/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060125.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, January 25, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 18
Headlines
ALFALFA ELECTRIC: Grass Fire Victims to Receive Final Payments
AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE: Paying $325M for Predatory Lending Suits
ARKANSAS: Lake View Group Revives Suit over School Consolidation
BIOPURE CORPORATION: Asks MA Court to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Settles Long-running Vanlev Suit for $185M
COUNTRY HOME: Recalls Defective Cordless Electric Lawnmowers
HELEN OF TROY: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in W.D. TX
HOLLINGER INTERNATIONAL: Court Approves Chicago Group Settlement
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Expects Consolidation of MN Stock Suits
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Purported Derivative Lawsuit in MN
JUICE HARVEST: Recalls Bacteria-contaminated Beverages in CA
LIGHTSPAN PARTNERSHIP: NY Court Nixes Stock Suit with Prejudice
LOUISIANA: New Orleans Residents Launch Lawsuit V. OEP, Director
LOUISIANA: Several Insurers Face Suit, Seeks Insurance Coverage
LOUISIANA: St. Tammy Resident Sues Insurers over Damaged Tress
MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Faces Amended Consolidated Stock Suit in MD
MERCURY NEWS: Photographer's Suit Receives Certification
MURPY OIL: LA Judge Orders Consolidation of Oil Spill Lawsuits
NOVELL INC.: NY Court Preliminarily OKs SilverStream Settlement
PALM INC.: CA Consumers Fraud Suits Related Before N.D. CA Judge
POZEN INC.: NC Court Fully Briefs Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
SANOFIS-AVENTIS GROUP: Novel Antibiotic Linked to Liver Failures
SIPEX CORPORATION: Settles Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Four Men File Suit over 9/11 Related Deportations
XM SATELLITE: Lawsuit Filed v. Commercial-free Music Channels
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
New Securities Fraud Cases
AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Lerach Coughlin Files PA Securities Fraud Suit
MILLS CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit
MILLS CORPORATION: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Fraud Suit
MILLS CORPORATION: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in VA
MILLS CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit
*********
ALFALFA ELECTRIC: Grass Fire Victims to Receive Final Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Money for the Oklahoma portion of the class action suit filed
over the grassland fire in northwest Oklahoma and southern
Kansas counties was finally released after almost ten years from
the disaster. Earlier this month, Judge Joe Jackson of Arnett
allowed the distribution of the funds available as of Nov. 18,
2005 to the members of the class action, Alva Review Courier
reports.
The fire that that raged for three days in February 1996 in
Woods, Barber and Comanche Counties consumed approximately
80,000 acres in Woods County, and 20,000 in Barber and Comanche
Counties. No death was involved despite the significant damage
in properties. In the course of ten years, however, several
members of the class action, and two of the original four
lawyers involved in the case, have already died. The case
involved nearly 30 landowners in northwest Oklahoma and southern
Kansas against Alfalfa Electric Cooperative and O&M Power Line
Construction Company.
The distribution follows the plaintiff's request filed on Dec.
14, 2005. E.W. Shaw of Mitchell & DeClerk expressed his
confidence that the case is about to close in a letter on Nov.
29, 2005.
$633,603.69, or eighty percent of the money was available to be
distributed to each class members; the remaining 20%, or
$158,400.92 was allocated for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.
Those claiming damages received checks for just under 25% of
their original claims of $2,610,201.08, the report said. Class
action members received between $7.93 and about %54,000 each.
The total award to attorneys is distributed as:
50% ($80,752.53) to Mitchell & DeClerck, PLLC of Enid,
20% ($32,201.01) to Edward E. Sutter,
15% ($24,225.76) to the Estate of Thomas G. Blakley,
15% ($24,225.76) to Donna L. Benson
For its service, the Court Clerk's office was awarded $300 in
poundage or 1% of the cost (up to $300).
AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE: Paying $325M for Predatory Lending Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ameriquest Mortgage Co. agreed to pay $325 million to various
state Attorneys General to settle certain regulatory complaints
related to predatory home mortgage lending. Much of the money
will be used by the states to pay restitution to affected
homeowners. It is important to recognize that the settlement
will not resolve all claims of consumers alleged in various
private actions against Ameriquest, including at least 12
pending class actions.
"The size of the Attorney General settlement reflects the
enormous scope of wrongdoing underlying Ameriquest's lending
practices," said Kelly Dermody of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, in San Francisco, one of the attorneys
representing Ameriquest customers in the private litigation.
"The settlement is an important first step, but apparently
provides relief for only a fraction of Ameriquest's total
potential liabilities," she added.
Under the settlement, eligible homeowners must determine whether
to accept money in exchange for giving up their legal claims and
defenses. Ameriquest customers who choose not to accept money
from the settlement retain their right to other, potentially
greater, relief from a private action. It is also possible that
such customers could get less relief from the private actions,
or no relief at all.
"We applaud the Attorneys General for taking action on behalf of
American homeowners, but there are so many loans involved here
that consumers are likely to receive restitution for only a
small portion of their claims," said Gary Klein of Roddy Klein &
Ryan in Boston, another of the private attorneys pursuing claims
on behalf of his clients against Ameriquest. "We are presently
evaluating the settlement to determine what our clients will
give up if they accept funds from their state's Attorney
General. We are likely to ask for guidance from various Courts
on how to give Ameriquest customers fair information about the
difficult choice they face about whether to release their
claims."
Ameriquest has been sued for predatory lending in many
jurisdictions across the country. Many of those cases have
recently been consolidated in the federal District Court in
Chicago before Judge Marvin E. Aspen. Claims against Ameriquest
include allegations of misrepresentation, overcharge of fees,
failure to provide necessary information about loan terms, and
violations of various state and federal consumer protection
laws. Many of the homeowners affected by Ameriquest's practices
paid thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in questionable
fees and charges. Many of the pending lawsuits allege that
consumers retained the right to cancel their mortgages and thus
may legally recover some or all of the points paid and other
finance charges. For many consumers, the remedy potentially
available through private litigation would provide $10,000
dollars or more in relief.
Pending class actions against Ameriquest include:
(1) Cheryl Williams and Duvall Naughton, et al. v.
Ameriquest Mortgage Company, Case No. 05-CV-6189 (New
York, NY) (national class);
(2) George Barber, et al. v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company,
Case No. 3:04-cv-1296-J-32TEM (Florida);
(3) Luke Ricci, et al. v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company, Case
No. 05-1214 JRT/FLN (Minnesota);
(4) Tonya Sumner Brown, et al. v. Ameriquest Capital Corp.
and Ameriquest Mortgage Company, Case No. 8:05-cv-
00285-AHS-RNB (California);
(5) Adolph Peter Kurt Burggraff, et al. v. Ameriquest
Capital Corp. and Ameriquest Mortgage Company, Case No.
2:04-cv-09715-MMM-MC (California);
(6) Nona Knox, Albert Knox, Maria Torres, Heladio Arellanes
and Maria Arellanes, et al. v. Ameriquest Mortgage
Company, Argent Mortgage Company, and Does 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. 3:05-cv-00240-SC (California);
(7) Isabelle M. Murphy, David R. Murphy, Lynn Gay, David M.
Wakefield, and Janet Wakefield, et al. v. Ameriquest
Mortgage Company, Case No. 1:04-cv-12651-RWZ
(Massachusetts); and
(8) Latonya Williams, Duwayne Williams, Daisybel Tolbert
and William F. Tolbert, et al. v. Ameriquest Mortgage
Company, Case No. 8:05-cv-01036-EAK-EAJ (Florida).
For more information, contact Kelly Dermody of Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Phone: 415-956-1000; E-mail:
kdermody@lchb.com; Gary Klein of Roddy Klein & Ryan, Phone:
617-357-5500 ext. 15; 617-320-8397 (Sunday); E-mail:
klein@roddykleinryan.com).
ARKANSAS: Lake View Group Revives Suit over School Consolidation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Jimmie Wilson is reviving a 2004 lawsuit challenging the
consolidation of Lake View and Barton-Lexa school districts,
according to Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
The case was filed in federal court more than a year ago. It was
blocked in 2004 pending a resolution of a separate but related
Lake View case over the constitutionality of funding school
districts.
In September, U.S. District Judge George Howard Jr. finally
ruled that Mr. Wilson's clients, the Friends of Lake View, could
file a motion to reopen the federal case within the 30 days
after proceedings of the earlier suit ended. The trial ended on
Dec. 15 with the Arkansas Supreme Court finding deficiencies in
the state's public school funding.
The federal suit is directed against Gov. Mike Huckabee, State
Education Commissioner Ken James, the Arkansas Board of
Education and the state of Arkansas by the Friends of Lake View
group, which includes local taxpayers as well as parents and
guardians of school-age children. The plaintiffs are seeking to
overturn Acts 59, and 60 of the special 2003 legislative session
on education, which refers to the revamped school funding
formula, and consolidation of schools. Lake View and more than
50 other districts have been merged with other school systems as
a result of Act 60 that requires all districts with fewer than
350 students in each of two consecutive years to merge with
larger neighboring systems.
The suit is asking the judge for class action status, and to
order the state to fund a Lake View system in a manner that
allows it to operate with a constitutional funding formula,
according to the report. It is also seeking compensation for
alleged discriminatory violations against the Lake View
residents dating back to 1938.
The suit is styled, "Friends Lakeview Sch, et al. v. Huckabee,
et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00184-GH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, under Judge George
Howard, Jr. Representing the Plaintiff/s is Jimmie L. Wilson,
Attorney at Law, 521-523 Plaza, West Helena, AR 72390-2512,
Phone: (870) 572-1534. Representing the Defendant/s are Timothy
Gerard Gauger and Colette Dodson Honorable of The Arkansas
Attorney General's Office, Catlett-Prien Tower Building, 323
Center St., Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201-2610, Phone:
(501) 682-2007 and (501) 682-8123, E-mail:
colette.honorable@arkansasag.gov.
BIOPURE CORPORATION: Asks MA Court to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Biopure Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, its former Chief
Executive Officer, its Chief Technology Officer and its former
Chief Financial Officer.
Initially, alleged purchasers of the Company's common stock
filed several suits between December 30, 2003 and January 28,
2004. Those complaints have since been consolidated in a single
action and an amended complaint has been filed against the
Company, the previously named individuals and several of our
current and former directors and officers.
The complaint claims that the Company violated the federal
securities laws by publicly disseminating materially false and
misleading statements regarding the status of its Hemopure BLA
with the FDA and of its trauma development program, resulting in
the artificial inflation of Biopure's common stock price during
the purported class period. The complaint does not specify the
amount of alleged damages plaintiffs seek to recover. The
complaint sets forth a class period of March 2003 through
December 24, 2003.
The suit is styled, "IN RE BIOPURE CORPORATION SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:03-cv-12628-NG," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge
Nancy Gertner. Representing the Plaintiff/s are:
(1) Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY
10017, Phone: 212-687-7230;
(2) Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, 53 State Street, Boston, MA
02108, Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail:
ted@shulaw.com; and
(3) Gilman and Pastor, LLP, Suite 500, Stonehill Corporate
Center, 999 Broadway, Saugus, MA 01906, Phone: 781-231-
7850, Fax: 781-231-7840 (fax) E-mail:
palagorio@gilmanpastor.com or dpastor@gilmanpastor.com.
Representing the Defendant/s are, Bingham McCutchen LLP, 150
Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-951-8717, Fax:
617-951-8736, E-mail: robert.buhlman@bingham.com,
eunice.lee@bingham.com, raquel.webster@bingham.com; and Mary P.
Cormier of Edwards & Angell, LLP, 101 Federal St., Boston, MA
02110, Phone: 617-951-2225, Fax: 617-439-4170, E-mail:
mcormier@edwardsangell.com.
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Settles Long-running Vanlev Suit for $185M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow, lead counsel representing the class and lead
plaintiff, the LongView Collective Investment Fund of the
Amalgamated Bank, reached an agreement in principle to settle
claims under a securities suit against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
for $185 million in addition to meaningful corporate governance
reforms that will affect future consumers and investors alike.
The class action settlement concludes a lengthy and arduous
litigation that was set for trial in 2006. Labaton Sucharow is
the lead counsel representing the class, and lead plaintiff in
the suit.
The securities fraud claims were brought against BMS and others
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey as a
result of negative disclosures about BMS's potential
"blockbuster" drug for hypertension called Vanlev. While the
case involved a complicated challenge to the company's public
statements about a drug in its pipeline that arguably propped up
its stock price and damaged class members even though it
ultimately was never mass-produced to the public, this
settlement is the second largest recovery against a
pharmaceutical company.
Notably, it is the largest recovery ever obtained against a
pharmaceutical company in a securities fraud case involving the
development of a new drug, and it is the largest ever obtained
against a pharmaceutical company in a securities fraud case that
did not involve a restatement of financial results.
The class action has been pending since April 2000 when BMS
announced that it was withdrawing Vanlev's New Drug Application
from consideration by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
because the agency expressed serious concerns about the
incidence and severity of a side-effect called angioedema in
patients taking Vanlev as part of clinical studies. Amalgamated
Bank, represented by Labaton Sucharow as Lead Counsel, was
appointed Lead Plaintiff in the action and alleged that BMS,
Chief Executive Officer Peter R. Dolan, former Chief Executive
Officer Charles A. Heimbold, Jr., and Dr. Peter S. Ringrose
withheld material information about this potential drug from
investors and the public. Vanlev was never marketed.
The parties vigorously litigated the class action. Lead
Counsel, on behalf of Amalgamated Bank, reviewed more than four
million pages of documents and deposed 36 current and former
employees and officers of BMS, including Messrs. Heimbold and
Dolan, as well as a number of non-parties, including securities
analysts who covered BMS. More than 1,500 exhibits were marked
during these depositions. The case also involved 26 experts in
the fields of cardiology, pharmacoeconomics, epidemiology,
regulatory matters, airway management, securities markets and
damages. Each of these experts submitted reports and were
deposed.
As part of the settlement with BMS, the Lead Plaintiff was
extremely interested in obtaining meaningful corporate
governance reform measures. The Lead Plaintiff's interest in
such reforms derived, in large part, from the nature of the
alleged fraud, outlined above. The corporate governance reforms
ultimately obtained by the Longview Fund of Amalgamated Bank are
noteworthy for several reasons.
First, following the adoption of the PSLRA in 1995, corporate
reform measures obtained by lead plaintiffs generally have been
limited to financial reforms and board memberships. The
corporate reforms obtained in this case have expanded this
traditional concept of corporate reform.
The practical result of this corporate governance reform is that
anyone taking a drug manufactured by BMS will now, for the first
time, have instant access to crucial information about the drug,
especially serious side effects. (Disclosures will be posted at
http://www.bms.com,and http://www.clinicalstudyresults.org.)
It will allow for a more informed consumer and patient.
"As a union-owned bank, we were particularly concerned about the
company's failure to disclose Vanlev's potential side-effects,"
stated Noel Beasley, the Lead Plaintiff and a representative
from the Longview Fund. "We have seen time and again in recent
cases such as Vioxx and Paxil the unnecessary health risks posed
because a drug company left the public in the dark. Now,
consumers will have access to crucial information about BMS
drugs, especially any serious side effects."
Second, the corporate reform measures obtained here exceed the
scope of the reforms obtained by New York State Attorney General
Eliot Spitzer in his settlement of an action against
GlaxoSmithKline arising from the sale of Paxil, an
antidepressant. For example, the Paxil settlement, which
required GSK to post results of its clinical trial data on a
public Web site, was limited to drugs sold in the United States.
The settlement in this action requires BMS to post the clinical
trial results of drugs marketed in any country throughout the
world. The settlement, as stated by Mr. Beasley, "takes it
several steps further."
Finally, the corporate governance reforms obtained in this case
implement many of the provisions of the Fair Access to Clinical
Trials Act of 2005, a bill introduced in the House of
Representatives by Representatives Markey and Waxman and in the
Senate by Senators Dodd, Grassley, Johnson and Wyden.
Thomas Dubbs, the partner leading Labaton Sucharow's litigation
and trial team in the BMS case said: " Not only is this the
largest settlement dealing with drug development disclosure, but
it is also precedent setting in that BMS has agreed to publicly
disclose the clinical study design and the results of clinical
trials, including the reporting of adverse events, for each and
every drug that is marketed in the United States or any other
country." Mr. Dubbs also said it is one of the 20 largest
securities class action settlements overall.
The suit is styled "In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:00-cv-01990-SRC-JJH," filed in the United
States District of District of New Jersey (Trenton), under Judge
Stanley R. Chesler. Representing the plaintiffs are Allyn
Zissel Lite and Michael A. Patunas, LITE, DEPALMA, GREENBERG AND
RIVAS, LCC, Two Gateway Center 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-
5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail: alite@ldgrlaw.com, and
mpatunas@ldgrlaw.com; and Robert J. Berg, BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD &
LIFSHITZ, LLP, 2050 Center Avenue Suite 200, Fort Lee, NJ 07024
by Phone: 201-592-3201, by E-mail: berg@bernlieb.com.
Representing the Company is William J. O'Shaughnessy of MCCARTER
& ENGLISH, ESQS., Four Gateway Center, 100 Mulberry Street, PO
Box 652, Newark NJ, 07101-0652, Phone: (973) 622-4444, E-mail:
woshaughnessy@mccarter.com.
COUNTRY HOME: Recalls Defective Cordless Electric Lawnmowers
------------------------------------------------------------
Country Home Products, Inc., of Vergennes, Vt. is recalling
about 15,700 2005 Model NEUTON(R) Cordless Electric Lawnmowers,
according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. CPSC
is advising consumers to stop using the product immediately.
The company warns that when the handlebar is released on the
recalled lawnmowers, the motor could continue to run, which
causes the blade to continue to spin. In addition, there is
excessive heat build up in the wire coil inside the housing and
also in the safety key.
Country Home Products, Inc. has received nine total reports of
incidents in which the mower and blade did not turn off when the
handle was released, causing excessive heat built up in the
internal wire brake coil and safety key. No injuries or
property damage have been reported.
The recalled lawnmowers were sold under the NEUTON(R) name and
carry model number EM 4 1 NEUTON(R) printed on the front portion
of the lawnmower. The lawnmowers are two shades of green and
have a 14-inch cutting width with rear bagging capability. The
serial number ranges of the recalled mowers are CE04049212
through CE04054902 and CE04061492 through CE04071541. The
serial number can be found by lifting the rear discharge guard
of the mower. It is on a sticker on the lower left side of the
mower housing.
The product, manufactured in Taiwan, is sold by mail orders, web
sites, and by gas-lawnmower exchange programs and through a
small number of outdoor power equipment dealerships nationwide
from February 2005 through June 2005 for about $400. Not all
mowers shipped during this time period are included in the
recall. Only mowers within the specified serial number range
are included.
Remedy: Country Home Products, Inc. is sending all registered
owners instructions on how to perform the free repair on these
mowers.
Consumer contact: Country Home Products, Inc., Phone:
(888) 294-5029 (toll-free), between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, and between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET on
Saturdays. Instructions for NEUTON(R) Mower:
http://www.CEM-TechAlert.com.
HELEN OF TROY: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits in W.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two class action lawsuits were filed against Helen of Troy,
Ltd., Gerald J. Rubin, the Company's Chairman of the Board,
President and Chief Executive Officer, and Thomas J. Benson, the
Company's Chief Financial Officer, on behalf of purchasers of
publicly traded securities of the Company.
The Company anticipates that additional suits of this nature may
be filed and that all such suits will eventually be consolidated
in a single court. The Company understands that the plaintiffs
allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, on the grounds
that the Company and the two officers engaged in a scheme to
defraud the Company's stockholders through the issuance of
positive earnings guidance intended to artificially inflate the
Company's stock price so that Mr. Rubin could sell almost
400,000 shares of the Company's common stock at an inflated
price.
The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages, interest, fees,
costs, an accounting of the insider trading proceeds, and
injunctive relief, including an accounting of and the imposition
of a constructive trust and/or asset freeze on the defendant's
insider trading proceeds. The class period stated in the
complaints is October 12, 2004 through October 10, 2005.
The lawsuits were brought in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas and are at a preliminary
stage. Plaintiffs firms involved in this and similar cases:
(1) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 E. 17th Ave., Denver, CO,
80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
mail: info@dyershuman.com;
(2) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com;
(3) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
pivenlaw@erols.com;
(4) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
info@milbergweiss.com;
(5) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave., 34th
Flr., New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
212.682.1892, E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com;
(6) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main St., Hartford, CT,
06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
sn06106@AOL.com;
(7) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com; and
(8) Smith & Smith, LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: 215.638.4847, Fax:
215.638.4867.
HOLLINGER INTERNATIONAL: Court Approves Chicago Group Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cook County Circuit Court Judge Bernetta D. Bush signed the
order approving the Final Settlement of the consolidated class
action lawsuits brought against the Hollinger International
Inc.'s Chicago Sun-Times and Daily Southtown newspapers in
connection with the inflation of circulation that occurred in
the past and that has been previously reported.
The Final Settlement Terms incorporated the prior settlement
terms previously disclosed on Sept. 16, 2005 in connection with
Court's preliminary approval order, including settlement
payments to advertisers, fees of class counsel and incentive
payments to class representatives. A status hearing is set for
July 17, 2006.
The settlement was the result of a six-month mediation effort,
facilitated by the Honorable Abner J. Mikva, who served as the
Court-appointed mediator and involved extensive discovery by
class counsel (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 20, 2005).
Earlier, pursuant to a Court order, the Chicago Sun-Times was
permitted to negotiate settlements with nearly 400 of its
largest advertisers that resolved approximately 58% of
advertiser claims for an aggregate consideration of
approximately $10 million of cash and $6.8 million of
advertising benefits to advertisers continuing to advertise with
the paper at specified levels (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 20,
2005).
The proposed settlement in the consolidated class action
lawsuits (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 20, 2005) will provide
the plaintiff class with aggregate consideration of
approximately $7.7 million in cash and up to $7.3 million in
free advertising or discounts. The Chicago Sun-Times has agreed
to pay the fees and expenses of the firms representing the
settlement class, as approved by the Court, up to a total of
$5.575 million. The Chicago Sun-Times will also pay all the
costs associated with the administration including publication
of notice, mailed notice and distributing the benefits to class
members. Neither the administration costs nor the attorneys'
fees will reduce the benefits to the class. The settlement will
not cover the claims of advertisers who are plaintiffs in four
separate lawsuits or the claims of four advertisers with whom
the Chicago Sun-Times has been in settlement negotiations. The
advertising expenditures of these excluded claimants represent
approximately 3.5% of the Chicago Sun-Times' advertising revenue
during the relevant settlement period applicable to major
advertisers.
The claims for commercial advertisers in the consolidated class
action proceedings will be calculated using the same circulation
estimates that were used in the newspaper's settlements with its
major advertisers. As with major advertiser settlements,
advertisers in the class action settlements will also have the
additional option to accept all of their settlement
consideration in the form of additional free advertising. The
settlements will be administered by Rust Consulting, Inc. an
independent, third-party claims administrator agreed to by the
parties (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 20, 2005).
For more information, contact: Molly Morse/Jeremy Fielding,
Kekst and Company, Phone: 212-521-4826/4825; E-mail:
molly-morse@kekst.com; E-mail: jeremy-fielding@kekst.com.
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Expects Consolidation of MN Stock Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hutchinson Technology, Inc. expects the consolidation of all
securities fraud lawsuits filed against it and certain of its
officers, after two separate sets of plaintiffs in the various
cases filed motions with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.
As of September 25, 2005, the Company and three of its present
executive officers, two of which are also directors, were named
as defendants in two virtually identical actions entitled,
"Robert J. Averdick v. Hutchinson Technology, Inc., Wayne M.
Fortun, John A. Ingleman, and Jeffrey W. Green" and "Sam Somyoy
Poovakaw v. Hutchinson Technology, Inc., Wayne M. Fortun, John
A. Ingleman, and Jeffrey W. Green."
The Company and six of the Company's present executive officers,
two of which are directors, were also named in a third virtually
identical action entitled, "Michael Huefner v. Hutchinson
Technology, Jeffrey W. Green, Wayne M. Fortun, John A. Ingleman,
Richard J. Penn, R. Scott Schaefer and Beatrice A.
Graczyk."
Each action was filed between September 9, 2005 and October 11,
2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
The suits are purported class action brought on behalf of all
persons (except defendants) who purchased stock in the open
market between October 4, 2004 and August 29, 2005.
The complaints allege that the defendants made false and
misleading public statements about the Company, and its business
and prospects, in filings with the SEC and press releases, and
that the market price of its stock was artificially inflated as
a result. They also allege claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The plaintiffs in all three cases seek compensatory damages on
behalf of the alleged class, an award of attorneys' fees and
costs of litigation and unspecified equitable/injunctive relief.
On November 8, 2005, motions were filed by two competing sets of
plaintiffs and their respective counsel seeking to consolidate
all of the actions and to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel, and a hearing on the motions was held on December 1,
2005. The Company expects that, as a result of the motions, the
court will consolidate the actions, appoint a lead plaintiff and
one or more lead counsel and set a deadline for the lead
plaintiff to file and serve a consolidated amended complaint.
The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Robert J. Averdick, et al. v. Hutchinson Technology, Inc., et
al., case no. 05-CV-2095," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Michael J.
Davis. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(1) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
mail: info@dyershuman.com;
(2) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com;
(3) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone:
215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net;
(4) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
pivenlaw@erols.com;
(5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San
Diego), 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA,
92101, Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423;
(6) Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P., Suite 301, 660
Pennsylvania Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC, 20003-
4335, Phone: 202.544.9840, Fax: 202.544.9850;
(7) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
info@milbergweiss.com;
(8) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
sn06106@AOL.com; and
(9) Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Purported Derivative Lawsuit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hutchinson Technology, Inc., as a nominal defendant, all of its
present directors and one of its officers were named as
defendants in a purported derivative action entitled, "Saul
Kopelowitz v. Wayne Fortun, et al.," which was filed on December
14, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.
In the complaint, the shareholder-plaintiff alleges claims of
breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust
enrichment and misappropriation of information against the
individual defendants arising out of the same events that are
alleged in the federal securities class action actions that the
Company faces. Essentially, the complaint asserts that breaches
of duty by the individual defendants resulted in the Company
making false and misleading public statements, which in turn led
to the Company getting sued for federal securities fraud, which
in turn has caused the Company to suffer damages.
The complaint seeks compensatory damages from the individual
defendants for the loss allegedly sustained by the Company,
restitution and disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other
compensation obtained by the individual defendants and an award
of attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The defendants have
not yet responded to the complaint.
The suit is styled, "Kopelowitz v. Fortun et al, Case No. 0:05-
cv-02904-JNE-JJG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, under Judge Joan N. Ericksen with
referral to Judge Jeanne J. Graham. Representing the
Plaintiff/s are, Gregg M. Corwin and Katherine L. Miller of
Gregg M. Corwin & Associates Law Office, PC, 1660 S. Hwy. 100,
Ste. 508, St. Louis Park, MN 55416-1534, Phone: 952-544-7774,
Fax: 952-544-7151, E-mail: gcorwin@gcorwin.com and
kmiller@gcorwin.com; and William B. Federman and W. Todd Ver
Weire of Federman & Sherwood, 120 N. Robinson, Ste. 2720,
Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, Fax: 405-239-2112,
E-mail: wfederman@aol.com and tvw@federmanlaw.com. Representing
the Defendant/s is Wendy J. Wildung of Faegre & Benson, LLP, 90
S. 7th St., Ste. 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901, Phone:
612-766-7000, Fax: 612-766-1600, E-mail: wwildung@faegre.com.
JUICE HARVEST: Recalls Bacteria-contaminated Beverages in CA
------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers should not to drink Evolution, Harvest or Trader Joe's
brand assorted juices manufactured by Juice Harvest Corp. of San
Bernardino because the products were not fully pasteurized and
may contain harmful bacteria that pose a health risk, State
Public Health Officer Dr. Mark Horton advises. The containers
list the following code dates: "1-12, 1-14, 1-17, 1-20 or 1-23."
No illnesses associated with these products have been reported.
Approximately 8,000 units of the assorted juices in 16-, 32- and
64-ounce packages and one-gallon plastic containers distributed
in Southern California are being voluntarily recalled.
Customers who have purchased these products should return them
to the place of purchase or dispose of them immediately. The
California Department of Health Services is investigating to
determine which distributors and retail establishments received
these products.
The assorted juices being recalled are:
Brand Name of Product Code Date Size
Evolution, Harvest Carrot Juice 1-12 16 oz, 32 oz
Evolution, Harvest Organic Carrot Juice 1-12 16 oz, 32 oz
Evolution, Harvest Carrot Celery Beet 1-12 16 oz
Evolution, Harvest Carrot Parsley Spinach 1-12 16 oz
Evolution, Harvest Incredible Vegetables 1-12 16 oz
Evolution, Harvest Organic V 1-12 16 oz
Evolution Essential Greens 1-14 16 oz
Evolution, Harvest Watermelon Juice 1-14 32 oz, 16 oz
Trader Joe's
Evolution, Harvest Acai 1-14 16 oz
Evolution SuperGreen 1-17 16 oz
Evolution Orange Juice Past 1-20 32 oz, 64 oz
Evolution, Harvest Old-Fashioned Lemonade 1-23 64 oz, 1 gal
Evolution, Harvest Organic Lemonade 1-23 16 oz, 32 oz
Trader Joe's Defense UP 1-17 16 oz
Evolution, Harvest Bee Enerqized 1-17 16 oz
For more information, consumer contact: Juice Harvest Corp.,
Phone: (909) 478-0895.
LIGHTSPAN PARTNERSHIP: NY Court Nixes Stock Suit with Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lightspan Partnership, Inc., a company that Plato Learning, Inc.
acquired in November 2003 and is a defendant in a securities
class action filed against Credit Suisse First Boston and
several of its clients (including the Company), styled, "Liu, et
al. v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., et al.," reports that
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
The complaint alleges that Credit Suisse First Boston, its
affiliates, and the securities issuer defendants (including the
Company) manipulated the price of the issuer defendants' shares
in the post-initial public offering market. The securities
issuer defendants (including Lightspan, Inc.) have filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint in September 2004 on the grounds
of multiple pleading deficiencies.
On April 1, 2005, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice. On
April 15, 2005, the plaintiff filed a motion for
reconsideration. This motion was denied on May 13, 2005. The
plaintiff filed a second motion for reconsideration on
May 16, 2005. The court affirmed the previous ruling, rejecting
the plaintiff's second motion. The plaintiff has appealed the
decision of the trial court and briefs are due in early 2006.
The suit is styled "Liu v. Credit Suisse First Boston
Corporation, Case No. 1:04-cv-03757-SAS," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Representing the plaintiffs is
John G. Watts, Yearout & Traylor, P.C., 800 Shades Creek
Parkway, Ste 500 Birmingham, Al 35209, Phone: (205)-414-8160.
Representing the Company is Michael L. Hirschfeld, Milbank,
Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, L.L.P., 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza New
York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 530-5000, Fax: (212) 530-5219.
LOUISIANA: New Orleans Residents Launch Lawsuit V. OEP, Director
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several residents of the City of New Orleans initiated a class
action lawsuit against the city's Office of Emergency
Preparedness (OEP) and its Orleans Parish director, Terry Ebert,
over allegedly failing to prepare for and respond to hurricane
related emergencies, according to McGlinchey Stafford of
http://www.hurricanelawblog.com.
The suit was filed by victims of Hurricane Katrina in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. It is
seeking damages allegedly resulting from the failure of
government officials to properly prepare for and respond to
hurricane-related emergencies.
The plaintiffs in the suit are, James L. Reynolds, the owner of
4007 St. Charles Ave., #300, New Orleans, Louisiana 70115 and
Howard M. and Lydia Schmalz, who are the majority owners, inter
alia, of 1347 Coliseum St., New Orleans, Louisiana.
According to court documents, "plaintiffs are members of the
class of present and former residents of the City of New
Orleans, who have been displaced from their homes and businesses
and/or who are or have been unable to return to New Orleans to
protect their homes and recover and secure their moveable and
immovable property on account of the unconstitutional actions of
the defendants in utilizing their authority and their color of
law to arbitrarily and capriciously drive plaintiffs and almost
all of the members of the class from the City of New Orleans
without procedural or substantive due process, without being
able to secure their property, by use the use of
unconstitutional means, including the denial of equal
protection, and other unconstitutional actions."
To view the case, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?48e.
The suit is styled, "Reynolds et al. v. New Orleans City et al.,
Case No. 2:05-cv-04158-CJB-SS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana, under Judge Carl Barbier
with referral to Judge Sally Shushan. Representing the
Plaintiff/s is Louis Roy Koerner, Jr. of Law Offices of Louis R.
Koerner, Jr., P.O. Box 4297, Houma, LA 70361, Phone:
(504) 234-3694, E-mail: Koerner@koerner-law.com. Representing
the Defendant/s is Thomas Ainsworth Robichaux, City Attorney's
Office, City Hall, 1300 Perdido St., Room 5E01, New Orleans, LA
70112, Phone: 504-658-9800, E-mail: tarobichaux@cityofno.com.
LOUISIANA: Several Insurers Face Suit, Seeks Insurance Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit in Louisiana that names several insurers
is seeking a declaration that plaintiffs are entitled to
insurance coverage, according to McGlinchey Stafford of
http://www.hurricanelawblog.com.
The suit entitled, "Gladys Chehardy, et al. v. Louisiana
Insurance Commissioner J. Robert Wooley, et al., Civil Action
No. 536,451," was originally filed in 19th Judicial District
Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana. It was recently
removed by the defendants to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana under the title, "Chehardy et al v.
Wooley, Case No. 3:05-cv-01140-FJP-CN,"
The suit was filed against the Louisiana Commissioner of
Insurance and numerous homeowners' insurers for a ruling that
damages resulting from breaches in the levies protecting New
Orleans should not be excluded from coverage under "rising
water" or "act of God" exclusions in applicable policies. The
suit alleges that the effective causes of the losses were acts
of negligence and windstorm, which are perils that are covered
under the relevant policies.
According to court documents, "the suit was filed on behalf of
all persons or entities who were on August 29, 2005 owners of
immovable property with improvements located thereon, all said
property being located in the Parishes of Orleans and Jefferson,
Louisiana, all of which property sustained damage as a result of
the catastrophic events of August 29, 2005 and the following
days."
To view the case, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?490.
The suit is styled, "Chehardy et al v. Wooley, Case No. 3:05-cv-
01140-FJP-CN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana under Judge Frank J. Polozola with
referral to Judge Christine Noland. Representing the
Plaintiff/s are, Joseph Jerry McKernan of McKernan Law Firm,
8710 Jefferson Highway, Baton Rouge, LA 70809, Phone: 225-926-
1234, Fax: 225-926-1202, E-mail: jemckernan@mckernanlawfirm.com.
Representing the Defendant/s are:
(1) Judy Y. Barrasso and Steven W. Usdin of Barrasso Usdin
Kupperman Freeman & Sarver, LLC - NO, LL&E Tower, 909
Poydras St., Suite 1800, New Orleans, LA 70112, Phone:
504-589-9700, Fax: 504-589-9701, E-mail:
jbarrasso@barrassousdin.com and
susdin@barrassousdin.com;
(2) Lawrence J. Duplass of Duplass, Zwain, Bourgeois and
Morton, Three Lakeway Center, 3838 N. Causeway Blvd.,
Suite 2900, Metairie, LA 70002, Phone: 504-832-3700,
Fax: 504-837-3119, E-mail: lduplass@duplass.com;
(3) Ralph Shelton Hubbard, III of Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck,
Rankin & Hubbard, 601 Poydras St., Suite 2775, New
Orleans, LA 70130, Phone: 504-568-1990, Fax: 504-310-
9195, E-mail: rhubbard@lawla.com;
(4) H. Alston Johnson, III and Marshall M. Redmon of Phelps
Dunbar, LLP, P.O. Box 4412, 445 North Blvd., Suite 701,
Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4412, Phone: 225-346-0285, Fax:
225-381-9197, E-mail: johnsona@phelps.com and
redmonm@phelps.com;
(5) Wayne J. Lee of Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC -
BR, 263 Third St., 5th Floor, Baton Rouge, LA 70801,
Phone: 225-490-8900, Fax: 225-490-8960, E-mail:
wlee@stonepigman.com;
(6) Jay M. Lonero of Larzelere Picou Wells Simpson Lonero,
LLC - MAN, 1305 West Causeway Approach, Suite 210,
Mandeville, LA 70471, Phone: 504-834-6500, Fax: 504-
834-6565, E-mail: jlonero@lpw-law.com;
(7) Robert I. Siegel of Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC -
NO, One Shell Square, 701 Poydras St., Suite 4800, New
Orleans, LA 70139, Phone: 504-561-0400, Fax: 504-561-
1011, E-mail: rsiegel@glllaw.com;
(8) John E. Unsworth, Jr. of Hailey, McNamara, Hall,
Larmann & Papale, Post Office Box 8288, One Galleria
Blvd., Suite 1400, Metairie, LA 70001-8288, Phone: 504-
836-6500, Fax: 504-836-6565, E-mail:
john_unsworth@haileymcnamara.com; and
(9) William J. Wegmann, Jr. of Wegmann Law Firm, 407
Nursery Ave., Metairie, LA 70005, Phone: 504-833-3800,
E-mail: wjwegmann@aol.com.
LOUISIANA: St. Tammy Resident Sues Insurers over Damaged Tress
--------------------------------------------------------------
Urban M. Craddock, Sr., a resident of St. Tammany, Louisiana,
initiated a class action lawsuit in the 19th Judicial District
Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge that seeks a declaration that
plaintiffs are entitled to insurance coverage in regards to
damaged or destroyed trees, according to McGlinchey Stafford of
http://www.hurricanelawblog.com.
The suit, which is entitled, "Urban M. Craddock, Sr. v. Safeco
Insurance Company, et al., Civil Action No. 2005-14157," was
filed in September 23, 2005 and named several insurers as
defendants. It is seeking a declaration that, under homeowners'
insurance policies issued by the defendant insurers, the full
value of damaged or destroyed trees should be covered as
"property" and that the trees are not properly valued merely as
"debris."
To view the case, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?491.
The suit is styled, "Urban M. Craddock, Sr. v. Safeco Insurance
Company, et al., Civil Action No. 2005-14157," filed in the 19th
Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are Shawn C. Reed, Amy C. Yenari
and Hope E. Normand of Howard Reed & Taylor, 516 N. Columbia
St., Covington, Louisiana 7043, Phone: (985) 893-3607; and D.
Douglas Howard, Jr., 839 St. Charles Ave., Suite 306, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70130, Phone: (504) 581-3610.
MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Faces Amended Consolidated Stock Suit in MD
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in several securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
against Martek Biosciences Corporation and certain of its
officers recently filed an amended consolidated complaint
entitled, "In re: Martek Biosciences Corp. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. MJG 05-1224."
On May 4, 2005, a putative class action lawsuit was filed,
captioned "Reed Black v. Martek Biosciences Corporation, et al.,
Case No. MJG 05 CV1224." Since then, several other putative
class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain
of its officers in the same court making similar allegations.
These other putative class actions lawsuits are captioned as
follows:
(1) Brocco v. Martek Biosciences Corp., et. al., Case No.
MJG 05 CV 1257;
(2) Sowattanangkul v. Martek Biosciences Corp., et. al.,
Case No. MJG 05 CV 1309;
(3) Wright v. Martek Biosciences Corp., et. al., Case No.
05-1354;
(4) Epstein v. Martek Biosciences Corp., et. al., Case No.
MJG 05 CV 1508; and
(5) Fujitake v. Martek Biosciences Corp., et. al., Case No.
MJG 05 CV 1514
These actions claim to be filed on behalf of the purchasers of
the Company's common stock during a purported class period
beginning December 9, 2004 and ending April 27, 2005. The
complaints allege, among other things, violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. In addition,
one of the complaints purports to be brought on behalf of those
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock in its public offering in January 2005 and alleges
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended.
The complaints allege generally that the Company and the
individual defendants made false or misleading public statements
and failed to disclose material facts regarding its business and
prospects in public statements the Company made or failed to
make during the period and, in the case of the Securities Act of
1933 claims, in its January 2005 prospectus.
The Court has entered Orders consolidating these cases,
appointing lead plaintiffs and approving lead plaintiffs'
counsel and liaison counsel. On November 18, 2005, the
consolidated amended class action complaint entitled, "In re:
Martek Biosciences Corp. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
MJG 05-1224," was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland.
While the Court has not made a determination of whether a
putative class can be certified, the consolidated complaint
claims to be filed on behalf of the purchasers of the Company's
common stock during a purported class period beginning December
9, 2004 and ending April 28, 2005. At this time, plaintiffs
have not specified the amount of damages they are seeking in the
actions.
The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and violations of
Section 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. It
also alleges generally that the Company and the individual
defendants made false or misleading public statements and failed
to disclose material facts regarding our business and prospects
in public statements the Company made or failed to make during
the period and, in the case of the Securities Act of 1933
claims, in our January 2005 prospectus. The Company plans to
file a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.
The suit is styled, "Black v. Martek Biosciences Corporation et
al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01224-MJG," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Marvin J.
Garbis. Representing the Plaintiff/s are:
(1) Christopher L. Nelson of Schiffrin and Barroway, LLP,
280 King of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone:
16108220262, Fax: 16106677056, E-mail:
cnelson@sbclasslaw.com;
(2) 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; and
(3) Lawrence Joseph Quinn of Tydings and Rosenberg, LLP,
100 E. Pratt St., 26th Fl., Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone:
14107529700, Fax: 14107275460, E-mail:
lquinn@tydingslaw.com.
Representing the Defendant/s is Steven F. Barley of Hogan and
Hartson, LLP, 111 S. Calvert St., Ste. 1600, Baltimore, MD
21202, Phone: 14106592700, Fax: 14105396981, E-mail:
sfbarley@hhlaw.com.
MERCURY NEWS: Photographer's Suit Receives Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
A judge in Northern California granted a class action lawsuit
motion to Middle Tennessee State University Professor Chris
Harris, setting a precedent that could potentially affect
newspapers and photographers all over the country.
Mr. Harris sued The Mercury News for using a photograph of
writer Walker Percy without permission. The Mercury News,
located in San Jose, Calif., claimed it used the photo legally
according to fair use rules, Mr. Harris said.
"I am fighting for the philosophical right for what copyright is
meant to be, protection of our intellectual property, that of
what goes into making a photograph," Mr. Harris said.
Mr. Harris said this lawsuit is the biggest step a photographer
can take in concerning copyright violations. Earlier this
month, Federal District Court Judge Charles Breyer ruled, "The
Court cannot say as a matter of law that use of a copyrighted
photograph in a book review, in which the book clearly states
that the photograph is copyrighted, constitutes fair use,"
according to The Mercury News.
Mr. Harris said the outcome of the lawsuit might not only entail
monetary damages, but also may mean jail time for The Mercury
News editor, who approved the publication of a copyrighted
photograph by Mr. Harris.
Mr. Harris said he is not only fighting for himself, but all
photographers who have been mistreated due to copyright
violations. He said, "If I win, no photographers will have to
worry about having their work pirated, because we'll have a
federal precedent. This is the first time this has been
adjudicated in the federal court system."
In 2003, Paul Elie's book, "The Life you Save May Be Your Own"
asked Mr. Harris for permission to use a photograph of southern
writer, Walker Percy. Mr. Harris gave Mr. Elie specific
instructions on the use of his photograph, and that the
photograph could only be used inside of the book. Mr. Harris
said using the photo on the cover would have been considered an
advertisement under the fair use. He also wrote a contract that
included a copyright notice stipulating that if the photo was
used for any book reviews, the publication must contact him.
"Down the line, I get an e-mail from Paul Elie saying that The
Mercury News used [the Percy photo] in a review," Mr. Harris
said. After ordering a copy of the edition from The Mercury
News, Mr. Harris had the proof he needed to contact the
newspaper about the violation of copyright.
"I called the circulation department and ordered a copy of the
paper. When it came, sure enough, there was a nice big picture
of mine without the copyright notice and they never contact me
about use. I told them it was a violation of copyright law.
They said they had rights under fair use," Mr. Harris said. "No
media law class I had ever taken or have taught says you can use
someone else's copyrighted work."
MTSU Professor Jim Leonhirth, who teaches Free Expression and
Mass Media Law, said the key to the "fair use" defense has to do
with four basic rules. "Fair use is a way to allow limited use
of copyrighted material for journalistic, scientific or
education purposes," Mr. Leonhirth said. "It does allow some
limited use, but the intent is not to undermine the value of the
photograph."
The key to determining whether something violates fair use is if
the entire document or photograph was used, or just a portion,
Mr. Leonhirth said. Mr. Leonhirth compares Mr. Harris'
situation to that of print. "One of the key [rules] is how much
of it is used," Mr. Leonhirth said. "The basic question is the
purpose of the use-the nature of the work itself and its effect
of commercial value. Legally, they could not take a chapter out
of a book and use it."
Mr. Harris said he followed all procedures for copyrighting his
photograph and registering it with the copyright office. "I
registered the photograph with an actual number from the
copyright office, I had also contacted the newspaper within
reasonable time to negotiate a usage fee," he said.
Though the procedures were followed, The Mercury News would not
negotiate with Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris hired attorney Robert
Spanner, who took the case on a contingency basis. In December,
the suit against The Mercury News was filed, and the case was
set in motion.
James Chadwick, an attorney for DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary,
which handles advertising, promotion and trade practices suits,
represents The Mercury News. Mr. Chadwick did not return
requests for comment.
Mr. Harris said Mr. Chadwick's firm is the largest group of
intellectual property attorneys in the country. He pointed out,
"It truly is the little man against the big powerful company. It
shows that unless you can find an attorney that will take it on
a contingency basis, the little man could not take it on by
himself. I am fighting for photographers down the line."
Mr. Harris is a 1969, graduate of the Rochester Institute of
Technology in Rochester, NY where he earned a BSA in photo
illustration. He received his master's degree in journalism
from University of Alabama in May of 1991, and later joined the
faculty at MTSU in September.
Mr. Harris spent 25 years as a freelance photojournalist writing
for Time, Newsweek and The New York Times. His first major
photojournalism experience was covering Hurricane Camille 1n
1960, and his latest was covering Hurricane Katrina in New
Orleans last August. He was photographer for the GAMMA/Liaison
photo agency in which he covered stories from Dallas, Texas to
Atlanta, Ga. He also has written news, features, sports and
business stories from Central America. In addition to writing
and photographing for news, he has contributed to two books. "I
have had a nice, varied, wonderful view of the world and its
people," Mr. Harris said of his photojournalism career.
The suit is styled, "Harris v. San Jose Mercury News, Inc., Case
No. 3:04-cv-05262-CRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Charles R. Breyer
with referral to Judge Edward M. Chen. Representing the
Plaintiff/s is Robert A. Spanner of Trial & Technology Law
Group, 545 Middlefield Road, Suite 220, Menlo Park, CA 94025,
Phone: 650-324-2223, E-mail: ras@techtriallaw.com. Representing
the Defendant/s are, James M. Chadwick, Christine Kerba Corbett
and Diana Ng Fung of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP, 2000
University Ave., East Palo Alto, CA 94303-3340, Phone:
650-833-2000 and 650/833-2308, Fax: 650-833-2001, E-mail:
james.chadwick@dlapiper.com, christine.corbett@dlapiper.com and
diana.ng.fung@dlapiper.com.
MURPY OIL: LA Judge Orders Consolidation of Oil Spill Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon ordered the consolidation of
all cases against Murphy Oil Co. in relation to the September
2005 oil spill that originated from the Company's refinery in
Meraux, Louisiana, according to McGlinchey Stafford of
http://www.hurricanelawblog.com.
In his order, the judge required that parties to the 26
consolidated cases prepare a "Master Administrative Complaint"
(MAC) for convenience. The MAC includes all of the causes of
action asserted in the 26 consolidated complaints.
According to court documents, "the class will consist of all
persons and/or entities in the Parish of St. Bernard, State of
Louisiana, who/which have sustained injuries, loss, and/or
damages as a result of the September 2005 spill of what is
estimated to be over 125,000 barrels or over 1 million gallons
of crude oil and other petroleum hydrocarbons, together with
unknown components of those substances, from a storage tank
located on the premises of the refinery owned and/or operated by
Defendant, Murphy Oil, U.S.A., Inc. and or Murphy Oil
Corporation in Meraux, Louisiana."
For more details, visit: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?48d.
NOVELL INC.: NY Court Preliminarily OKs SilverStream Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
securities class action filed against SilverStream Software,
Inc. (Nasdaq: SSSW), which Novell, Inc. (Nasdaq: NOVL) acquired
in July 2002, and several of its former officers and directors,
as well as the underwriters who handled SilverStream's two
public offerings.
Several suits were initially filed on behalf of certain former
stockholders of SilverStream who purchased shares of
SilverStream common stock between August 16, 1999 and December
6, 2000. These complaints are closely related to several
hundred other complaints that the same plaintiffs have brought
against other issuers and underwriters. These complaints all
allege violations of the Securities Act, as amended and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
In particular, they allege, among other things, that there was
undisclosed compensation received by the underwriters of the
public offerings of all of these issuers, including
SilverStream's. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages,
statutory compensation and other relief that may be deemed
appropriate by the court.
A Consolidated Amended Complaint with respect to all of these
companies was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of New York, on April 19, 2002. While the Company
believes that SilverStream and its former officers and directors
have meritorious defenses to the claims, a tentative settlement
has been reached between many of the defendants and the
plaintiffs, which contemplates a settlement of the claims. The
Court, however, has not finally approved the settlement
agreement.
The suit is styled "In Re SilverStream 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; and
(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.
PALM INC.: CA Consumers Fraud Suits Related Before N.D. CA Judge
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consumer class action lawsuits filed in state and federal
courts in California against Palm, Inc. on behalf of all
purchasers of Palm Treo 600 and Treo 650 products, were recently
related before a single judge of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.
In September and October 2005, five purported consumer class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company, namely:
(1) Moya v. Palm, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Case No. 5:05-cv-
03926-RMW;
(2) Berliner v. Palm, filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Case No. 5:05-cv-
03854-RMW;
(3) Loew v. Palm, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Case No. 5:05-cv-
03980-RMW;
(4) Geisen v. Palm, filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Case No. 5:05-cv-
04120-RMW; and
(4) Palza v. Palm, filed in the Superior Court of
California for Santa Clara County.
All four complaints allege in substance that the Company made
false or misleading statements regarding the reliability of its
Treo 600 and 650 products in violation of various California
laws and breached its warranty of these products. The
complaints seek unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement
of profits and injunctive relief.
In September 2005, a purported consumer class action lawsuit
entitled "Gans v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03774-RMW" was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all purchasers of the Treo
650 product. The complaint alleges that, in violation of
various California laws, the Company made false or misleading
statements regarding automatic email delivery to the Treo 650
product. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, restitution,
disgorgement of profits and injunctive relief.
The Company removed the "Palza" case to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California. Subsequently, all six
cases were related before a single judge in that Court. The
related cases are in the early stages.
POZEN INC.: NC Court Fully Briefs Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina has fully briefed Pozen, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its current and former officers.
Holders of the Company's securities filed five purported class
action lawsuits in 2004, alleging violations of securities laws.
These actions were filed as a single consolidated class action
complaint on December 20, 2004. The consolidated complaint
alleges, among other claims, violations of federal securities
laws, including Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against the Company and a current officer, arising
out of allegedly false and misleading statements made by the
Company concerning its product candidates, MT 100 and MT 300,
during the class period.
On January 27, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint. All briefing on the motion
to dismiss has been completed and the Company is awaiting the
Court's ruling on the motion.
The suit is styled "In Re: POZEN, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case 04-CV-505," filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina, under Judge Frank W.
Bullock, Jr. Lead counsel for the plaintiffs is Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (New York, NY), 825 Third
Avenue - 30th Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212-838-7797,
Fax: 212-838-7745, E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com. Representing the
defendants is Pressly McAuley Millen of Womble Carlyle Sandridge
& Rice, POB 831 Raleigh, NC 27601, USA, Phone: 919-755-2100.
SANOFIS-AVENTIS GROUP: Novel Antibiotic Linked to Liver Failures
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Annals of Internal Medicine reports that three patients
experienced serious liver toxicity following administration of
Ketek (telithromycin). These cases have also been reported to
FDA MedWatch. Telithromycin is marketed and used extensively in
many other countries, including countries in Europe and Japan.
While it is difficult to determine the actual frequency of
adverse events from voluntary reporting systems such as the
MedWatch program, the FDA is continuing to evaluate the issue of
liver problems in association with use of telithromycin in order
to determine if labeling changes or other actions are warranted.
As a part of this, FDA is continuing to work to understand
better the frequency of liver-related adverse events reported
for approved antibiotics, including telithromycin.
While the FDA is continuing its investigation of this issue, it
is being recommended to healthcare providers and patients that:
(1) Healthcare providers should monitor patients taking
telithromycin for signs or symptoms of liver problems.
Telithromycin should be stopped in patients who develop
signs or symptoms of liver problems;
(2) Patients who have been prescribed telithromycin and are
not experiencing side effects such as jaundice should
continue taking their medicine as prescribed unless
otherwise directed by their healthcare provider;
(3) Patients who notice any yellowing of their eyes or skin
or other problems like blurry vision should contact
their healthcare provider immediately; and
(4) As with all antibiotics, telithromycin should only be
used for infections caused by a susceptible
microorganism. Telithromycin is not effective in
treating viral infections, so a patient with a viral
infection should not receive telithromycin since they
would be exposed to the risk of side effects without
any benefit.
The case review on Jan. 20, 2005 by Annals of Internal Medicine
reports three serious adverse events following administration of
telithromycin. All three patients developed jaundice and
abnormal liver function. One patient recovered, one required a
transplant, and one died. When the livers of the latter two
patients were examined in laboratory tests, they showed massive
tissue death. These two patients had reported some alcohol use.
All three patients had previously been healthy and were not
using other prescription drugs. The FDA is also aware that
these patients were all treated by physicians in the same
geographic area. The significance of this observation is not
clear now.
In pre-marketing clinical studies, including a large safety
trial and data from other countries, the occurrence of liver
problems was infrequent and usually reversible. Based on the
pre-marketing clinical data, it appeared that the risk of liver
injury with telithromycin was similar to that of other marketed
antibiotics. Nonetheless, the product label advises doctors
about the potential for liver-related adverse events associated
with the use of telithromycin.
Telithromycin is an antibiotic of the ketolide class. It was
the first antibiotic of this class to be approved by the FDA in
April, 2004 for the treatment of respiratory infections in
adults caused by several types of susceptible microorganisms
including Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae.
Sanofi-Aventis Group manufactures the drug, according to All
Headline News.
SIPEX CORPORATION: Settles Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara, approved settlement of a shareholder derivative action
(Sipex Derivative Cases Included Actions: Nagdev v. Maghribi, et
al. and Lie v. McBurnie, et al.) pending against certain of
Sipex Corp.'s current and former directors and officers.
The $6 million settlement, according to EE Times, involves the
adoption of certain corporate governance measures and payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses to the derivative plaintiff's
counsel, funded entirely by proceeds of directors and officers
insurance policy proceeds.
"This settlement, taken together with preliminarily approved
settlement of the shareholder class action lawsuit and the
$7,000,000 loan agreement funding the Company, are major
milestones that have now been achieved by the Company. Our
customers and investors have been patiently waiting for
financial information. Sipex has been diligently working to
complete their audit of the 2003 & 2004 financials. We look
forward to releasing this information as soon as reasonably
practicable. It is hard to be patient, but the Company has been
very diligent in its review and preparation of its financial
statements to ensure accuracy and integrity," said Clyde Ray
Wallin, Chief Financial Officer.
UNITED STATES: Four Men File Suit over 9/11 Related Deportations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The unusual depositions of four men suing the U.S. government
for unlawful imprisonment and abuse in the wake of the September
11 attacks began on Jan. 23, according to their attorneys at the
Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR).
The suit styled, "Turkmen v. Ashcroft," was filed in September
2002 to challenge the arbitrary detention and mistreatment of
immigration detainees by prison guards and high-level Bush
Administration officials.
With no evidence of any connection to terrorism, hundreds of
Arab and South Asian Muslim men were rounded up on the basis of
racial and religious profiling and subject to unlawful detention
and abuse at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, NY.
All of the men were eventually deported, but after long and
complicated negotiations, four of the plaintiffs have returned
under strict conditions to participate in their case against the
government. The depositions will take place over the next two
weeks in New York City. Further depositions of both plaintiffs
and defendants will take place in the coming months.
In the Turkmen suit, CCR challenges the unconstitutional
detention of non-citizens arrested on civil immigration charges
but held for investigation into potential ties to terrorism long
after their immigration issues were resolved and until they
could be cleared of any connection to terrorism. The suit
describes the inhumane and degrading treatment they suffered,
including solitary confinement, a complete blackout on
communication with their families and attorneys, excessive strip
searches, severe beatings by guards, incessant verbal abuse, and
deliberate interference with their religious practices.
The four men, Yasser Ebrahim, Asif-ur-Rehman Saffi, Hany Ibrahim
and Ashraf Ibrahim, will be barred from speaking to anyone
outside of the case while they are here, including family
members and friends in the U.S. Attorneys from the Department of
Justice as well as for the individual defendants named in the
suit will depose them.
Despite the fact that the allegations of inhumane and degrading
treatment have been substantiated by two reports of the Justice
Department's Office of the Inspector General, discipline has
been slow in coming from the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn Fine, testifying
before Congress in June 2005, criticized the long delay and
urged expeditious and appropriate action in disciplining at
least 10 of those responsible. The Center for Constitutional
Rights welcomed news that disciplinary actions had finally been
taken by the Bureau of Prisons: so far, in December 2005 and
January 2006, five men from the Metropolitan Detention Center
(MDC) have been disciplined for their role in the abuse: two
were terminated, two were suspended for 30 days, and one was
demoted. More actions may be pending.
CCR Legal Director Bill Goodman said, "Our clients have returned
to the U.S. to fight for justice. They were deprived of their
rights and abused simply because of their ethnicity and
religion, and we at the Center for Constitutional Rights are
determined to challenge the unlawful actions of those
responsible. Former Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director
Robert Mueller were among the architects of the plan to deprive
these individuals of their rights, and we plan to hold them
accountable in this lawsuit."
CCR attorney Rachel Meeropol said, "To our knowledge, there has
never before been a case where immigrants who had been deported
were allowed to return to the country to participate in a
lawsuit, and we look forward to using their time here to
strengthen our case against defendants."
"While the three-year delay in taking disciplinary action
remains a major concern, we commend the Bureau of Prisons for
finally disciplining some of the guards who participated in this
outrageous abuse," said CCR attorney Matthew Strugar. "It means
a lot to our clients that finally someone is being held
accountable for the brutality they experienced, but we believe
the responsibility for these abuses goes further up the chain of
command at the Bureau of Prisons and we are disappointed more
individuals have not yet been held accountable."
The suit is styled, "Turkmen et al. v. Ashcroft et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-02307-JG-SMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New York under Judge John Gleeson with referral to
Judge Steven M. Gold. Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Jo C.
Bennett of McDaniel, Bennett & Griffin, 118 West Mulberry St.,
Baltimore, MD 21201, Phone: 410-685-3810, E-mail:
Jcb@mbglawfirm.com; and Rachel Anne Meeropol of Center for
Constitutional Rights, 666 Broadway 7th Floor, New York, NY
10012, Phone: 212-614-6432, Fax: 212-614-6499, E-mail:
rachelm@ccr-ny.org. Representing the Defendant/s are:
(1) Dennis C. Barghaan, Larry L. Gregg and Brian D Miller
of The Office of the United States Attorney, E.D. Va.,
Civil Division, 2100 Jamieson Ave., Alexandria, VA
22314, Phone: 703-299-3700, Fax: 703-299-3983, E-mail:
dennis.barghaan@usdoj.gov, larry.gregg2@usdoj.gov and
brian.miller@usdoj.gov;
(2) Raymond P. Cash, 116-02 Queens Blvd., Forest Hills, NY
11375, Phone: 718-793-1331, Fax: 718-793-4089, E-mail:
crcash1@aol.com;
(3) Linda Cronin of Cronin & Byczek, LLP, 1981 Marcus Ave.,
New Hyde Park, NY 11042, Phone: 516-358-1700, Fax: 516-
358-1730, E-mail: lcronin@cblawyers.net;
(4) Joshua C. Klein of Duval & Stachenfeld, LLP, 300 East
42nd St., New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-883-1700, Fax:
212-883-8883, E-mail: jklein@dsllp.com; and
(5) Craig Lawrence of U.S. Attorney's Office, D.D.C., 555
4th St., NW Washington, DC 20001, Phone: (202) 514-
7151, E-mail: craig.lawrence@usdoj.gov.
XM SATELLITE: Lawsuit Filed v. Commercial-free Music Channels
-------------------------------------------------------------
XM Satellite Radio is facing a federal lawsuit for allegedly
deceiving listeners that it's marketing of music channels is
completely commercial-free, The Washington Times reports.
Matthew Enderlin of Arkansas filed the case on Jan. 10 in U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas seeking
punitive damages. He is further asking the court to stop the
firm from advertising and selling "commercial-free" products.
S. Gene Cauley, managing partner of the Little Rock law firm
Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams, is representing Mr. Enderlin.
He plans to file a motion for class-action certification within
the next 60 days. Mr. Enderlin will be representing fellow
consumers in the state, who subscribed to the service or bought
equipment needed to hear it since Nov. 12, 2001. The suit
estimates the group to be "in millions." XM has more than 6
million subscribers, according to the report.
The suit also says XM's commercial-free claim violates the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. It identifies similar
statutes in 41 states and the District of Columbia. XM
spokesman Nathaniel Brown dismisses the suit as without merit.
Meanwhile, Timothy E. Eble, a lawyer specializing in class-
action litigation, says he doesn't "think much" of the suit. He
cites variations of deceptive practices statues from state to
state and the difficulty of proving what exactly constitutes a
commercial as obstacles to a possible class action. XM channels
often cross-promote, he said.
The suit is styled, "Enderlin v. XM Satellite Radio Holdings
Inc., Case No. 4:06-cv-00032-GTE," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas under Judge G. Thomas
Eisele. Representing the Plaintiff/s are, James Allen Carney,
Jr., Steven Eugene Cauley and Tiffany M. Wyatt Oldham of Cauley
Bowman Carney & Williams, LLP, Post Office Box 25438, Little
Rock, AR 72221-5438, Phone: (501) 312-8500, E-mail:
acarney@cauleybowman.com and toldham@cauleybowman.com.
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
January 25, 2006
CONCRETE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Laguna Niguel, Dana Point, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
January 26-27, 2006
DEFENSE STRATEGIES IN PHARMACEUTICAL LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Laguna Niguel, Dana Point, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
January 26-27, 2006
AUTO INSURANCE CLAIMS AND LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Las Vegas
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com
January 28, 2005
TORTS PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB
Santa Clara Convention Center, Santa Clara
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
January 28, 2005
TORTS PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB
Sheraton Anaheim, Anaheim
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
February 2-3, 2006
SOLVENT SCHEMES OF ARRANGEMENT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
February 9, 2006
LEXISNEXIST PRESENTS WALL STREET FORUM: ASBESTOS Mealey
Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
February 13-14, 2006
FUNDAMENTALS OF ASBESTOS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
February 13-14, 2006
FUNDAMENTALS OF INSURANCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
February 16-17, 2006
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Coral Gables, Miami, Florida
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
February 23-24, 2006
LITIGATING DISABILITY INSURANCE CLAIMS
American Conference Institute
Miami
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com
February 27-28, 2006
REINSURANCE AGREEMENTS
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com
March 9-10, 2006
TOXIC TORT UPDATE: TEXAS
Mealey Publications
Las Colinas Four Seasons, Dallas, Texas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 23-24, 2006
FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE LITIGATION & ARBITRATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 30, 2006
EMAIL DISCOVERY & RETENTION POLICIES CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Grand Hyatt, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March, 2006
BIRTH CONTROL PATCH LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Dallas, TX
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
April 5-8, 2006
13TH INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 25-26, 2006
INSURANCE COVERAGE 2006: CLAIM TRENDS & LITIGATION
Practising Law Institute
New York
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu
September 28-30, 2006
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
January 02-31, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
January 02-31, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
January 02-31, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
January 02-31, 2006
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
January 02-31, 2006
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org
________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
_______________________________________________________________
New Securities Fraud Cases
AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Lerach Coughlin Files PA Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP initiated
class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of Amkor
Technology, Inc. (AMKR) common stock between Oct. 27, 2003 and
July 1, 2004.
The complaint (http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/amkor/)charges
Amkor and certain of its officers and directors with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Amkor operates as a
subcontractor of semiconductor packaging and test services
worldwide. The Company offers traditional packaging, which
includes traditional leadframe products; and advanced packaging,
which includes advanced leadframes and laminate products.
The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's increasing financial performance. These
statements were each materially false and misleading when made
because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented these
adverse facts, among others:
(1) that the Company was stuffing its customers with
inventory far in excess of demand for the products and,
as a result, customer inventories were rising above
historical levels such that future sales would be
impacted;
(2) that the Company was experiencing rapidly rising
material costs which were far in excess of budgeted
material costs, thereby negatively impacting the
Company's profit margins;
(3) that the Company had stuffed its distribution channels
prior to its note offering in order to artificially
inflate the Company's operating results so that the
Company could successfully raise $152 million; and
(4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company and its business were
lacking in a reasonable basis at all times and
therefore materially false and misleading.
On Apr. 27, 2004, Amkor issued a press release announcing that
the Company was experiencing weakness for its cell phone
products. Upon this news, the price of Amkor common stock
declined from $13.42 per share to $9.16 per share on extremely
heavy trading volume.
On July 1, 2004, Amkor issued a press release announcing that it
could not meet its expected guidance for net income in the
second quarter of 2004. In response to this announcement the
price of Amkor common stock declined from $8.18 per share to
$5.79 per share on extremely heavy trading volume of 17.2
million shares.
Then, on August 22, 2005, Amkor issued a press release
announcing that the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a
formal order of investigation concerning certain trading in
Amkor securities. The SEC investigation relates to transactions
in the Company's securities by certain individuals, including
certain insiders or former insiders and persons associated with
them.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Amkor common stock during the Class Period (the "Class").
The plaintiff is represented by Lerach Coughlin.
For more information, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A.
Rosenfeld of Lerach Coughlin (http://www.lerachlaw.com),Phone:
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058; E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com.
MILLS CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class action lawsuit
on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock and
other securities of The Mills Corp. (MLS) between Aug. 14, 2003
and Jan. 06, 2006, inclusive. The class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia.
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of The Mills
Corporation securities. No class has yet been certified in the
above action.
For more information, contact Evan J. Smith, Esquire or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esquire at Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite
602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com;
Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 (toll free).
MILLS CORPORATION: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of The Mills Corp. between Aug. 14, 2003 and
Jan. 6, 2006, inclusive. The lawsuit was filed against Mills
and certain officers and directors.
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges
that Defendants issued a series of false and misleading
statements regarding the status of the Company's pre-development
projects, as well as its financial condition and the need to
make further restatements. In particular, these statements were
false and misleading because the Company misrepresented or
failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company's accounting treatment with respect to its
MEI subsidiary was inappropriate;
(2) that the Company's mismatched the accrual of its Long
Term Incentive Plan (LTIP) liabilities with employee
service periods;
(3) that ten of the Company's pre-development projects were
failing and needed to be written-off; and
(4) that the Company's financial statements were not
prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP).
On October 31, 2005, Mills said that it was moving its
conference call to discuss its financial results for the third
quarter because it needed additional time to "evaluate the
accounting for several items." Shares reacted negatively to the
warning, falling $7.61 per share, or 14% to close at $45.68 per
share. Then on November 9, 2005, Mills announced poor financial
results, with Funds From Operations declining 35%, and announced
numerous write offs for previously undisclosed projects. Shares
again reacted negatively, falling from $41.92 per share to
$39.50 per share, a decline of 5.7%. The Company also announced
that several top-level executives, including its chief
accounting officer, chief operating officer, and general counsel
had announced plans to leave the Company.
On January 6, 2006, after the market closed, Mills announced
that it would be restating its financial results from 2000
through 2004, and the first nine months of 2005 primarily
related to inappropriate accounting at its MEI subsidiary and to
correct accounting for long term incentive compensation. In
addition, the Company also announced that it would write-off ten
pre-development projects, and would take a charge of $71
million. Shares of Mills reacted negatively to the news,
falling from $42.23 on January 6, 2006 to $41.01, a decline of
2.8%.
For more information, contact The Law Firm of Lasky & Rifkind,
Ltd., E-mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com; Phone:
(800) 495-1868.
MILLS CORPORATION: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in VA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates initiated class action against The Mills
Corporation, (MLS), The Mills Limited Partnership, and certain
of its officers, on behalf of purchasers of Mills common stock
between August 14, 2003 through and including January 6, 2006.
The lawsuit alleges that Mills violated federal securities laws
by issuing false or misleading public statements. Specifically,
it will be alleged that Mills and various of its officers
overstated the Company's net income and funds from operations in
violation of accounting rules and misrepresented the adequacy
and quality of its internal controls over financial reporting.
The action will be filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia.
On Oct. 31, 2005, Mills said its third quarter results would be
delayed because the company needed additional time to review its
accounting. It further said the Company expected results to be
lower than initially anticipated. The Company then reported
markedly lower financial results for the third quarter of 2005.
Thereafter, Mills announced a list of bad news, including the
need to restate its financial results for fiscal year 2000
through the third quarter of 2005; and that it would write off
ten predevelopment business projects, and incur a charge to
earnings of $71 million. This was the second time in a little
over a year that the Company was forced to restate its financial
statements. Prior to the release of all of the bad news,
Company insiders sold millions of dollars worth of Mills stock
at prices in the $50 range.
From Oct. 31, 2005 to Jan. 20, 2006, the price of Mill shares
dropped over 28 percent, wiping out over $800,000,000 of
shareholder value.
For more information, contact Roy Jacobs & Associates, Phone:
1-888-884-4490 (toll free): E-mail: CLASSATTORNEY@PIPELINE.COM.
MILLS CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated class action in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of
all persons who acquired the publicly traded securities of The
Mills Corp. between Aug. 14, 2003 and Jan. 6, 2006, inclusive.
The Complaint alleges defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false statements
regarding Mills' financial condition. Specifically, defendants
failed to disclose that:
(1) Mills' accounting treatment with respect to its MEI
subsidiary was inappropriate;
(2) Mills mismatched the accrual of its Long Term Incentive
Plan (LTIP) liabilities with employee service periods;
(3) ten of the Company's pre-development projects were
failing and needed to be written-off; and
(4) the Company's financial statements were not prepared in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP).
On Oct. 31, 2005, Mills said its third quarter results would be
delayed because the company needed additional time to review its
accounting, and that the Company expected results to be lower
than initially anticipated. Then on Nov. 9, 2005, Mills
announced poor financial results, with Funds From Operations
declining 35%, and numerous write offs for previously
undisclosed projects. Mills also announced that several top-
level executives had announced plans to leave the Company.
Finally, On Jan. 6, 2006, Mills announced that it would be
restating its financial results from 2000 through 2004, and the
first nine months of 2005 primarily related to inappropriate
accounting at its MEI subsidiary and to correct accounting for
long term incentive compensation. In addition, Mills would
write-off ten pre-development projects and would take a charge
of $71 million.
For more information, contact Schatz & Nobel, Phone:
(800) 797-5499 (toll-free); E-mail: sn06106@aol.com; Web site:
http://www.snlaw.net.
*********
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, Teena Canson 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 * * *