining order against the consummation of the
transactions contemplated by the Sun Merger Agreement. The
Chancery Court granted the Company's motion for continuance of
the initial hearing on this matter until October 26, 2005,
relying upon representations from counsel to the Company at the
hearing that the proposed transaction would not be consummated
before that date. On October 23, 2005, the Company received
another offer (the "October 23 Offer"). At the resumed hearing
in Chancery Court on October 26, 2005, all three of the
plaintiffs sought temporary injunctive relief concerning the
October 23 Offer, which had been the subject of the Company's
October 24, 2005 press release. The Court heard argument on the
motions for injunctive relief and reserved decision until
October 27, 2005. At the commencement of the resumed hearing at
9:30 a.m. on October 27, 2005, the Chancery Court was informed
by the Company's counsel of the events that had taken place
following adjournment of the October 26, 2005 hearing at
approximately 3:45 p.m., and specifically that at approximately
2:30 a.m. on October 27, 2005, the Company had executed the
Merger Agreement and a Stock Option Agreement with the
affiliates of Prentice/GMM providing for an all-cash purchase
price of $9.60 per share. The Chancery Court declined to issue
a temporary injunction. The Chancery Court also directed that
the three matters be consolidated and appointed lead plaintiffs'
counsel.
On November 10, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a new complaint (the
"Fee Complaint") in the consolidated action naming the Company,
its directors, GMM Capital LLC, Prentice Capital Management, LP
and Acquisition Corp. as defendants. The Fee Complaint alleges
that the increase in tender offer price from the price of $8.00
per share in the Sun Merger Agreement to the $9.60 per share in
the Merger Agreement with affiliates of Prentice/GMM was caused
by the plaintiffs complaints and related actions, and that
counsel for the putative class are entitled to an award of
attorneys fees as a percentage of the total increase in value of
the transaction. The complaint seeks, among other things, a
declaration that the matter is properly maintainable as a class
action, and an injunction prohibiting consummation of the merger
until "an appropriate amount of the merger proceeds" is set
aside for a future award of attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs'
counsel has also sought by motion a temporary restraining order
(TRO) to enjoin the distribution of $10,595,200 of the proceeds
of the tender offer so that funds remain available and be used
to pay their attorneys fees. A hearing on the TRO was held on
November 30, 2005, in the Chancery Court.
The Company believes the complaints are without merit and has
filed a motion to dismiss the three consolidated cases. The
motion to dismiss has not yet been fully briefed nor has it been
argued to the Chancery Court. The Company also believes that the
application for the TRO is without merit.
KENTUCKY: Appeals Court Reverses 2004 Municipal-Bond Tax Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
In reversing a 2004 decision in Jefferson Circuit Court,
Kentucky's Court of Appeals ruled that the state's tax on income
from out-of-state municipal bonds is unconstitutional, The
Louisville Courier-Journal reports.
The state levy, according to the appeals court, violates the
Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by giving preferential
treatment to in-state bonds, which are tax-exempt. Aside from
reversing an earlier ruling, the court's decision also opened
the door to giving the case class action status.
Irvin Foley, attorney for George and Catherine Davis of
Louisville, who challenged the state's policy in 2003, told The
Louisville Courier-Journal that if that happens, and the
decision stands, people who have been paying the tax could
receive refunds back to 2000. He adds, "We will attempt to get
refunds for everyone who was affected." Mr. Foley pointed out
though that the Kentucky Department of Revenue could appeal to
the state Supreme Court.
Asked for comment regarding a possible appeal, Revenue
Department spokeswoman Jill Midkiff told The Louisville Courier-
Journal that officials had not had time to review the ruling and
could not say whether it is likely. She also said that no
details were available on how much money has been raised through
the tax or how many taxpayers would be affected by the ruling.
If there is no appeal, the case will return to Jefferson Circuit
Court, where Mr. Foley would seek class action status, which the
court denied in 2004. Based on the recent ruling, "I think
that's pretty clear that we will be able to do that," according
to him.
Mr. Foley explains that people who think they might be entitled
to a refund don't need to do anything. He told The Louisville
Courier-Journal that action regarding refunds wouldn't come
until after the case is final and is certified as a class
action. Mr. Foley also said that the ruling is important in
Kentucky and in other states that face questions over municipal
bond taxes.
The ruling though would not affect state and local bonds issued
within Kentucky, which will continue to pay tax-free interest.
Interest from municipal bonds already was exempt from federal
taxes.
LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: FL Court Mulls Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division has yet to rule on Liquidmetal
Technologies, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
present and former officers and directors.
Nine suits were initially filed in the United States District
Courts for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, and
the Central District of California, Southern Division, alleging
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In August 2004,
four complaints were consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida under the caption
"Primavera Investors v. Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 8:04-CV-919-T-23EAJ." John Lee, Chris Cowley, Dwight
Mamanteo, Scott Purcell and Mark Rabold, were appointed co-lead
Plaintiffs. In September 2004, the other five complaints filed
in the Central District of California were transferred to the
Middle District of Florida for consolidation with the "Primavera
Investors" action.
The Lead Plaintiffs served their Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint on January 12, 2005. The Amended Complaint
alleges that the Prospectus issued in connection with the
Company's initial public offering in May 2002 contained material
misrepresentations and omissions regarding the Company's
historical financial condition and regarding a personal stock
transaction by the Company's chief executive officer. The Lead
Plaintiffs further generally allege that during the proposed
Class Period of May 21, 2002, through May 13, 2004, the
defendants engaged in improper revenue recognition with respect
to certain of the Company's business transactions, failed to
maintain adequate internal controls, and knowingly disclosed
unrealistic but favorable information about market demand for
and commercial viability of the Company's products to
artificially inflate the value of the Company's stock. The
Amended Complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief.
The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 29, 2005.
Plaintiffs' response to our Motion to Dismiss was filed on June
3, 2005. The Company cannot anticipate when the Court will rule
on the Motion to Dismiss.
The suit is styled "Primavera Investors v. Liquidmetal Tech., et
al., 8:04-cv-00919-SDM-EAJ," filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, under Judge Steven D.
Merryday.
Lawyers for the defendants are:
(1) Michael L. Chapman and Tracy A. Nichols, Holland &
Knight, LLP, 100 N. Tampa St., Suite 4100, P.O. Box
1288, Tampa, FL 33601-1288, Phone: 813/227-8500, Fax:
813/229-0134, E-mail: michael.chapman@hklaw.com or
tracy.nichols@hklaw.com
(2) Tiffani G. Lee, Holland & Knight LLP, 701 Brickell
Ave., Suite 3000, P.O. Box 015441, Miami, FL 33131-
5441, Phone: 305/374-8500 ext: 7725, Fax: 305/789-7799
(fax), E-mail: tiffani.lee@hklaw.com
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(i) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com
(ii) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com
(iii) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (D.C.),
1100 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 730, Washington,
DC, 20036, Phone: 202.822.6762, Fax: 202.828.8528, E-
mail: info@lerachlaw.com
(iv) Marc S. Henzel, 210 West Washington Square, Third
Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19106, Phone: 215.625.9999,
Fax: 215.440.9475, E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com
(v) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (Boca Raton,
FL) 5355 Town Center Road - Suite 900, Boca Raton, FL,
33486, Phone: 561.361.5000, Fax: 561.367.8400
(vi) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
sn06106@AOL.com
(vii) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(viii) The Brualdi Law Firm, 29 Broadway - Suite 1515, New
York, NY, 10006, Phone: 212.952.0602, Fax:
212.952.0608,
(ix) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, e-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
(x) Geller Rudman, PLLC, 197 South Federal Highway, Suite
200, Boca Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
888.262.3131, e-mail: info@geller-rudman.com
NEW YORK: NATSO Joins Suit V. U.S. Banks Over Interchange Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
NATSO, the trade association representing America's travel plaza
and truck stop industry, will join other merchant associations
in a class action lawsuit that alleges that Visa USA, MasterCard
International and a number of major banks are engaging in
collusion in setting interchange fees, The eTrucker reports.
Credit card fees have greatly increased in recent years, and the
interchange portion of that fee - set by Visa, MasterCard and
banks - is one of the highest in the world, averaging an
estimated 1.7 percent. When a travel plaza accepts a credit or
debit card in return for products or services, the transaction
is processed through its bank and the issuer of the credit card.
Both the issuing bank and the travel plaza's bank charge
"interchange" fees for processing the transaction, and these
fees are paid by the travel plaza operator.
In the United States, interchange is the largest component of
credit card fees and has a significant impact on American
consumers, who are affected by interchange rates that are among
the highest in the world. Interchange rates cost the average
American household approximately $232 a year in 2004, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (September 28, 2005) reports.
Interchange fees are meant to cover the cost of processing a
credit card transaction and the risk taken by the issuing bank
that the credit will not be repaid. However, the plaintiffs say
that both fraud costs and the cost of processing are steadily
decreasing, while U.S. interchange rates continue to increase.
Interchange fees are substantially higher in the United States
than almost any other industrialized country. Other countries
have taken action to address the market problem created by these
monopolies. Recent changes in Australia and countries in Europe,
for example, have decreased rates from about 0.95 percent to
about 0.55 percent, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(September 28, 2005) reports.
The law office of Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi filed the
suit, which seeks injunctive relief as well as damages. It was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on September 23, 2005. They acted on behalf of the National
Association of Convenience Stores, National Association of Chain
Drug Stores, the National Community Pharmacists Association and
the National Cooperative Grocers Association.
The suit's plaintiffs added they would seek damages and
injunctive relief to stop the alleged anticompetitive practices
of banks and credit card companies. "We are not seeking some
form of temporary relief; we are looking for long-term reform of
the credit card interchange fee system," said John Rector,
General Counsel of the National Community Pharmacists
Association. "The current system discriminates against small,
independent businesspersons, and there is no basis for that
discrimination. We ultimately seek a competitive and fair
interchange fee system. Interchange is much higher in the United
States than any other country, and there is no legitimate basis
for that," an earlier Class Action Reporter story (September 28,
2005) reports.
The suit is styled, "National Association of Convenience Stores
et al v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al, Case No. 1:05-cv-04521-JG-
RLM," filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, under the Honorable John Gleeson,
presiding. Representing the Plaintiff/s is Neal A. Deyoung of
Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, 350 Fairfield Ave., P.O. Box 1661,
Bridgeport, CT 06604, Phone: 203-336-4421, Fax: 203-368-3244, E-
mail: ndeyoung@koskoff.com.
For more details, contact Michelle McKenna of NACDS, Phone:
+1-703-837-4234; Jeff Lenard of NACS, Phone: +1-703-518-4272; or
John Rector of NCPA, Phone: +1-703-683-6375.
PRESTIGE BRANDS: FL, MA Lawsuits V. Dextromethorpan Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The two class actions filed against Prestige Brands
International LLC in relation to the Company's Little Remedies
pediatric cough products have been dismissed.
On May 9, 2005, the Company was served with a complaint in a
class action lawsuit filed in Essex County, Massachusetts,
styled as "Dawn Thompson v. Wyeth, Inc." The Company is one of
several corporate defendants, all of whom market over-the-
counter cough syrup products for pediatric use. The complaint
alleges that the ingredient dextromethorphan is no more
effective than a placebo. There is no allegation of physical
injury caused by the product or the ingredient.
In June 2005, the Company was served in a second class action
complaint involving dextromethorphan. The second case, styled
"Tina Yescavage v. Wyeth" was filed in Lee County Florida and
similarly involves multiple corporate defendants. The Company
believes that the use of dextromethorphan in pediatric products
is fully consistent with and supported by Food and Drug
Administration regulations.
PRESTIGE BRANDS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prestige Brands International, Inc. and certain of its officers
and directors face a consolidated putative securities class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
The first of the six consolidated cases was filed on August 3,
2005. Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of shareholders
of the Company who purchased shares between February 9, 2005
through July 27, 2005. Plaintiffs also name as defendants the
underwriters in the Company's initial public offering and a
private equity fund that was a selling shareholder in the
offering.
The various complaints on file in the Consolidated Action
collectively include claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs generally allege
that the Company issued a series of materially false and
misleading statements in connection with its initial public
offering and thereafter by failing to disclose that demand for
certain of the Company's products was declining and that the
Company was planning to withdraw several products from the
market. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages. The
district court has appointed a Lead Plaintiff and ordered it to
file a consolidated complaint by December 5, 2005.
On September 6, 2005, another putative securities class action
lawsuit substantially similar to the Consolidated Action was
filed against the same defendants in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois (the "Chicago Action"). In light of the first-
filed Consolidated Action, proceedings in the Chicago Action
have been stayed until a ruling on defendants' anticipated
motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint in the
consolidated action.
ROYAL AHOLD: MD Judge gives Preliminary OK to $1.1B Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Maryland federal judge gave preliminary approval to a plan by
Royal Ahold N.V. ("Koninklijke Ahold N.V.") ("Ahold"), the Dutch
owner of Giant and Stop & Shop supermarket chains in the United
States, to settle for $1.1 billion a class action lawsuit
brought by shareholders, The Baltimore Sun reports.
Back in November 2005, the Company and attorneys representing
shareholders revealed that they came to an agreement, but must
get court approval before they can begin payouts. They recently
cleared one hurdle when Judge Catherine C. Blake gave her first
nod on the settlement after a 90-minute hearing in U.S. District
Court in Baltimore. A hearing seeking final approval is planned
for June.
During the court proceeding, Judge Blake said, "I do believe
this settlement ... preliminarily is fair, adequate and
reasonable. I think it falls well into the realm of possible
final approval."
The lawsuit stems from a 2003 accounting scandal that forced the
Company to restate earnings by $1.1 billion over three years.
Most of the problems were related to inflated earnings at the
company's U.S. Foodservice subsidiary in Columbia. It maintained
that Ahold NV misled investors by presenting an inaccurate
financial picture of the Company to stockholders and inflating
the price of its common stock. The Company though denies any
wrongdoing in the settlement.
It alleged claims against Ahold and Ahold USA, Inc., Ahold USA
Holdings, Inc., U.S. Foodservice, Inc., Cees Van der Hoeven,
Michiel Meurs, Henny de Ruiter, Cor Boonstra, James L. Miller,
Mark Kaiser, Michael Resnick, Tim Lee, Robert G. Tobin, William
J. Grize, Roland Fahlin, Jan G. Andreae, ABN AMRO Rothschild,
Goldman Sachs International, Merrill Lynch International, ING
Bank N.V., Rabo Securities N.V., and Kempen & Co. N.V. based
upon the matters that Ahold first announced on February 24,
2003, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 30, 2005)
reports.
The Colorado Public Employees' Retirement Association ("Colorado
PERA") and Generic Trading of Philadelphia, LLC are the Court-
appointed Lead Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class
action styled, In re Royal Ahold N.V. Securities & ERISA
Litigation, which is pending before Judge Blake in a federal
court in Maryland. The settlement was arrived at after extensive
negotiation between the parties under the supervision of retired
United States District Court Judge Nicholas Politan, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (November 30, 2005) reports.
The settlement resolves all securities law claims against Ahold,
and all other defendants, other than Deloitte & Touche entities.
The settlement is global in nature and is designed to provide a
recovery to all persons who purchased Ahold common stock and/or
American Depository Receipts from July 30, 1999 through February
23, 2003, regardless of where such persons live or purchased
their Ahold shares, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(November 30, 2005) reports.
Court documents revealed that the settlement fund would be
divided into two parts. Fund A, which represents about 90
percent of the fund or 655 million shares, is for shares bought
or sold during the time period. Fund B, which makes up about 10
percent of the fund or 276 million shares, is for shares bought
during the time period but sold at a loss, court documents
further revealed.
The Company previously said that the lawsuit is one of the last
major legal obstacles it faces from the accounting scandal and
the settlement allows it to get on with the business of
rebuilding. Since the scandal, the Company has shook up senior
management and divested many of its businesses. It recently
announced several restructuring changes at U.S. Foodservice,
including splitting the food distributor into two divisions to
cut administrative costs and eliminating 700 jobs throughout the
company. U.S. Foodservice is the second-largest food distributor
in the United States.
"They have put behind them a major distraction in this lawsuit
and they have been able to fairly compensate their
shareholders," Glenn M. Kurtz, an outside attorney representing
Royal Ahold told The Baltimore Sun.
The settlement affects shareholders in nearly a half-dozen
countries, Andrew J. Entwistle, an attorney for the
shareholders, told the court. The settlement must be approved by
at least 180 million shares from about 800 million qualifying
shares. The average payment is estimated to be $1.51 per Fund A
share and 40 cents per share for Fund B shares, according to
court documents. Claims are to be made about 12 months after the
court's final approval.
The suit is styled, "In re Royal Ahold N.V. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:03-md-01539-CCB," filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland under Judge
Catherine C. Blake. Representing the Plaintiff/s are:
(1) Andrew J. Entwistle of Entwistle and Cappucci, 299 Park
Ave., New York, NY 1171, Phone: 12128947200, Fax:
12128947251, E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com;
(2) Daniel L. Berger of Bernstein Litowitz Berger and
Grossmann, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
10019, Phone: 12125541406, Fax: 12125541444, E-mail:
dan@blbglaw.com;
(3) Conor R. Crowley of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament
and Rubenstein PC, 191 N. Wacker Dr., Ste. 1800,
Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 13125212725, Fax:
13125212100, E-mail: ccrowley@muchshelist.com;
(4) Seth D. Goldberg of Seth D. Goldberg PC, 5335 Wisconsin
Ave. NW Ste. 440, Washington, DC 20015, Phone:
12022430594, Fax: 12026865517;
(5) Robert Ira Harwood of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488
Madison Ave., Suite 801, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
12129357400, Fax: 12127533630, E-mail:
rharwood@whesq.com;
(6) Fred Taylor Isquith of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
and Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016,
Phone: 12125454600, Fax: 12125454653;
(7) Andrew J. Levander of Dechert, LLP, 30 Rockefeller
Plz., New York, NY 10112, Phone: 12126983500, Fax:
12126983599, E-mail: andrew.levander@dechert.com;
(8) Lester Levy of Wolf, Popper, Ross, Wolf & Jones,
845 Third Ave., New York, NY 10022
(9) Christopher Lometti and Frank R Schirripa of Schoengold
and Sporn, PC, 19 Fulton St., Ste. 406, New York, NY
10038, Phone: 12129640046, Fax: 12122678137;
(10) Charles J. Piven of Charles J. Piven, PA, The World
Trade Center, 401 E. Pratt St., Ste. 2525, Baltimore,
MD 21202, Phone: 14103320030, Fax: 14106851300, E-mail:
piven@pivenlaw.com;
(11) Jonathan M. Plasse of Goodkind Labation Rudoff and
Sucharow, LLP, 100 Park Ave., New York, NY 10017-5563,
Phone: 12129070863, Fax: 12128837063
(12) Ronald B. Rubin of Rubin and Rubin Chtd, One Church
St., Ste. 301, Rockville, MD 20850, Phone: 13016109700,
Fax: 13016109716, E-mail: rrubin@rrubin.com;
(13) Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman and Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Rd., Ste. 406,
Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 16313677100, Fax:
16313671173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com;
(14) Robert S. Schachter of Zwerling Schachter and Zwerling,
LLP, 41 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10010, Phone:
12122233900, Fax: 12123715969, E-mail:
rschachter@zsz.com;
(15) Steven G Schulman of Milberg Weiss Bershad and Schulman
LLP, One Pennsylvania Plz., 49th Fl., New York, NY
10119-0165, Phone: 12125945300, Fax: 12128681229, E-
mail: sschulman@milbergweiss.com;
(16) Steven Donald Silverman of Silverman and Thompson, 201
N. Charles St., 26th Fl., Baltimore, MD 21201, Phone:
14103852225, Fax: 14105472432, E-mail:
ssilverman@mdattorney.com;
(17) Ralph M. Stone of Shalov Stone and Bonner, LLP, 485
Seventh Ave., New York, NY 10018, Phone: 12122394340;
and
(18) Steven J. Toll of Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll,
PLLC, 1100 New York Ave., NW West Tower, Ste. 500,
Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 12024084600, Fax:
12024084699, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com.
Representing the Defendant/s are:
(i) John Arak Freedman of Arnold and Porter, 555 12th St.,
NW Washington, DC 20004-1202, Phone: 12029425000, Fax:
12029425999, E-mail: john_freedman@aporter.com;
(ii) Gerard J Gaeng of Rosenberg Martin Funk and Greenberg,
LLP, 25 S. Charles St., Ste. 2115, Baltimore, MD 21201-
3305, Phone: 14107276600, Fax: 14107271115, E-mail:
ggaeng@rosenbergmartin.com;
(iii) Glenn M. Kurtz of White and Case, LLP, 1155 Avenue of
the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Phone: 12128198200,
Fax: 12123548113, E-mail: gkurtz@whitecase.com;
(iv) Richard A. McGuirk and Carolyn G. Nussbaum of Nixon
Peabody, LLP, Clinton Sq., P.O. Box 31051, Rochester,
NY 14603, Phone: 15852631000, Fax: 15852631600, E-mail:
rmcguirk@nixonpeabody.com and
cnussbaum@nixonpeabody.com;
(v) Charles P. Scheeler of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US,
LLP, 6225 Smith Ave., Baltimore, MD 21209-3600, Phone:
14105803000, Fax: 14105803001, E-mail:
charles.scheeler@dlapiper.com; and
(vi) Alexandre de Gramont of Crowell and Moring, LLP, 1001
Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004-2595, Phone:
12026242500, Fax: 12026285116, E-mail:
adegramont@crowell.com;
SIRVA INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in N.D. IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated securities class action
against SIRVA, Inc. and certain of its current and former
officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.
Two securities suits were filed in November 2004, styled
`Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. SIRVA Inc., et al., No.04-CV-
7644,' and `Hiatt v. SIRVA,Inc., et al., No.04-CV-7532.' Both
complaints purported to be brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired the Company's common stock between November 25, 2003
and November 9, 2004.
On January 25, 2005, the plaintiff in `Hiatt v. SIRVA, Inc.'
voluntarily dismissed his suit. On March 29, 2005, the court
appointed Central Laborers' Pension Fund lead plaintiff in the
remaining case, and approved its choice of counsel, Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, as lead plaintiff's counsel. On
May 13, 2005, plaintiff filed a "corrected" complaint, retaining
the same class period, and alleging, among other things, that
defendants had made false and misleading statements in certain
SEC filings, including the prospectuses to the Company's initial
and secondary public offerings, and press releases. The
statements subject to the complaint generally relate to the
Company's insurance claims reserves, European operations, and
restatement accounts and are said to constitute violations of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages.
On October 11, 2005, plaintiff filed its Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint, a corrected version of which was filed
on October 19, 2005. The Amended Complaint adds ten new
defendants, including an additional director, the seven
underwriters which participated in the initial and secondary
public offerings, the Company's independent auditor and its
controlling shareholder. The Amended Complaint extends the
class period, purporting to be brought on behalf of all those
who acquired the Company's common stock between November 25,
2003 and January 31, 2005. It retains all causes of action
contained in the prior Complaint and adds a new claim against
the Company's controlling shareholder for violation of
Section20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Amended
Complaint also contains additional allegations relating to the
following areas: the Company's restatement of financial
statements and accounting errors for years 2000 through 2003 and
the first nine months of 2004, problems in its European
operations, insurance reserves, financial forecasting and
internal controls. The case is in the preliminary stages.
The suit is styled "Central Lab PenFd v. Sirva Inc, et al., case
no. 1:04-cv-07644," filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Ronald A.
Guzman. Representing the plaintiffs is Steven G. Schulman of
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza
49th Floor, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (212)594-5300.
Representing the Company are Tara Kocheran Charnes, Richard
Bradshaw Kapnick, Matthew Brian Kilby, Catherine Rosen, Sidley
Austin LLP, One South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone:
(312) 853-7000, E-mail: rkapnick@sidley.com, mkilby@sidley.com,
crosen@sidley.com.
SONY BMG: NY Judge Gives Preliminary OK to Consumer Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A New York federal judge gave preliminary approval to a
settlement of a class action lawsuit against Sony BMG
Entertainment over its music CDs that contained flawed copy
protection programs, The Kansas City infoZine reports.
Under the proposed settlement, the Company will stop
manufacturing CDs with both First4Internet XCP and SunnComm
MediaMax software. For individuals who already purchased the
flawed CDs, they will be offered the same music without digital
rights management (DRM), and some will also receive downloads of
other Sony BMG music from several different services, including
iTunes. In addition, the deal would also waive several
restrictive end user license agreement (EULA) terms and commit
the Company to a detailed security review process prior to
including any DRM on future CDs, as well as providing for
adequate pre-sale notice to consumers in the future.
Consumers can exchange CDs with XCP software for clean CDs now,
however, the rest of the settlement benefits will not be
available until an official notice to the class is issued. The
court ordered that the notice via: newspaper ads, Google ads,
email and other means must occur by February 15. Once that
happens, consumers can begin submitting claims for settlement
benefits and should get those benefits within 6-8 weeks of
submitting the proof of claim form.
To assist consumers in figuring out what the settlement means to
them, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) posted a list of
frequently asked questions (FAQ) on its website. That FAQ tells
those affected on how to return their flawed CDs, how to get
their clean CDs and downloads in exchange, and how to opt-out of
the deal. The deadline to opt-out of the settlement is May 1,
2006.
EFF Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry told The Kansas City
infoZine, "The settlement helps consumers finally get music that
will play on their computers without invading their privacy or
eroding their security. Now that the court has given preliminary
approval, the next step is to make sure that the millions of
music fans who bought these XCP and MediaMax CDs understand what
is available and how to get it."
The problems with the Sony BMG CDs surfaced when security
researchers discovered that XCP and MediaMax installed
undisclosed--and in some cases, hidden--files on users' Windows
computers, potentially exposing music fans to malicious attacks
by third parties. The infected CDs also communicated back to
Sony BMG about customers' computer use without proper
notification.
EFF and its co-counsel: Green and Welling; Lerach, Coughlin,
Stoia, Geller, Ruchman and Robbins, and the Law Offices of
Lawrence E. Feldman and Associates, along with a coalition of
other plaintiffs' class action counsel, reached the settlement
after negotiations with the Company over the past month.
One of the suits affected by the settlement was filed back in
November against Sony BMG and First4Internet, the British
Company that produced the anti-piracy software. The suit, which
could potentially include consumers in all 50 states, was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The suit's two named plaintiffs are, James Michaelson from
Illinois and an Ori Edelstein from New Jersey, who are both
represented by New York attorney Scott Kamber. The suit claims,
"To date, over 3 million copies of XCP encoded disks have been
sold. It is probable that millions of consumers have played
these discs on their PC's and thus compromised their systems
without knowing it," an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(November 16, 2005) reports.
Although billed by the Company as common digital rights
management (DRM) software that is just for copy protection, it
seems that it is really much more. The "XCP" software utilizes
"rootkit" technology that hides the software from users. The
software creates a security risk for personal computers that
allows hackers to hide damaging programs in computers that have
The Company's software in them. The software also secretly
communicates with Sony's servers and can be used to send
information back to the users' media player programs. The
Sunncomm MediaMax software used on some CDs actually installs
itself before the user is asked to agree to the terms of
installation. For both XCP and MediaMax software, the terms of
the EULA are asserted to be improper and without the proper
disclosures for what is actually occurring when a user clicks on
the button to "Agree" to its terms, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (November 16, 2005) reports.
The suit is styled, "Michaelson et al v. Sony BMG Music, Inc. et
al, Case No. 1:05-cv-09575-NRB," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. Under
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald. Representing the Plaintiff/s are,
Scott Adam Kamber of Kamber & Associates, LLC, 19 Fulton St.,
Suite 400, New York, NY 10038, Phone: (646)-441-7100, Fax:
(212)-202-6364, E-mail: skamber@kolaw.com.
SPYWARE FIRMS: Two Firms To Settle FTC Deceptive Trade Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two operations that promoted spyware detection products by
making bogus claims have agreed to settle Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) charges that their claims were deceptive and
violated federal law. Each operation claimed to detect spyware,
even when there was not any, and then sold consumers anti-
spyware software that either did not work or did not work as
advertised. The settlements require the defendants to give up a
total of nearly $2 million in ill-gotten gains, and prohibit
deceptive claims. One set of defendants will be barred from
selling or marketing any anti-spyware product or service in the
future.
In March 2005, the FTC charged that Spyware Assassin and its
affiliates used Web sites, e-mail, banner ads, and pop-ups to
drive consumers to the Spyware Assassin Web site. Consumers were
told the Web site "scanned" consumers' computers at no cost to
determine whether they were infected with spyware. The results
of the "scans" were positive, and the site warned consumers that
they had spyware installed on their systems.
The FTC charged that the defendants' free remote scan was phony,
and the defendants' representations that they had detected
spyware on the consumer's computer were deceptive. In addition,
the defendants claimed that the software they sold for $29.95
would remove all spyware programs and files. The FTC's complaint
alleged that the "anti-spyware" software did not remove all or
substantially all spyware, and the defendants' deceptive claims
violate the FTC Act, which bars deceptive claims.
In June 2005, the FTC charged an unrelated operation, Trustsoft,
with using similar tactics to sell its "SpyKiller" software. The
FTC alleged the defendants sent pop-up and e-mail messages
informing consumers that their computers had been remotely
"scanned" and that spyware had been "detected," even though
defendants had not performed any such scans. The defendants
urged consumers to access the SpyKiller Web site to get "free
scans" for spyware.
While the SpyKiller "scan" was running, the program displayed a
status report entitled "Spyware Found on your PC:" that included
a category called "Live Spyware Processes." In fact, the FTC
alleges, this category deceptively identified anti-virus
programs, word processing programs, and other legitimate
processes running on the system as spyware. Then, even though
the "scan" itself was free, consumers usually had to pay
approximately $39.95 to enable SpyKiller's "removal"
capabilities. The defendants promised in their marketing
materials that SpyKiller would find and remove "all" spyware,
including "all traces" of particular spyware on consumers'
computers. The FTC complaint alleged, however, that the software
failed to remove significant amounts of spyware, including
specified spyware the defendants claimed to remove. The
complaint further alleged that the deceptive claims violated the
FTC Act.
The FTC also alleged that spam messages promoting the SpyKiller
software, containing similar deceptive claims, were not
identified as advertising, used false "from" lines, did not
include valid postal addresses, and failed to provide consumers
with notice of and the ability to "opt-out," in violation of the
CAN-SPAM Act.
U.S. District Courts ordered a halt to the deceptive practices
of both operations, pending trials. The settlements announced
today end those lawsuits.
Both operators will give up their ill-gotten gains. Thomas L.
Delanoy and his corporation, MaxTheater, Inc., will pay $76,000
- the full amount of consumer injury. The settlement will ban
the defendants from selling or marketing any anti-spyware
product or service in the future. It will prohibit them from
downloading or installing spyware on consumers' computers, or
from assisting others in downloading or installing it. The
settlement bars them from making misrepresentations in
connection with the sale or marketing of any good or service. It
also contains certain record-keeping and reporting provisions to
allow the agency to monitor compliance.
Danilo Ladendoft and Trustsoft, Inc., will pay approximately
$1.9 million to settle the FTC charges. The settlement will
prohibit them from making deceptive claims in the sale,
marketing, advertising, or promotion of any goods or services
and prohibits the specific misrepresentations used in promoting
SpyKiller. It prohibits them from using the spyware their "anti-
spyware" software supposedly detects and destroys to deliver
ads. It also prohibits future violations of the CAN-SPAM Act.
The Commission votes to accept the settlements were 4-0. The
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas approved
the settlement with the Trustsoft defendants on November 30,
2005. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington approved the settlement with the MaxTheater
defendants on December 6, 2005.
Copies of the complaints and consent agreements are available
from the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the
FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the
consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business
practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help
consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in
English or Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take
complaints), or to get free information on any of 150 consumer
topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use
the complaint form at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters
Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related
complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database
available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement
agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For more details, contact
Claudia Bourne Farrell or Jackie Dizdul, Office of Public
Affairs, Phone: 202-326-2180, or contact Rob Kaye or Mona
Spivack, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202-326-2215 or
202-326-3795, or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/01/maxtrust.htm.
SYCAMORE NETWORKS: NY Court Affirms Tentative Suit Pact Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York affirmed its ruling granting preliminary approval to
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Sycamore Networks, Inc., certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of its October 21,1999 initial
public offering and its March 14,2000 secondary offering.
Beginning on July 2, 2001, several purported class action
complaints were filed. The complaints were consolidated into a
single action and an amended complaint was filed on April 19,
2002. The amended complaint, which is the operative complaint,
was filed on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between October 21, 1999 and December 6, 2000. The
amended complaint alleges claims against the Company, several of
the Individual Defendants and the underwriters for violations
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act"), primarily based on the assertion
that the Company's lead underwriters, the Company and several of
the Individual Defendants made material false and misleading
statements in the Company's Registration Statements and
Prospectuses filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
or the SEC, in October 1999 and March 2000 because of the
failure to disclose:
(1) the alleged solicitation and receipt of excessive and
undisclosed commissions by the underwriters in
connection with the allocation of shares of common
stock to certain investors in the Company's public
offerings and
(2) that certain of the underwriters allegedly had entered
into agreements with investors whereby underwriters
agreed to allocate the public offering shares in
exchange for which the investors agreed to make
additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at
pre-determined prices.
The suit also alleges claims against the Company, the Individual
Defendants and the underwriters under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), primarily based on the assertion that the
Company's lead underwriters, the Company and the Individual
Defendants defrauded investors by participating in a fraudulent
scheme and by making materially false and misleading statements
and omissions of material fact during the period in question.
The amended complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.
The action against the Company is being coordinated with
approximately three hundred other nearly identical actions filed
against other companies. Due to the large number of nearly
identical actions, the Court has ordered the parties to select
up to twenty "test" cases. To date, along with sixteen other
cases, the Company's case has been selected as one such test
case. As a result, among other things, the Company will be
subject to broader discovery obligations and expenses in the
litigation than non-test case issuer defendants.
On October 9, 2002, the court dismissed the Individual
Defendants from the case without prejudice based upon
Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the
Individual Defendants. This dismissal disposed of the Section
15 and Section 20(a) claims without prejudice, because these
claims were asserted only against the Individual Defendants. On
October 13, 2004, the court denied the certification of a class
in the action against the Company with respect to the Section 11
claims alleging that the defendants made material false and
misleading statements in the Company's Registration Statement
and Prospectuses. The certification was denied because no class
representative purchased shares between the date of the IPO and
January 19, 2000 (the date unregistered shares entered the
market), and thereafter suffered a loss on the sale of those
shares.
The court certified a class in the action against the Company
with respect to the Section 10(b) claims alleging that the
Company and the Individual Defendants defrauded investors by
participating in a fraudulent scheme and by making materially
false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact
during the period in question. The Company, the Individual
Defendants, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the
other approximately three hundred issuer defendants and the
individual defendants currently or formerly associated with
those companies have approved, and submitted to the Court for
its approval, settlement and related agreements (the "Settlement
Agreement") which set forth the terms of a settlement between
these parties.
Among other provisions, the Settlement Agreement provides for a
release of the Company and the Individual Defendants for the
conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful and for the Company
to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing to
assign away, not assert, or release, certain potential claims
the Company may have against its underwriters. In addition, no
payments will be required by the issuer defendants under the
Settlement Agreement to the extent plaintiffs recover at least
$1 billion from the underwriter defendants, who are not parties
to the Settlement Agreement and have filed a memorandum of law
in opposition to the approval of the Settlement Agreement. To
the extent that plaintiffs recover less than $1 billion from the
underwriter defendants, the approximately three hundred issuer
defendants are required to make up the difference.
On February 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of
the Settlement Agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion. The issuer defendants and the
plaintiffs have until February 28, 2005 to submit a revised
Settlement Agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all
contribution claims by the settling and non-settling parties and
does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims. The
underwriter defendants will have until March 10, 2006 to object
to a revised Settlement Agreement. On August 31,2005, the court
affirmed its ruling granting preliminary approval to the
settlement.
The suit is styled "In Re Sycamore Networks, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 6001 (Sas) (Dc),"
related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Shira A. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation
are:
(1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
(2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300,
(3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com
(5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
(6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
U.S. AGGREGATES: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set March 24, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California will hold a fairness hearing on behalf of all persons
who purchased U.S. Aggregates, Inc. ("U.S. Aggregates") common
stock during the period beginning April 25, 2000 through April
2, 2001, inclusive ("Settlement Class").
The hearing will be held on March 24, 2006, at 10:00 a.m.,
before the Honorable Claudia Wilken at the United States
Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, to determine:
(1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the
litigation for the sum of $3,500,000 in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate;
(2) whether, thereafter, this litigation should be
dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement dated as of November 10, 2005
("Stipulation");
(3) whether the plan of allocation is fair, reasonable and
adequate and therefore should be approved; and
(4) whether the application of lead counsel for the payment
of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses
incurred in connection with this litigation should be
approved.
For more details, contact Joy Ann Bull of LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA
GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San
Diego, CA 92101, Website: http://www.lerachlaw.com.
WASHINGTON: Judge Orders Agency to Give Ferry Workers Back Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Pierce County judge ruled that Washington's Department of
Transportation (DOR) will have to give back pay to state ferry
employees who had to work part of their shifts without pay
during the last 4 1/2 years, The News Tribune reports.
In a recently issued ruling, Superior Court Judge Rosanne
Buckner said that the state must pay for 30 minutes of work - at
a double-time rate - per shift to about 300 ferry workers, going
back to August 11, 2001. Lynn Ellsworth, who is representing the
workers with co-counsel Warren Martin, told The News Tribune
that with the ruling, he estimates the workers will receive
between $7 million and $8 million.
Despite the ruling, however, Stewart Johnston, who along with
Kara Larsen is defending the transportation department in the
case, told The News Tribune that an appeal is likely. He said
that Judge Buckner's ruling "was not a total surprise. The court
had given some indication in which direction it was leaning" in
previous rulings.
Three engineers and two oilers, who check gauges and repair
machinery, filed the class action back in August 11, 2004. The
five workers who brought the suit were Ben Davis, Floyd Fulmer,
Roy Hyett, Dick Oson and Bob Stanford.
The issue arose because the five employees work 12-hour shifts,
and must spend time at the beginning and end of the shifts going
over safety issues with workers on the opposite schedule. That
overlap hasn't been paid in the past.
The state argues that there were several reasons for that. One
of the main ones, Mr. Johnston explains, is that engine room
employees are exempt from overtime laws. Additionally, according
to him, such duties generally are unpaid time in the maritime
industry.
The case was to go to trial on February 6, but Judge Buckner
instead granted the plaintiffs a summary judgment, ruling that
they had made their point under state statute. He therefore
ruled that the state owed the workers 15 minutes' worth of pay
for the beginning of the shift and 15 minutes' worth for the end
of it.
The law in question states that if an employer willfully
withholds a worker's wages, the employee is entitled to double
that amount. "Judge Buckner found today that the state was
willful and our clients are entitled to double damages," Mr.
Ellsworth told The News Tribune.
New Securities Fraud Cases
DIEBOLD INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, fiuled a
class action awsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Diebold, Inc. ("Diebold" or the "Company") (NYSE: DBD) between
October 22, 2003 and September 20, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants represented that the Company was effectively growing
its business and that the growth would continue. Such statements
presented the Company's historical results, and its prospects,
in a very favorable light, causing the Company's stock to trade
at inflated levels. Such statements, which are particularized in
the complaint, were materially false and misleading because,
contrary to the picture painted by defendants, the Company was
suffering from severe operational and manufacturing deficiencies
and lacked the systems and processes necessary to issue accurate
and reliable financial forecasts.
On September 21, 2005, defendants issued a press release
announcing that the Company would miss previously announced
third quarter and year 2005 earnings estimates, due to, among
other things, operating inefficiencies and production problems.
This announcement caused the price of Diebold stock to fall
dramatically, from $44.37 per share on September 20, 2005 to
$37.47 per share on September 21, 2005, a one-day drop of 15.5%
on unusually heavy trading volume of more than 6.1 million
shares. In conference calls after the end of the Class Period,
defendant O'Dell admitted, among other things, that "forecasting
has been a particular challenge for us" and that the Company was
suffering from "significant manufacturing and supply chain
inefficiencies."
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.
SERACARE LIFE: Pomerantz Haudek Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Investors are advised that they have until February 21, 2006 to
seek appointment by the Court as lead plaintiff in the class
action lawsuit filed by Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross,
LLP, on behalf of purchasers of SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc.
("Seracare" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:SRLSE) securities during
the period from February 9, 2005 and December 19, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed on
December 29, 2005 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California.
The complaint alleges that representations made by defendants
during the Class Period regarding SeraCare's financial
statements, business and prospects were materially false and
misleading when made. Specifically, the defendants failed to
disclose:
(1) that the Company, in violation of its own revenue
recognition accounting policies and practices,
improperly recognized revenue which served to
materially inflate the Company's financial results;
(2) that the accounting for and valuation of the Company's
inventory was faulty;
(3) that the defendants failed to prevent certain board
members from exerting undue influences on the
Company's financial reporting process and on the audit
process;
(4) that throughout the Class Period, the timeliness,
quality and completeness of the Company's
implementation and testing of its internal controls
over financial reporting was lacking, such that the
Company lacked adequate internal control; and
(5) that the Company's financial statements were presented
in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles ("GAAP").
On December 14, 2005, SeraCare filed a current report on Form 8-
K wherein it stated that the Company was unable, without
reasonable effort and expense, to file its annual report on Form
10-K for its fiscal year ended September 30, 2005. Then, on
December 20, 2005, before the market opened, SeraCare announced
an internal review by its Audit Committee. In reaction to this
announcement, the price of SeraCare stock fell from $19.30 per
share on December 19, 2005 to $10.04 per share on December 20,
2005, a one-day drop of over 47%.
For more details, contact Teresa Webb of Pomerantz Haudek Block
Grossman & Gross, LLP, Phone: (888) 476.6529, E-mail:
tlwebb@pomlaw.com.
SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Federman & Sherwood Files FL Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against SFBC International, Inc. (Nasdaq:
SFCC).
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from February 17, 2004 through December 15, 2005.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. If
you are a member of the Class as described above, you may move
the Court no later than Tuesday, February 28, 2006, to serve as
a lead plaintiff for the Class. However, in order to do so, you
must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN &
SHERWOOD, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102,
Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com.
SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Zwerling Schachter Lodges FL Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP ("Zwerling
Schachter") filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of
all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly traded securities of SFBC International, Inc. ("SFBC"
or the "Company") (Nasdaq: SFCC) during the period from February
17, 2004 through December 15, 2005 (the "Class Period").
The complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false and
misleading statements during Class Period concerning SFBC's
business, operating condition and compliance with applicable
regulations. Specifically, the complaint alleges that in an
effort to maximize the number of participants in its drug
testing trials, and thus increase the number of contracts it
could fulfill, SFBC employed a variety of improper recruiting
and administrative practices, including:
(1) allowing participants to enter into new drug trials
before drugs from a previous drug trial "washed out" of
the participant's body;
(2) failing to disclose adequately to participants the
health risks associated with the Company's drug trials;
and
(3) failing to put into place sufficient controls to
prevent participants from enrolling in concurrent drug
trials at other drug-testing facilities.
After the Company's improper operating procedures were revealed,
SFBC's stock price fell from $41.49 to $15.78, a decline of
61.9%.
If you wish to discuss this matter, or have any questions
concerning your rights and interests with respect to this
litigation, please
For more details, contact Kevin M. McGee, Esq. of Zwerling,
Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, Phone: 1-800-721-3900, E-mail:
kmcgee@zsz.com, Web site: http://www.zsz.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 2006. 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 * * *