/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060320.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 20, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 56 Headlines 360NETWORKS INC: May Hearing Set for $7M Stock Suit Settlement ACS STATE: Calif. State Court Takes Camera Suit Under Submission AMERICAN TACK: Recalls Nite Lite After Several Fire Reports ARIZONA: Judge Rejects Bid to Lift Student Exemptions from AIMS ARKANSAS: High Court Allows Teacher to Sue Van Buren District BELLSOUTH CORP: Shareholders File Lawsuit Over $67M Sale Price BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Narrow Damages Claim in IPO Suit CALIFORNIA: Judge Rules LA County Violated Prisoners' Rights CALIFORNIA: Mental Health Care Ordered for State's Foster Kids CAREER EDUCATION: Calif. Court Sets Case Conference for Nilsen CAREER EDUCATION: Court Grants Motion for FLSA Notice in Vennet CAREER EDUCATION: Fla. Court Stays Unfair Trade Practices Suit CAREER EDUCATION: Ill. Court Mulls Securities Lawsuit Dismissal CAREER EDUCATION: N.Y. Court Grants Motion for Suit Arbitration CAREER EDUCATION: Parties Enter Discovery Stage in Calif. Cases COLORADO: Rocky Flats Case Defense Lawyers Got $49.8M, DOE Says DYNAMEX INC: Former, Present Drivers File Calif. Overtime Suit DYNAMEX INC: Former Worker Files FLSA Violations Lawsuit in N.Y. DYNAMEX INC: Reaches Settlement for Ill. Drivers' Overtime Suit ESKOM: Trade Union Mulls Suit V. South African Power Company EXXON MOBIL: $5B Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Damages Remain Unpaid FLORIDA: $2M Remains Untaken in Port St. Lucie Utility Fees Suit GENERAL ELECTRIC: Fla. Couple Wants to Join Fridge Settlement GUAM: Court Consolidates Lawsuits Over Earned Income Tax Credit H-E-B: Recalls Baby Foods on Reports of Glass Pieces Inside Jars HOS TRADING: Issues Alert on Sulfite-Containing Fungus Product KANSAS: Wichita Police Officers Launch Race Discrimination Suit KENTUCKY: Judge Finds Local Lawyers in Breach of Duty to Clients LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Settles Securities Fraud Suit for $3.5M MARATHON OIL: Faces Lawsuit in W.Va. Over Defective Gasoline MARATHON OIL: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Certain Claims in Singh Case NORBOURG GROUP: Montreal Lawyer May be in Conflict of Interest NORTEL NETWORKS: Insurers Boost Settlement With $228.5M Payment OHIO: Steubenville Traffic Camera May be Permanently Banned OHIO: Hamilton County Ordered to Pay for Wrongful Detentions OHIO: Court Sets Limit on Traffic Camera Lawsuit V. Girard City OHIO: Kenneth Blackwell Agrees to Remove Social Security Numbers REFCO INC: Underwriters Move to Stall Probe Pending Discovery ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Agilent Shareholders Urged to File Claims ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Intersil Shareholders Urged to File Claims SIPEX CORP: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 6, 2006 STOCK EXCHANGES: Antitrust Settlement Hearing Set May 1, 2006 SWISHER INTERNATIONAL: Merging with HB Fairview to Settle Suit UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Students Fees Ruling Appeal Criticized WARBURG PINCUS: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set April 24, 2006 WASHINGTON: Workers, National Group File Suit Over Union Dues WDET 101.9: Exec Accused of Embezzling In-kind Contributions XCHANGE INC: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set May 1, 2006 New Securities Fraud Cases BAUSCH & LOMB: Stull, Stull & Brody Files Securities Fraud Suit CHICAGO BRIDGE: Murray, Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ********* 360NETWORKS INC: May Hearing Set for $7M Stock Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, U.S.D.J., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a settlement fairness hearing for the proposed $7 million settlement in the matter, "In re 360networks Securities Litigation (02 CV 4837 (MGC)." The case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired 360networks, Inc. subordinate voting shares between April 20, 2000 and June 28, 2001, inclusive. The hearing will be on May 18, 2006, 10:00 a.m. at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 14A, New York, New York. Deadline for filing proof of claim and release is June 8, 2006. Deadline for filing request for exclusion and objection is May 11, 2006. The suits against 360networks alleged that throughout the class period, the Company reported strong year-over-year revenue growth, when it has, in fact, diminishing revenue growth (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 19, 2002). The complaint alleged that in order to create the impression that the Company was continuing to experience growth, the Company engaged in a series of reciprocal transactions with certain competitors for the purchase and sale of dark fiber optic cable -- the so-called dark fiber swap (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 19, 2002). The complaint claimed that as a result of these transactions, the Company artificially inflated its operating results and materially misrepresented its financial results at all relevant times. The suit names certain officers and directors of the company as defendants along with the accounting firm PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 19, 2002). For more information, contact 360networks Securities Litigation c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, Post Office Box 91035, Seattle, WA 98111-9135, Phone: (866) 630- 2245; Web site: http://www.360networksclassaction.com. Representing the Lead Plaintiff is of David r. Scott of Scott + Scott, LLC, 108 Norwich Ave, P.O. Box 192, Colchester, Connecticut 06415. Representing the defendants are: Samuel Kadet of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Four Times Square, New York, New York 10036-6522; and Robert J. Jossen of Dechert LLP, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York 10112-2200. ACS STATE: Calif. State Court Takes Camera Suit Under Submission ---------------------------------------------------------------- Superior Court Judge Linda Quinn took under submission a class action alleging that contracts secured by a red-light camera company with San Diego and several other San Diego County cities, violate state law, The Fox6 News reports. During a two-week trial before Judge Quinn, attorneys for the plaintiffs said the contracts were illegal because ACS State and Local Solutions Inc. made money only when the cameras caught motorists running red lights, meaning the company decided who was ticketed, instead of law enforcement. Attorneys for the camera company though countered that their contracts were legal and a court ultimately decides whether a motorist has run a red light. The judge is expected to rule on the lawsuit within 30 days. In October 2001, a different judge dismissed 300 red-light tickets in San Diego, saying a private company had too much control over the program. Since then, San Diego and other cities in the county, have reinstated red-light camera programs. Previously, it was uncertain whether the class action against the operator of California's traffic camera system was going forward, especially after the plaintiffs' withdrawal of a similar suit filed against two cities. Attorneys representing thousands of motorists who sued San Francisco and San Diego, however, later said that they would continue to sue ACS and Local Solutions, a company that operates the camera systems throughout California, (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 24, 2006). Plaintiffs are represented by lawyers: Brian Burchett of Sullivan Hill Lewin Rez & Engel, A Professional Law Corporation, 550 West C Street, Suite 1500, San Diego, California 92101-3540, (San Diego Co.), Phone: 619-233-4100; Rapifax: 619-231-4372; and Eugene G. Iredale, 105 West "F" Street, Fourth Floor, San Diego, California 92101, (San Diego Co.), Phone: 619-233-1525, Fax: 619-233-3221. AMERICAN TACK: Recalls Nite Lite After Several Fire Reports ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with American Tack & Hardware Co. Inc. of Saddle River, New Jersey, is recalling about 35,000 units of "Forever-Glo Nite Lites." The company said an electrical short circuit in the nite lite can cause it to overheat and smolder or melt which can burn consumers or result in a fire. AmerTac has received nine reports of incidents involving the recalled nite lites smoking, burning, melting and/or charring. No injuries have been reported. The recalled "Forever-Glo Nite Lites" look like small picture frames that are plugged into the wall. Only model numbers 75001 or 75002 with a manufacture date of April 2004 or later are included in this recall. Model 75001 is white or bronze-colored and has molded scroll-work around the front of the nite lite. "Model 75001" is printed on the back of the nite lite. Model 75002 is silver-colored and has a punched tin frame. "Model C8A5" is printed on the back. Both nite lite models measure about 3 inches by 3 inches and are about 1/4 inch thick. "AmerTac" and a circle with the month and year of manufacture are indicated on the back of the nite lites. The nite lites were made in China, and sold at hardware stores, lighting showrooms and home centers nationwide from May 2004 through December 2005 for about $3. Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled nite lites immediately. If the units are plugged into the wall, turn off the power at the circuit box and remove the light from the wall socket and contact the firm for a full refund or two free replacement nite lites. Picture of the recalled nite lites: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06109a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06109b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06109c.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06109d.jpg Consumer Contact: American Tack, Phone: (800) 420-7511 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday: Web site: http://www.amertac.comor http://www.recall-center.com. ARIZONA: Judge Rejects Bid to Lift Student Exemptions from AIMS --------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Raner C. Collins refused to retreat on his order prohibiting the state of Arizona from applying its new high school graduation test to students learning the English language, The Associated Press reports. Essentially, the judge denied a request by state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne to temporarily put the judge's order on hold while he appeals to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) is a math, reading and science test. Beginning this spring, high school students must pass the test to get a diploma. Mr. Horne's lawyer argued that Judge Collins should stay his AIMS order, since vital and broad public interests are at stake, irreparable harm is certain and imminent, and there are debatable legal issues. Judge Collins though rejected his arguments and stated in an order that repeatedly referred to the years that have passed since a 2000 ruling by the judge's predecessor, "The state has failed to comply with federal law for nearly six years." Any hardship caused the state "is negligible when compared to the irreparable harm ELL students have suffered for nearly six years due to the state's inaction," Judge Collins said. Plaintiffs in the class action challenging the adequacy of Arizona's instruction for approximately 150,000 English Language Learning (ELL) students argued that the state's failure to improve ELL programs made it unfair for the state to impose the mandate on those students, and Judge Collins agreed in a December 2005 order. Department of Education officials revealed that approximately 1,400 ELL students would be affected by the exemption this year. Judge Collins is also considering a motion by the state to distribute to schools the $21 million in daily fines that the state accumulated for failing to meet a deadline set by the judge to improve and adequately funding the program. He has scheduled an April 3 hearing on whether a law passed March 2 satisfies his order. Previously, Judge Collins ordered the Legislature to improve and adequately fund Arizona's educational programs for students learning the English language and set fines that would rise to $2 million a day if deadlines aren't met. The order was part of a 13-year-old education class action entitled, "Flores, et al. v. Arizona, State of, et al.," which was originally filed in 1992 on behalf of Nogales Unified School District students and parents, (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 20, 2005). Judge Collins ordered fines to start at $500,000 a day beginning 15 days after the January 9 start of the Republican-led Legislature's 2006 regular session if lawmakers haven't fixed the programs and increased their funding. The fines would eventually rise to $1 million a day and $1.5 million at designated points beyond that until reaching $2 million a day at the end of the session, (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 20, 2005). In his 2000 ruling, the other judge ruled that Arizona's programs were inadequately funded, leaving shortfalls in such areas as teacher training, class sizes and instructional material, in violation of a federal civil rights law requiring equal opportunities in education. The suit is styled, "Flores, et al. v. Arizona, State of, et al., Case No. 4:92-cv-00596-RCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, under Judge Raner C. Collins. Representing the plaintiffs is Timothy Michael Hogan of Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, 202 E. McDowell Rd., Ste. 153, Phoenix, AZ 85004, Phone: 602-258-8850, Fax: 602-258-8757, E-mail: thogan@aclpi.org. Representing the defendants are, Lynne Christensen Adams and Jose A. Cardenas of Lewis & Roca, LLP, 40 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004-4429, Phone: 602-262-5372 and 602-262-5790, Fax: 602-734-4015 and 602-734-3852, E-mail: ladams@lrlaw.com and JCARDENAS@LRLAW.COM. ARKANSAS: High Court Allows Teacher to Sue Van Buren District ------------------------------------------------------------- The Arkansas Supreme Court cleared the way for a Van Buren schoolteacher to launch a class action against his district, The Associated Press reports. Steven Jones alleges he and others were not fully paid for the time they worked. In their ruling, justices upheld a Crawford County Circuit Court ruling that gave Mr. Jones a class- certification against the Van Buren School District. In 2003, Mr. Jones filed a complaint against the district, claiming breach of contract, since teachers were not paid for time worked in the morning or for afternoon faculty meetings, and at other times during the day. He also argued in his suit that teachers' 30-minute lunch periods were shortened due to teacher duties. The school district countered that Mr. Jones's contract was based on a daily rate and not an hourly rate. It also said there was no school board policy establishing a fixed number of hours for each working school day. BELLSOUTH CORP: Shareholders File Lawsuit Over $67M Sale Price -------------------------------------------------------------- Several BellSouth Corp. shareholders initiated a lawsuit in Georgia's Fulton County Superior Court that seeks to stop the Company's acquisition by San Antonio, Texas-based AT&T. The investors are arguing the $67 billion sale price is too low, according to Bloomberg News. The suit accuses Company Chairman and CEO Duane Ackerman, President and Chief Operating Officer Mark Feidler, and Company board members of violating their fiduciary duty to investors by failing to seek a better offer. The plaintiffs are seeking class action status on behalf of all Company shareholders. According to the complaint, which was filed on March 9, 2006, "The terms of the proposed transaction were not the result of an auction process or active market check. It was arrived at without a full and thorough investigation by the individual defendants of strategic alternatives and the proposed transaction is intrinsically unfair and inadequate." Company spokesman Jeff Battcher told Bloomberg that Bellsouth would fight the suit saying, "BellSouth feels this lawsuit is completely merit less." AT&T, which plans to acquire Company in an all-stock deal, agreed to terms that at the time represented a 17.9 percent premium over where BellSouth shares were trading. Analysts had long expected that AT&T, given several close ties between the companies, would acquire the Company. Currently, they are partners in owning Cingular Wireless, the nation's largest cellphone provider. Based in Atlanta, Georgia, BellSouth -- http://www.bellsouth.com -- is local exchange carrier (ILEC) for nine states from Louisiana to Kentucky. It owns 40% of Cingular Wireless, a mobile phone operator in the U.S. after its acquisition of rival AT&T Wireless. BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Narrow Damages Claim in IPO Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in BIOLASE Technology, Inc.'s class action have filed a third amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On January 18, 2006, the court granted BIOLASE's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' second amended complaint but gave them leave to amend. The third amended complaint continues to allege that BIOLASE and its officers violated the federal securities laws by: (1) failing to disclose material information, (2) making false statements, and (3) taking actions to artificially inflate and maintain the market price of the Company's common stock. However, the third amended complaint seeks damages only on behalf of an alleged class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired BIOLASE common stock pursuant or traceable to BIOLASE's March 2004 public offering. BIOLASE Technology -- http://www.biolase.com-- (NASDAQ: BLTI) is a medical technology company that develops, manufactures and markets lasers and related products focused on technologies for improved applications and procedures in dentistry and medicine. The Company's products incorporate patented and patent pending technologies focused on reducing pain and improving clinical results. The suit is styled "Van Dam Holdings Ltd. v. Biolase Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:04-cv-947," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, under Judge David O. Carter. Lead plaintiffs Alan Harvey and Elizabeth Paul are represented by Dale Joseph MacDiarmid, Lionel Z. Glancy, Peter Arthur Binkow of Glancy Binkow and Goldberg, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067, USA, Phone: 310-201- 9150. CALIFORNIA: Judge Rules LA County Violated Prisoners' Rights ------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. District Court Judge Dean D. Pregerson tentatively ruled in a class action against Los Angeles County that it violated thousands of jail inmates' rights by requiring them to sleep on mattresses on concrete floors, The Associated press reports. Stephen Yagman, the attorney who filed the suit on behalf of about 24,000 inmates, told The Associated Press that the county could face damages of $100 million if the ruling becomes final and if more plaintiffs join the case. Mr. Yagman previously argued that floor sleeping deprived inmates of their dignity and violated their due process rights under the 14th Amendment. In his ruling, Judge Pregerson said the practice indicated an "endemic problem" in "dysfunctional," overcrowded facilities. He further stated, "There is something inherently wrong with what is happening at the institution when it reaches a level where so many sleep on the floor." However, David D. Lawrence, a private attorney representing the county, argued that requiring inmates to sleep on floors would be illegal only if it resulted in poor health or unsafe conditions. He pointed out, "It's not an issue of numbers; this is the largest jail in the country. It doesn't follow that because there's a lot of them, there's a single constitutional violation." After hearing from both sides Judge Pregerson gave attorneys time to make additional arguments before he issues a final ruling. The sheriff's department, which runs the county jail system, stopped having inmates sleep on floors last September by opening additional facilities and granting early release to some prisoners convicted of misdemeanors, Marc Klugman, chief of the Correctional Services Division told The Associated Press. For more details, contact Stephen Yagman of Yagman & Yagman & Reichmann, 723 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, California 90291, Phone: (310) 452-3200, Web site: http://www.yagmanlaw.net/; David A. Lawrence of Couzens, Lansky, Fealk, Ellis, Roeder & Lazar, P.C., 39395 West 12 Mile Road, Suite 200, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48331-2913, (Oakland Co.), Phone: 248-489-8600, Fax: 248-489-4156. CALIFORNIA: Mental Health Care Ordered for State's Foster Kids -------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz ordered the state of California to provide mental health services to foster children who otherwise could face institutionalization, The San Francisco Chronicle reports. The federal judge issued the decision in a class action that challenged keeping abused and neglected children with mental health problems in hospitals and group homes. In a recently issued preliminary injunction, Judge Matz said, "The unmet mental health needs and the harms of unnecessary institutionalization are no less grave now" than when advocates for the children filed the lawsuit in 2002. The injunction directed state officials to begin "therapeutic foster care" and family-based "wraparound" services, such as counseling and health care, for children within six months. It could affect more than 50,000 children being denied such care across the state, according to Patrick Gardner of the National Center for Youth Law in Oakland, California, an attorney representing the children. More than 80,000 children are in foster care in California. Mr. Gardner told The San Francisco Chronicle, "It means that you're not going to see the kinds of failures that happen in families that are overstressed. These are some of the most vulnerable kids in the state." In particular, he cited the case of a mentally ill teenager who slashed the throat of a 75-year- old Berkeley woman a year ago near the Berkeley Rose Garden. The woman survived. Attorneys discussed the case at a March 15 hearing. A report about where the girl could serve her sentence on an assault charge is due in two weeks. Additionally, Mr. Gardner reiterates, "Most kids, if given the opportunity to succeed at home, can avoid being criminalized by essentially what are behaviors that come about by their mental illness. We would hope that we could provide these services before something so serious happens." The lawsuit was filed on behalf of five children in the custody of Los Angeles County officials, who settled their part of the case in 2003. As part of the agreement, the county shut a children's shelter where youths had reported being abused and neglected. The plaintiffs asked the judge to force the state to take similar steps. Attorneys for the children wrote last year in court papers, "For many children, the absence of these services has resulted in the unnecessary and preventable decline in their mental health." A consortium of state and national public-interest groups, including the Western Center on Law and Poverty and the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, represented the children. The suit is styled, "Katie A, et al. v. Diana Bonta, et al., Case No. 2:02-cv-05662-AHM-SH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge A. Howard Matz with referral to Judge Stephen J. Hillman. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Patrick H. Gardner of National Center For Youth Law, 405 14th St., 15th Fl., Oakland, CA 94612, Phone: 510- 835-8098; (2) Alison Barkoff of Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, 1101 15th Street Northwest, Suite 1212, Washington, DC 20005, US, Phone: 202-467-5730, E-mail: alisonb@bazelon.org; (3) Melinda R. Bird of Protection & Advocacy, 3580 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 902, Los Angeles, CA 90010-2512, Phone: 213-427-8747, E-mail: melinda.bird@pai-ca.org; and (4) Lew Hollman of Center for Law in the Public Interest, 3250 Ocean Park Blvd., Ste. 300, Santa Monica, CA 90405-3219, Phone: 310-314-1947. Representing the defendants are, Jerry M. Custis of Montery County Counsel, Children's Services Div., 201 Centre Plz Dr Suite 1, Monterey Park, CA 91754-2143, Phone: 323-526-6257; and Sandra L. Goldsmith, CAAG - Office of the Attorney General of California, 300 S. Spring St., Ste. 1702, Los Angeles, CA 90013, Phone: 213-897-2000, Fax: 213-897-2805. CAREER EDUCATION: Calif. Court Sets Case Conference for Nilsen -------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Barbara scheduled a March 7, 2006 case management conference for the class action filed against Career Education Corporation and its subsidiary Brooks Institute of Photography (BIP). The suit is Nilsen v. Career Education Corporation, et al. Three former students of BIP filed the suit on behalf of all students who attended BIP from February 4, 2001, to the present. The complaint primarily alleged that BIP violated the California Education Code, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California unfair competition law by allegedly misleading potential students regarding BIP's placement rates and by engaging in false and misleading advertising. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, disgorgement profits, punitive damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 11, 2005, the Company filed a demurrer, a request to the Court to dismiss, to all causes of action in the complaint. The Court granted the demurrer and allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. The parties also engaged in limited discovery related solely to the issue of class certification. On August 17, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint, alleging: -- violations of the California Education Code, -- violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, -- false advertising in violation of California's unfair competition law; and -- fraud, and unfair competition. Each cause of action in the plaintiffs' first amended complaint arises primarily from allegations that the defendants made misrepresentations to the plaintiffs concerning their career prospects. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, punitive damages, interest and attorneys' fees and costs. On October 17, 2005, defendants filed a motion to stay the case pending the outcome of the administrative proceeding involving BIP and the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE). Defendants also filed a demurrer to the plaintiffs' first amended complaint, and a motion to compel arbitration and stay the action pending the administrative proceeding, if necessary. On December 6, 2005, the Court granted the motion to stay the action pending the administrative proceeding, and reserved ruling on the defendants' demurrer and motion to compel arbitration. The Court set a case management conference on March 7, 2006, and indicated that if the administrative proceeding is not completed by this date, it may vacate the stay, hear the defendants' remaining motions, and allow the case to proceed, subject to the Court's rulings on defendants' outstanding motions. CAREER EDUCATION: Court Grants Motion for FLSA Notice in Vennet --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted plaintiff's motion to send a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) notice for the purported class action filed against Career Education Corporation, American InterContinental University, Inc. (AIU Online) and the president of the Company's Online Education Group, for violations of federal labor law. The suit, styled "Paul Vander Vennet, et. al. v. American InterContinental University, Inc., et. al.," was filed on August 24, 2005 by former admissions advisors of AIU, alleging that the defendants violated the FLSA the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The defendants allegedly failed to pay the plaintiffs for all of the overtime hours they allegedly worked. The plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class under the FLSA and, on August 24, 2005, filed a motion for FLSA Notice. On December 22, 2005, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to send FLSA Notice, and plaintiffs' counsel has distributed such notice to current and former employees. Defendants deny all of the material allegations in the complaint and are vigorously defending the claims and opposing class certification. The suit is styled, "Vennet, et al. v. American Intercontinental University Online, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04889," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge William T. Hart. Representing the plaintiffs is Robin B. Potter of Robin Potter & Associates P.C., 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 861-1800, E-mail: robinpotter@igc.org. Representing the defendants is James M. Gecker of Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, 525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60661, Phone: 312-902-5200, E-mail: james.gecker@kattenlaw.com. CAREER EDUCATION: Fla. Court Stays Unfair Trade Practices Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hillsborough County Superior Court in Florida stayed the class action "Benoit, et al., v. Career Education Corporation, et al.," pending arbitration. Aside from the company, the suit also names as defendants one of the Company's subsidiaries, Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc. (UDS). The action is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who have been enrolled in the Medical Billing and Coding Program (MBC program) at the Tampa campus of UDS in the last four years. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached enrollment contracts with the plaintiffs and other class members and violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (the FDUTPA) by: (1) failing to properly train students, (2) offer and require sufficient hours of course work, provide properly trained instructors, provide appropriate curriculum consistent with the represented degree, award the represented degree, provide adequate career placement services, and (3) by misrepresenting that they would provide such services. The complaint also alleges that the defendants "padded" the MBC program curriculum to charge greater tuition, purportedly in violation of the FDUTPA. Plaintiffs seek actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as the Court deems appropriate. On October 11, 2005, the Court ordered that the lawsuit be stayed pending completion of arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement contained within each of the plaintiffs' enrollment individual agreements. CAREER EDUCATION: Ill. Court Mulls Securities Lawsuit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has yet to rule on Career Education Corporation's motion to dismiss the second amended class action filed against it and two of its executive officers, John M. Larson and Patrick K. Pesch. Between December 9, 2003, and February 5, 2004, six purported class actions were filed on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's common stock. The complaints alleged that in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, the defendants made certain material misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts about the condition of the Company's business and prospects during the putative class periods, causing the respective plaintiffs to purchase shares of the Company's common stock at artificially inflated prices. The plaintiffs further claimed that Mr. Larson and Mr. Pesch are liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Act. The plaintiffs asked for unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief. Five of these lawsuits were found related to the first filed lawsuit, captioned, "Taubenfeld v. Career Education Corporation, et al. (No. 03 CV 8884)," and were reassigned to the same judge. On March 19, 2004, the court ordered these six cases to be consolidated and appointed Thomas Schroeder as lead plaintiff. On April 6, 2004, the court appointed the firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, which represents Mr. Schroeder, as lead counsel. On June 17, 2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which the Company moved to dismiss on July 30, 2004. On February 11, 2005, the Company`s motion to dismiss was granted, without prejudice. On April 1, 2005, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which the Company moved to dismiss on May 20, 2005. Plaintiffs filed their response brief on July 8, 2005, and the Company's reply brief is due August 8, 2005. In addition, the court has issued an order changing the caption of this matter to "In re Career Education Corporation Securities Litigation." The suit is styled "In re Career Education Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-08884," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Anthony F. Fata and Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Faucher and Cafferty, LLP 30 North LaSalle Street Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 782-4880; (2) Joshua Lifshitz, Bull & Lifshitz, LLP 18 East 41st Street New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 213-6222 (3) Andrei V. Rado, Steven G. Schulman, Peter Seidman, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza 49th Floor New York, NY 10119-0165 Phone: (212) 594-5300 Representing the Company are Karl Richard Barnickol, Mary Ellen Hennessy, Joni S. Jacobsen, David H. Kistenbroker, Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman, 525 West Monroe Street Suite 1600 Chicago, Il 60661-3693 Phone: (312) 902-5200. CAREER EDUCATION: N.Y. Court Grants Motion for Suit Arbitration --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Career Education Corporation's motion, seeking arbitration for the class action filed against it. The suit is styled, "Onate and Lawrence, et al. v. The Katharine Gibbs Corp.-New York, the Katharine Gibbs Corp. - Melville, and Career Education Corp." The suit was filed on August 12, 2005 on behalf of persons who enrolled or attended the Katharine Gibbs School (New York) and the Katharine Gibbs School (Melville) between January 1, 2002 and June 30, 2005. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have injured them as a result of what they describe as false and misleading practices. Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for violations of the New York General Obligations law, the New York Education Law as well as for unjust enrichment and punitive damages. They alleged that defendants misrepresented placement and graduation rates, as well as requirements for admissions. They also alleged that defendants misrepresented the reputation of the schools and what defendants would provide in the way of job placement assistance. On October 11, 2005, the Court granted defendants' motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement contained within each of the plaintiffs' individual enrollment agreements. The suit is styled, "Onate, et al. v. The Katherine Gibbs Corp. - New York, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-07196-AKH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Eric James Belfi of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail: ebelfi@murrayfrank.com; (2) Michael D. Braun of Braun LawGroup, P.C., Janet Lindner Spielberg, of Counsel, 12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 920 Los Angeles, CA 90025, Phone: (310) 442-7755; (3) Laurence Paskowitz of Paskowitz & Associates, 60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165, Phone: (212)-685-0969, Fax: (212)-685-2306, E-mail: classattorney@aol.com; (4) Christopher J. Gray of Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C., 460 Park Avenue 21st Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 838-3221, Fax: (212) 508-3695, E- mail: gray@cjgraylaw.com. Representing the defendants is Adam Benjamin Landa of Greenberg Traurig, LLP (NYC), 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166, Phone: 2128012100, Fax: 2128059290, E-mail: landaa@gtlaw.com. CAREER EDUCATION: Parties Enter Discovery Stage in Calif. Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- Pre-trial discovery is ongoing in amended class actions filed against Career Education Corporation and one of its subsidiaries Brooks Institute of Photography for violations of the state's business and professionals code. The suits are pending in the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County in California. On March 21, 2005, a suit, styled "Thurston, et al., v. Brooks College, Ltd., et al." was filed against Brooks College, one of the Company's subsidiaries on behalf of all current and former attendees of Brooks College. The complaint alleged that Brooks College violated the California Business and Professionals Code and Consumer Legal Remedies Act by allegedly: (1) misleading potential students regarding Brooks College's admission criteria, transferability of credits, and retention and placement statistics, and (2) engaging in false and misleading advertising. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, restitution, unspecified punitive and exemplary damages, attorneys' fees, interest, costs, and other relief. On June 7, 2005, Brooks College filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, which is currently pending. On June 24, 2005, the Court ruled that this action was related to the case, captioned, "Outten, et al. vs. Career Education Corporation, et al." and stayed the lawsuit until an initial status conference. Earlier, an amended complaint captioned "Outten, et al., v. Career Education Corporation, et al." was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Company and American InterContinental University (AIU), one of its subsidiaries. The Company filed an answer to the amended complaint, denying all material allegations therein, and have raised various affirmative defenses. On October 6, 2004, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which added individuals who are current and former employees of AIU. The second amended complaint alleges that AIU violated the California unfair competition law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the California Education Code, and engaged in common law consumer fraud by allegedly misleading potential students regarding AIU's placement, retention, and matriculation rates, and engaging in financial aid and admission improprieties. The lawsuit appears to have been brought on behalf of all current and prior attendees of AIU residing in California. The plaintiffs, on behalf of the putative class, seek injunctive relief, restitution, unspecified punitive and exemplary damages, attorneys' fees, interest, costs, and other relief. On March 10, 2005, the Company filed an answer to the second amended complaint as well as a cross-complaint. On June 24, 2005, the court ruled that this action was related to "Thurston v. Brooks College." The parties are engaged in pre-trial discovery. COLORADO: Rocky Flats Case Defense Lawyers Got $49.8M, DOE Says --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) said that attorneys defending former operators of the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant west of Denver, Colorado were paid $49.8 million so far to fight a losing legal battle against thousands of neighbors of the plant, The Rocky Mountain News reports. Up to now bills are still being submitted. Some published reports even indicated that they total $61 million. However, not all of them will necessarily be paid in full, according to the energy department, which owns Rocky Flats and indemnified the contractors who operated it for four decades while it made nuclear weapons. The bills are for legal work in a 16-year legal fight that resulted last month in a million-dollar jury verdict for the neighbors. Attorneys for the former plant operators, Dow Chemical Co. and Rockwell International Corp., vowed to appeal the verdict. In a trial that began in Oct. 2005, residents who owned property near the site, claimed that Dow Chemical Co., which operated the site from the 1950s through 1975, and Rockwell International Corp., which took over in 1975 and operated the plant until it was shut down in 1989, improperly stored or otherwise mishandled plutonium-laced waste, resulting in contamination of soil and groundwater. According to the suit, both firms operated the plant under a DOE contract (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2006). Those residents, who are the named plaintiffs in the suit, claimed that large fires at the plant and windstorms and other natural events helped to spread the waste outside the plant's boundaries. That contamination, plus what the property owners said was a stigma attached to houses near the plant, resulted in plummeting property values. They also contend that Dow, Rockwell and the DOE have covered up how harmful the plant really was, (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2006). Much of the case centers on an FBI raid at the site in the summer of 1989. Rockwell, which ran Rocky Flats at the time, pleaded guilty in 1992 to 10 federal environmental crimes and paid a fine of $18.5 million, (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2006). The class action was specifically brought on behalf of owners of about 12,000 parcels of property in about five square miles east of the Rocky Flats plant in Jefferson County. Jurors decided in favor of the property owners after a four-month trial before Colorado U.S. District Judge John Kane. The jury decided that Dow and Rockwell sloppily handled radioactive plutonium at the plant, allowing the substance to pollute the neighbors' property and interfering with their use and enjoyment of what they owned. Both companies though contended that they safely and properly handled the plutonium during the four decades of the weapons factory's operation and that only minuscule amounts too small to harm anyone ever escaped from the plant. DOE's arrangement with the Rocky Flats contractors called for the government to pay any damages such as the million-dollar jury verdict as well as legal expenses to defend against such claims. The energy department is also liable for legal fees for lawyers on the winning side who represented the property owners. Merrill Davidoff, one of the lawyers for the property owners, told The Rocky Mountain News that before the trial started last year, he questioned why the government didn't settle the case for the benefit of the property owners instead of spending so much money fighting the lawsuit. Built in the 1950s during the Cold War era, the plant has been shut down ever since. Its 6,500-acre site underwent environmental cleansing and is slated to become a wildlife refuge, (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2006). The suit was styled, "Cook, et al v. Rockwell Intl. Corp., Case No. 1:90-cv-00181-JLK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, under Judge John L. Kane. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Gary B. Blum of Silver & DeBoskey, P.C., 1801 York St., Denver, CO 80206, U.S.A, Phone: 303-399-3000, Fax: 303- 399-2650, E-mail: blumg@s-d.com; (2) Stanley M. Chesley of Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A., 1513 Fourth and Vine Tower, One West Fourth St., Cincinnati, OH 45202, U.S.A, Phone: 513-621-0268; (3) Merrill Gene Davidoff, Jennifer E. MacNaughton, Peter B. Nordberg, Ellen T. Noteware, Bernadette M. Rappold, Stanley B. Siegel and David F. Sorensen of Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust St., Philadelphia, PA 19103, U.S.A, Phone: 215-875-3084, 215-875-3000 and 215-875-3051, Fax: 215-875-4671, 215-875-4604 and 215- 875-5707, E-mail: mdavidoff@bm.net, jmacnaughton@bm.net, pnordberg@bm.net, enoteware@bm.net and dsorensen@bm.net; (4) Bruce H. DeBoskey of Silver & Deboskey, P.C., 1801 York St. #700, Denver, CO 80206-5607, U.S.A, Phone: 303-399 -3000; (5) Kenneth A. Jacobsen of Jacobsen Law Offices, LLC, 12 Orchard Lane, Wallingford, PA 19086, U.S.A., Phone: 610-566-7930, Fax: 610-566-7940; (6) David Evans Kreutzer of Colorado Department of Law, 1525 Sherman St., 5th Floor, Denver, CO 80203, U.S.A, Phone: 303-866-5667, Fax: 303-866-3558, E-mail: david.kreutzer@state.co.us; (7) Louise M. Roselle of Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A., 1513 Fourth and Vine Tower, One West Fourth St., Cincinnati, OH 45202, U.S.A, Phone: 513-621-0267, Fax: 513-381-2375, E-mail: louiseroselle@wsbclaw.com; (8) Clisham, Satriana & Biscan, LLC, 1512 Larimer St., #400 Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A, Phone: 303-468-5403, Fax: 303- 942-7290, E-mail: satrianad@csbattorneys.com; (9) Holly Brons Shook of Silver & DeBoskey, P.C., 1801 York St., Denver, CO 80206, U.S.A, Phone: 303-399-3000, Fax: 303-399-2650, E-mail: shookh@s-d.com; (10) Ronald Simon of Simon & Associates, 1707 N. St., N.W. Washington, DC 20036, U.S.A, Phone: 202-429-0094, Fax: 202-429-0075, E-mail: ron@1707law.com; and (11) John David Stoner of Chimicles & Tikellis, L.L.P., 361 West Lancaster Ave., One Haverford Centre, Haverford, PA 19041-0100, U.S.A Representing the defendants are: (i) Joseph John Bronesky and Christopher Lane of Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.- 17th St., Denver, CO, U.S. District Court Box 12, 633 Seventeenth St., #3000 Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A, Phone: 303-299-8450 and 303- 299-8422, Fax: 303-298-0949 and 303-298-0940, E-mail: jbronesk@sah.com and clane@sah.com; (ii) Wendy S. White, Timothy P. Brooks, Patrick M. Hanlon, Amy Horton, Franklin D. Kramer and Edward J. Naughton Of Goodwin Procter, LLP-DC, 1800 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. #800, Washington, DC 20036, U.S.A, Phone: 202- 828-2000, Fax: 828-2000; (iii) Michael K. Isenman of Goodwin Procter, LLP-DC, 901 New York Ave., NW #700, Washington, DC 20001, U.S.A, Phone: 202-346-4000, Fax: 202-346-4444, E-mail: misenman@goodwinprocter.com; (iv) Lester C. Houtz of Bartlit, Beck, Herman, Palenchar & Scott-Colorado, 1899 Wynkoop St., #800 Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A., Phone: 303-592-3177, Fax: 303-3140, E- mail: lester.houtz@bartlit-beck.com; (v) Douglas J. Kurtenbach, S. Jonathan Silverman, Mark S. Lillie and David M. Bernick of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP- Illinois, 200 East, Randolph Drive, #5400 Chicago, IL 60601, U.S.A, Phone: 312-861-2225, 312-861-2089 and 312-861-2248, Fax: 861-2200, 312-660-0452 and 312-861- 2200, E-mail: mlillie@kirkland.com and dbernick@kirkland.com; (vi) Douglas M. Poland of LaFollette, Godfrey & Kahn, P.O. Box 2719, One East Main St., Madison, WI 53703-2719, U.S.A, Phone: 608-257-3911, Fax: 608-257-0609, E-mail: dpoland@gklaw.com; and (vii) Louis W. Pribila of Dow Chemical Company, 2030 Dow Center, Midland, MI 48674, U.S.A, Phone: 517-638-9511, Fax: 638-9410. DYNAMEX INC: Former, Present Drivers File Calif. Overtime Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Dynamex, Inc. faces a purported class action filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County by a former Company driver. The suit alleged that the Company unlawfully misclassified its California drivers as independent contractors, rather than employees. Filed on April 15, 2005, the suit asserted, as a consequence, entitlement on behalf of the purported class claimants to overtime compensation and other benefits under California wage and hour laws, reimbursement of certain operating expenses, and various insurance and other benefits and the obligation of the Company to pay employer payroll taxes under federal and state law. DYNAMEX INC: Former Worker Files FLSA Violations Lawsuit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dynamex, Inc. faces a purported class action that was launched by Alfonso Delesline, a former Company employee in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Filed on January 20, 2006, the suit is alleging that the Company unlawfully failed to pay wages for work performed for which they received no compensation as well as for overtime work for which they received no overtime pay to which the employees were entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations (NYLL). The plaintiff seeks recovery of unpaid wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, additional liquidated damages for unreasonably delayed payment of wages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the action. The suit is styled, "Delesline v. Dynamex, Inc., Case No. 1:06- cv-00417-LTS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Laura Taylor Swain. Representing the plaintiffs are, Jeffrey M. Gottlieb of Gottlieb & Associates, 150 East 18th Street, Suite OHR, New York, NY 10003, Phone: (718) 888-8788, Fax: (718) 939-2672; and Seth Richard Lesser and Fran L. Rudich of Locks Law Firm, PLLC, 110 East 55th Street, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-838-3333, Fax: 212-838-3735, E-mail: slesser@lockslawny.com and frudich@lockslawny.com. DYNAMEX INC: Reaches Settlement for Ill. Drivers' Overtime Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Dynamex, Inc. settled a purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, by a former Company driver on behalf of himself and other past or present Company drivers. The suit, filed on Feb. 4, 2005, alleged that the Company's drivers are employees of the Company, rather than independent contractors, and as a consequence, are entitled to overtime compensation and other benefits under federal and state wage and hour laws. On February 8, 2006, the case was settled and an Agreed Order of Dismissal was entered at no material cost to the Company. The suit is styled, "McClure v. Dynamex, Inc., case no. 1:05-cv- 00711," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Wayne R. Andersen. The plaintiffs are represented by John William Billhorn of Billhorn Law Firm, 515 N. State Street, Suite 2200, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: (312) 464-1450, E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com. The Company is represented by Joseph R. Marconi of Johnson & Bell, Ltd., 55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4100, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 372-0770, E-mail: marconij@jbltd.com. ESKOM: Trade Union Mulls Suit V. South African Power Company ------------------------------------------------------------ The Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) invited members of the public to join in a class action to sue South African electricity supply company, Eskom, after thousands of Western Cape residents suffered damage during recent power failures, The Independent Online reports. However, organized business believes there is no point in suing, since the Company does not have the money to pay out claims. Those who suffered damage range from ordinary people whose computers or other electronic equipment were damaged by power surges, to big business and farmers who suffered huge production losses during the erratic power cuts. The province is estimated to have suffered losses of about $210,586,681.58 (R1.3 billion). The trade union federation called on its members and the public to join a class action to sue the Company for damages, including losses in earnings and profits. COSATU said that it is supporting lost-production claims from business and general members of the public to build a case forcing the Company to pay compensation for the province's electricity crisis. Recently the Company failed to attend a public meeting, where various trade unions, the small business sector and individuals agreed to hold protest action against it. Mike Louw, spokesperson for COSATU, told The Independent Online that they had not yet consulted lawyers, but were waiting for the public to file their claims with their offices. He also said that Eskom had failed to attend another meeting, with the provincial electricity risk management committee. Mr Louw pointed out, "Eskom is committed to showing disregard for feelings of the people and even government. They have no sense of respect." COSATU has recorded business losses of more than R1.3 billion and was waiting for individually owned business also to stake their claim. "Eskom has been difficult to get hold of as we've invited them to the meeting. They committed to coming and did not arrive," according to Mr. Louw, adding, "We are looking for suitable, responsible people at Eskom to engage with us and provide adequate information to the public." Fani Zulu, spokesman for Eskom, told Weekend Argus that at this stage, claims could only be justified once facts on the matter were presented to them and that each case was based on its own merits. Mr. Zulu said he would respond to questions on Eskom's absence at both meetings later. Meanwhile, organized business in the Western Cape ruled out suing Eskom. Earlier, Colin Boyes, Cape Town Regional Chamber of Commerce deputy director, said the power cuts had already cost the regional economy hundreds of millions of rands. Outages are expected to continue for at least the next three months as repairs continue at the Koeberg nuclear plant. Mr. Boyes later said, "I am not aware that Eskom will be able to pay out the hundreds of millions of rands lost by Western Cape businesses." He added, "What we are doing is trying to ensure that a structured system is put in place so that we can be forewarned of possible electrical failures so that businesses don't have to suffer the absolute disaster they have incurred." The cuts a week ago resulted in disruption to fuel production at the Chevron refinery in Milnerton, which resulted in petrol being shipped to Cape Town from Durban. A consultant at the public consumer watchdog, the Western Cape Consumer Protector, said their office had "strangely enough" not received any complaints from ordinary consumers. EXXON MOBIL: $5B Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Damages Remain Unpaid ------------------------------------------------------------- Exxon Mobil Corp. has yet to pay the $5 billion punitive damages it was ordered to award fishermen and communities affected by a 1989 oil spill in Prince William Sound, south of Anchorage, according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. In March of that year, the firm's Exxon Valdez tanker ran aground on Bligh Reef, contaminating seawater with 11 million gallons of crude oil. The $5 billion class action award is calculated on one year of the oil company's profits. Considering that Exxon Mobil made $36 billion in profit last year, the 32,000 fishermen, food processors and Alaska natives who remained unpaid are 'seething,' according to the report. Exxon spent $2.3 billion to clean up the site. It paid $300 million in actual damage claims. The suit was styled "Sea Hawk Seafoods Inc. et al. v. EXXON Corporation et al. (3:89-cv-00095-HRH)," filed in the U.S. District Court of Alaska under Judge H. Russel Holland. Representing the defendants are: John F. Clough, III of Clough & Associates, POB 211187, Auke Bay, AK 99821, U.S., Phone: 907- 790-1912; Fax: 907-790-1913; and Douglas J. Serdahely of Patton Boggs LLP, 601 West 5th Avenue, Suite 700, Anchorage, AK 99501 US, Phone: 907-263-6300; Fax: 907-263-6345; E-mail: dserdahely@pattonboggs.com. Representing the plaintiffs are: Charles W. Coe of the Law Office of Charles W. Coe, 805 W 3rd Avenue, #10, Anchorage, AK 99501 U.S., Phone: 907-276-6173; Fax: 907-279-1884; E-mail: charlielaw@gci.net; and Lloyd B. Miller of Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Miller & Munson, LLP, 900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 700, Anchorage, AK 99501, U.S., Phone: 907-258-6377; Fax: 907-272- 8332; E-mail: lloyd@sonosky.net. FLORIDA: $2M Remains Untaken in Port St. Lucie Utility Fees Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Some $2 million remains to be distributed in the suit over drainage fees billing in Port St. Lucie that was settled three years ago, according to The Palm Beach Post. In 2003, judges ordered Port St. Lucie to repay owners of 45,000 vacant lots $14.4 million in storm-water utility fees. Homeowners had argued in court they were improperly billed for drainage fees in the mid-1990s. The lawsuit was filed in 1997. The $2 million is in a bank in Fort Pierce. Fort Pierce attorney Harold Melville, lawyer for the class members, is managing the distribution of the fund. He hopes to update addresses a third time before mailing a new round of checks in a few months to about 5,000 property owners. Mr. Melville updates Circuit Judge Ben Bryan about the development of the case each August. Mr. Melville distributed $7 million after mailing settlement checks in October 2003. He distributed another $1 million in October 2004. For more information on awards and claims, call: (772) 461-4414 or (772) 461-4774. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Fla. Couple Wants to Join Fridge Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- An Estero, Florida couple initiated a lawsuit against General Electric Co., seeking damages for a faulty refrigerator that was not included in the nationwide class action settlement the company agreed to last year, The Naplesnews.com reports. Paula and Garlond Evers of Rookery Point say their GE refrigerator exhibits the same symptoms as the refrigerators listed in the class action settlement last year. Mrs. Evers told The Naplesnews.com that their GE refrigerator had wavering temperature controls, which resulted in puddles of water on the floor, spoiled food, and eventually, total failure of the unit. Their refrigerator, with model number PSC23MGNACC, was not one of the 304 model numbers listed in the settlement GE agreed to in December 2005. The couple wants to be reimbursed for up to $5,000 of the $5,343 they spent on their original GE refrigerator, a replacement Maytag refrigerator, repair charges, new parts, food, ice and gasoline, according to a statement filed by Mrs. Evers. Small claims courts cap settlements at $5,000. The nationwide class action settlement that the Company agreed to in December entitles owners of faulty refrigerators with one of the 304 model numbers and one of 24 corresponding serial numbers to a new refrigerator if the Company cannot repair the unit after three free attempts. Those owners can also get 100 percent reimbursements for out-of-pocket repair expenses, even if the repair attempt was not by a Company technician. Owners who keep their repaired units get one-year extended warranties. The Company agreed to the class-action settlement after acknowledging moisture problems - such as wavering temperature controls and puddles on the floor - in certain GE and Hotpoint brand refrigerators manufactured in 2001 and 2002 in the company's Bloomington, Ind., plant. All of those refrigerators have model numbers beginning in BSY, DSS, ESS, GSH, GSS, GST, GSZ, HSS, HST or SSS. GE sent out about 450,000 notices to refrigerator owners in its database who could benefit from the settlement. It also had to post notices in national publications, such as Parade, USA Weekend, People magazine, Better Homes & Gardens and Readers' Digest. The suit was filed by Bill Turner, of Naples, who brought the class action in May 2005. Mr. Turner has already received a $225.95 reimbursement check for repair. His suit alleged that at the time of sale, the refrigerators contained a defect that results in the formation of excessive moisture, especially in the icemaker compartment, which causes, among other things, development of iron oxide or rust, puddling on the floor beneath the refrigerator and rust or water running down the side of the refrigerator. The settlement will not be officially approved until April 27, when a federal judge will decide if the terms are fair and if the Company kept its promise, Scott Weinstein, Mr. Turner's attorney told The Naplesnews.com. As far as Mr. Weinstein knows, about nine people out of tens of thousands have opted not to be a part of the class action settlement. The last day to opt out was March 14, 2006. For more information about the class action settlement and a complete list of model numbers, call: 1-866-839-4463 or visit: http://www.geappliances.com/classaction. GUAM: Court Consolidates Lawsuits Over Earned Income Tax Credit --------------------------------------------------------------- District Court Judge James Robard consolidated three class actions filed against Guam for failing to pay the Earned Income Tax Credit, according to KUAM News. The report said the decision also paves the way for the parties to proceed with a proposed $90 million settlement that awaits court approval or resume negotiations to accommodate all of the parties' concerns. Charmaine Torres filed class action in July 2004 to demand Earned Income Tax Credit refunds dating back 1995, full amount of tax credit, and guarantees to ensure the government will pay tax credits in the future. The suit challenged another deal involving taxpayers (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 6, 2006). Ms. Torres is represented by lawyer Peter Perez. In February 2004, Julie Babauta Santos filed a class action that resulted to a settlement between the attorney general and then- acting Gov. Kaleo Moylan. The agreement would have paid about $60 million of the $120 million owed to taxpayers in EITC refunds dating back to 1998, the report said. But Gov. Felix Camacho did not approve of the settlement. He increased the settlement to $90 million, specifying this will come from 15% of the money set aside for tax refunds each year. The deal also includes two additional tax years. Ms. Babauta Santos is represented by Mike Philips. H-E-B: Recalls Baby Foods on Reports of Glass Pieces Inside Jars ---------------------------------------------------------------- H-E-B is recalling its entire H-E-B Baby Food and Mom's Organic Choice product lines. As of the afternoon of March 15, all H-E- B baby food and Mom's Organic Choice product lines was removed from shelves due to a few customer reports of pieces of glass being found inside the baby food jars of H-E-B peas, carrots and applesauce. According to Winell Herron, H-E-B Group Vice-President of Public Affairs, there have been no reports of injuries associated with the incidents, however the company is taking the issue very seriously and taking all necessary precautions. "Though these reports have been isolated to just a few products in the H-E-B baby food and Mom's Organic Choice line, as a company, we are committed to absolute and complete food safety. As a result of that commitment, coupled with the fact that we are dealing with a children's product, we have made the decision to pull all of our H-E-B baby food and Mom's Organic Choice products from our shelves," said Winell Herron, H-E-B Group Vice-President of Public Affairs. Mr. Herron said that H-E-B will launch a full investigation into the incidents and work closely with its H-E-B baby food suppliers to ensure all safety measures are being taken when manufacturing the product. H-E-B is encouraging anyone who has any H-E-B baby food and/or Mom's Organic Choice product in their pantries to remove it and take it to their nearest H-E-B store for a full refund. Customers contact: H-E-B, Phone: 1-800-432-3113. HOS TRADING: Issues Alert on Sulfite-Containing Fungus Product -------------------------------------------------------------- Ho's Trading Inc. of Brooklyn, New York, is recalling Fortune Star White Fungus, because they contain undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening reactions if they consume this product. The recalled Fortune Star White Fungus products are packed in 3 oz., uncoded bags. The products were sold nationwide. The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Fortune Star White Fungus, which did not declare sulfites on the label. The consumption of 10 milligrams or more of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe reaction in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. Consumers who have purchased Fortune Star White Fungus should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-718-622-2288. KANSAS: Wichita Police Officers Launch Race Discrimination Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Twenty-one black police officers filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, complaining of discriminatory treatment, The Associated Press reports. The suit, which seeks no monetary damages, alleges that the plaintiffs and other minority officers were denied desirable job assignments, promotion opportunities, supervisory positions, training, equal pay, bonuses and other employment benefits. It was brought against the city of Wichita and Police Chief Norman Williams. "They're looking really for change," Uzo Ohaebosim, one of the attorneys representing the officers told The Associated Press. According to the suit, the police chief has not adequately investigated complaints from minority officers and failed to take steps to eliminate problems with department working conditions. The suit cited examples of discrimination, including: racist cartoons posted in a squad room, white officers got longer lunch breaks, no white officers responded when a black officer made an officer-in-trouble call, and a black officer was required to provide proof of an appointment that kept her from attending a meeting, although her white peers did not have to do so. In essence, the suit alleges that the city failed to "effectively enforce policies prohibiting race and ethnicity discrimination and retaliated against minorities who have protested defendants' discriminatory policies, pattern and/or practices." The suit is styled, "Fulcher, et al. v. City of Wichita, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02095-JWL-DJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas under Judge John W. Lungstrum with referral to Judge David J. Waxse. Representing the plaintiffs are, Uzo L. Ohaebosim and Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr. of Shores, Williamson & Ohaebosim, LLC, 301 N. Main, 1400 Epic Center, Wichita, KS 67202, Phone: 316-261-5400, Fax: 316-261- 5404, E-mail: u.ohaebosim@swolawfirm.com and l.williamson@swolawfirm.com. KENTUCKY: Judge Finds Local Lawyers in Breach of Duty to Clients ---------------------------------------------------------------- A special judge in Boone County, Kentucky found three attorneys guilty of deceiving their clients out of tens of millions of dollars from a settlement reached in a massive lawsuit against the maker of the diet drug fen-phen, The Kentucky Post reports. In a ruling handed down last March 15, Senior Judge William Wehr ruled that the attorneys from central Kentucky took more than $100 million in fees and expenses out of a $200 million settlement. In addition, the judge found that they set up a $20 million charitable fund that paid them more in income and expenses than it gave in grants to nonprofit organizations. Judge Wehr stated, "Simple arithmetic shows that the ... attorney fees and other costs yields a figure far in excess of any contracted for ... in this case." He adds, "In reality, they were passing out money to themselves and others like it was theirs to do with as they wished." Such actions amount to a breach of their fiduciary duty, the judge ruled. William Johnson, a Frankfort attorney who represents the three lawyers, could not be reached for comment on the matter. But, Bob Sanders, a Covington attorney who represents the fund, told The Kentucky Post that he planned to pursue an appeal of Judge Wehr's decision. Essentially, Judge Wehr ruled that the money the three lawyers made above the fees their clients agreed to should be set-aside in a constructive trust. He also ruled that the charitable fund must return the money and may continue to operate only if it receives funds from other sources. Judge Wehr still must decide whether the attorneys are entitled to any money, and whether all of their fees should go into the trust. Lexington attorney Angela Ford, who filed the lawsuit seeking the money back on behalf of 380 people, is also seeking punitive damages against attorneys Shirley Cunningham Jr. and William Gallion of Lexington, and Melbourne Mills Jr. of Versailles. Judge Wehr, or a jury, will also have to decide how the money in the trust, which eventually could total hundreds of millions of dollars, will be shared between Ms. Ford and her clients. A hearing in the case is scheduled for April 12. Ms. Ford's suit stemmed from the secret settlement of a lawsuit against the makers of fen-phen, which users said gave them various health risks and injuries. Similar lawsuits against fen-phen were filed across the country. The Kentucky fen-phen lawsuit originally was certified as a class action, but later decertified because of the settlement. Boone Circuit Judge Jay Bamberger, whose actions in it were recently condemned by the state Judicial Conduct Commission, handled the case. As a result of the reprimand, Judge Bamberger, who retired in early 2004 and was working as a special senior judge, retired from that post, losing 40 percent of his pension. Judge Wehr parenthetically referred to the commission's actions in ruling that Judge Bamberger's approval of the original settlement made little sense. After the drug's manufacturer agreed to pay $200 million to settle the case, it walked away, leaving the details of the award's distribution to the plaintiffs' lawyers and Judge Bamberger. The lawyers set up a grid to pay 431 clients, an amount that totaled $74 million. They also set up a charitable fund called the Kentucky Fund for Healthy Living, and deposited $20 million of the settlement award in it. Judge Wehr said the three attorneys had contracts with their clients to take 30 to 33 percent of their individual settlements. A fourth attorney, Stan Chesley of Cincinnati, was to receive a percentage of those attorneys' fees. The three Kentucky attorneys also agreed to make no settlement claims without the knowledge of their clients. Instead, according to Judge Wehr, all four attorneys each took at least $20 million. They paid millions to other attorneys and $3 million to non-attorneys, for a total of $106 million. The judge pointed out, "Their justification for all this is a blanket order (entered by a now reprimanded judge) approving their expenditures, which does not afford them the protection they desire, for it does not identify either a percentage or a dollar amount which they are allowed to charge." Judge Wehr also questioned why contingency fees were shared with non-lawyers, which he said was not allowed. And, according to him, the three Kentucky attorneys accepted directors' fees and expenses of more than $85,000 from the Kentucky Fund. They did all of that with neither the knowledge nor approval of their clients, according to the judge, a former Campbell Circuit Court judge. He further pointed out, "There is no disclosure of any settlement details to the clients." There was no agreement by the (clients) to fund a charitable corporation in the amount of $20 million and have these attorney defendants continue to make money from that claim. Despite the findings, Judge Wehr did not rule against Mr. Chesley, who was a defendant in Ms. Ford's suit. Mr. Chesley did not have a contract with any of the plaintiffs in the original suit. Rather, he was hired by the three Kentucky lawyers to negotiate the settlement with the drug maker. LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Settles Securities Fraud Suit for $3.5M -------------------------------------------------------------- Lattice Semiconductor Corp. reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs to settle the consolidated class action filed in 2004 against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers. The agreement does not contain any admission of fault or wrongdoing on the part of Lattice or any of the individual defendants in the litigation. The agreement in principle contemplates that plaintiffs will receive a payment of $3,500,000 in exchange for a release of the Company and the individual defendants from all claims asserted in the litigation. Lattice expects that the entire amount of the settlement will be paid by its insurer under the terms of its director and officer liability insurance policy, and that payment of the settlement amount will not affect Lattice's current or future financial results. The agreement in principle is subject to the negotiation and completion of the usual and customary documentation for such a settlement, including a Stipulation of Settlement, and is subject to and conditioned upon final court approval. Lattice faced several complaints filed on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the Company's stock between April 22, 2003 and April 19, 2004. The complaints alleged violations of federal securities laws arising out of the Company's restatement of financial results for the first, second, and third quarters of 2003 (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 1, 2006). These cases were amended and consolidated into a single action. In the amended and consolidated complaint filed January 27, 2005, the Company's former President and its former Controller were added as defendants. In September and October 2004, two shareholder derivative complaints were filed, purportedly on behalf of the Company, in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Washington, against all of its current directors, certain former directors, and certain executive officers. The derivative plaintiffs make allegations substantially similar to those in the putative class action complaints, as well as allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The suit is styled "Autumn Partners, LLC v. Lattice Semiconductor Corporation et al., case no. 6:04-cv-01255-AA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, under Judge Ann L. Aiken. Representing the Company is Lois O. Rosenbaum, Timothy W. Snyder, Stoel Rives, LLP, 900 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2600, Portland, OR 97204, Phone: (503) 294-9293, Fax: (503) 294-9113, E-mail: lorosenbaum@stoel.com or twsnider@stoel.com. Representing the plaintiffs are: Tamara J. Driscoll, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2260, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: (206) 749-5544, Fax: (206) 749-9978, E-mail: tdriscoll@lerachlaw.com; and Dennis J. Herman, William S. Lerach, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLC, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 288-4545, Fax: (415) 288-4534, E-mail: dennish@lerachlaw.com. MARATHON OIL: Faces Lawsuit in W.Va. Over Defective Gasoline ------------------------------------------------------------ Marathon Oil Corporation is a defendant in a purported class action styled, "Loudermilk Services, Inc., et al. v. Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC, et al." The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and alleges that the Company's Catlettsburg refinery sold defective gasoline to wholesalers and retailers, causing permanent damage to storage tanks, dispensers and related equipment, resulting in lost profits, business disruption, and personal and real property damages. Plaintiffs seek class action status. In 2002, Marathon Petroleum Company (MPC) conducted extensive cleaning operations at affected facilities but denies that any permanent damages resulted from the incident. MPC previously settled with many of the potential class members in this case and intends to vigorously defend this action. The suit is styled, "Loudermilk Services, Inc., et al. v. Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:04-cv- 00966," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia under Judge Robert C. Chambers. Representing the plaintiffs are, Gregory B. Breedlove of Cunningham Bounds Crowder Brown & Breedlove, P.O. Box 66705, Mobile, AL 36660, Phone: 251/471-6191, Fax: 251/479-1031, E- mail: gbb@cbcbb.com; and James M. Cawley, Jr. of Suite 2110, 440 Louisiana Street, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713/426-1700, Fax: 713/425-5325, E-mail: jay@jaycawley.net. Representing the defendants are, Joseph S. Beeson of ROBINSON & McELWEE, P.O. Box 1791, Charleston, WV 25326-1791, Phone: 304- 344-5800, Fax: 344-9566; and Jeffrey V. Mehalic of LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY V. MEHALIC, P.O. Box 11133, Charleston, WV 25339- 1133, Phone: 304/346-3462, Fax: 346-3469. MARATHON OIL: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Certain Claims in Singh Case --------------------------------------------------------------- A New York federal judge entered an order dismissing certain plaintiff's claims against the defendants in a class action, styled, "Singh v. Ashland Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04827- AKH." The judge also directed the court clerk to mark the case closed. On April 8, 2005, Shiva Singh instituted a class action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in New York County against Ashland, and the individual members of Ashland's Board of Directors. The complaint also named Marathon Oil Corporation, Marathon Petroleum Company ("MPC") and Credit Suisse First Boston LLC ("CSFB") as defendants. The complaint stated that Mr. Singh held Ashland common stock and that the complaint was brought on behalf of Mr. Singh and others similarly situated. The action arose from the transaction proposed at that time in which Ashland would transfer its entire 38 percent interest in MPC as well as certain other businesses to the Company. The complaint alleged breach of fiduciary duty as well as aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and negligence against Ashland, its directors, the Company and MPC. The complaint alleged breach of fiduciary duty and negligence as well as aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and negligence against CSFB. On September 20, 2005, the federal judge from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order dismissing certain of the plaintiff's negligence claims against CSFB and the aiding and abetting claims against all defendants and directed the court clerk to mark the case closed. This case is not currently pending. The suit is styled, "Singh v. Ashland Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04827-AKH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. Representing the defendants are: (1) Thomas R. Trowbridge, III of Baker Botts, L.L.P. (NYC), 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10112, Phone: (212) 408-2500, Fax: (212)-259-2520, E-mail: thomas.trowbridge@bakerbotts.com; (2) Lawrence Jay Portnoy of Davis Polk & Wardwell, 450 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 450- 4000, Fax: (212) 450-3874, E-mail: portnoy@dpw.com; and (3) Julie A North of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, 825 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 474- 1000, Fax: (212) 474-3700, E-mail: jnorth@cravath.com. NORBOURG GROUP: Montreal Lawyer May be in Conflict of Interest -------------------------------------------------------------- A Montreal securities regulator says that an attorney from the province who specializes in class actions, is in potential conflict of interest for his actions in trying to recover money from Canada's bankrupt Norbourg Group of mutual funds, The Montreal Gazette reports. Jean St-Gelais, president of the Autorite des marches financiers du Quebec (AMF), said in a recent news conference that Yves Lauzon may be in conflict of interest because he's trying to recoup $1.8 million he personally invested in the Company while heading a class action against the investment firm on behalf of other investors. Mr. St-Gelais added that Mr. Lauzon was also representing Eric Asselin, the Company's former vice-president in charge of finances. Though no charges were laid against Mr. Asselin to date some are expected. Mr. Lauzon is attempting through a Quebec Superior Court judgment to have the AMF refund the $1.8-million check he wrote the Company three days before it shut down. He claims the AMF didn't do enough to protect investors. In the separate class action filed recently through Mr. Lauzon's office, the AMF is among the defendants along with Company founder Vincent Lacroix and accounting firm KPMG, LLP. Meanwhile, the AMF is preparing its own civil suit against Mr. Lacroix as well as other individuals and companies associated with what Mr. St-Gelais called "a sad saga." He pointed out that lawyers usually take 20 to 30 per cent of winnings in class actions as their fee while 100 per cent of funds recovered through an AMF court action goes to the affected investors. NORTEL NETWORKS: Insurers Boost Settlement With $228.5M Payment --------------------------------------------------------------- Insurers for Nortel Networks Corp. will pay $228.5 million to settle two fraud lawsuits, increasing to $2.7 billion the amount investors will receive, Bloomberg reports. The insurers' payouts stem from their liability coverage for Nortel officers and directors, David Bershad, a lawyer for the investors told Bloomberg. The Company, which is the largest telephone-equipment maker in North America and is based in Brampton, Ontario, revealed back in Feb. 8, 2005 that it will pay more than $2.47 billion in cash and stock to end shareholder suits claiming damages from an accounting fraud. The added money makes the settlement the fourth largest for a U.S. class-action securities fraud suit. According to data compiled by Bloomberg, the top three settlements were by Enron Corp. at $7.1 billion, followed by WorldCom Inc. at $6.1 billion, and finally by Cendant Corp. at $3.2 billion. "It's an extremely significant result," says Mr. Bershad, of New York's Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman. On March 10, the Company said that it would restate financial results for the third time in as many years because it booked sales too soon. For the first nine months of 2005, revenue would be cut by $162 million and earnings by $95 million, according to a Company statement. Preliminary figures indicated that the Company reported a fourth-quarter net loss of $2.21 billion after a $2.5 billion legal expense tied to previous accounting errors. The announcement will lead to revisions on restatements from 2004 and before, a setback for Chief Executive Officer Mike Zafirovski, who spent his first four months in office resolving claims from the earlier mistakes. A $3.2 billion accounting fraud led the Company to fire officials including Chief Executive Officer Frank Dunn. Errors included improperly boosting sales by accelerating the booking of fiber-optic equipment contracts. Investors claimed 10 senior executives created improper reserves and used the money to make it appear the company was profitable. As part of the settlement, which must be approved by two federal judges in New York, the Company agreed to make changes in corporate governance. A non-executive chairman will stand for annual election, and the way executives are paid will be changed, according to Sean Coffey, a lead lawyer in the case. He told Bloomberg, "We think the company will be a terrific example of a robust corporate democracy." Lawyers say that the though the agreement contains no admission of wrongdoing, it doesn't cover ongoing investigations by U.S. and Canadian regulators. Among insurers making the cash payments will be units of Warren, New Jersey-based Chubb Corp., Mr. Coffey told Bloomberg. Mr. Dunn is among the officers and directors covered. None of them will though make out-of-pocket payments, adds Mr. Bershad. For more details, contact John P. ("Sean") Coffey of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, LLP, Phone: (212) 554-1409, E-mail: sean@blbglaw.com, Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com/;and David Bershad of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, Phone: 212- 946-9325, Fax: 212-273-4381, E-mail: dbershad@milbergweiss.com, Web site: http://www.milbergweiss.com/. OHIO: Steubenville Traffic Camera May be Permanently Banned ----------------------------------------------------------- Jefferson County Common Pleas Judge David Henderson heard on March 9 a request by attorney Gary Stern for a permanent injunction against the use of automatic traffic cameras in Steubenville, according to The Intelligencer. Henderson took the request under advisement, saying he would issue an opinion on whether the city didn't follow its own traffic camera ordinance and/or whether the ordinance is unconstitutional, the report said. The City Council is working on a new automated traffic camera ordinance, and is waiting for Judge Henderson's ruling to see exactly what language must be changed. Steubenville attorney Gary Stern filed the suit against the city and camera manufacturer Traffipax Inc. on behalf of his wife, who received one of the $85 tickets issued by a traffic camera. The attorney argued that the cameras are illegal and unconstitutional because, for one, under the ordinance, motorists don't have the right to appeal. The lawsuit also said the city does not follow the terms of its own ordinance which requires a 14-day notice before installing the cameras. Judge Henderson ordered the removal of speed cameras in December. In February, he ruled that a class action could proceed against the city of Steubenville and Traffipax. The suit is styled, "April Stern v. The City of Steubenville, Ohio and Traffipax, Inc., Case No. 05 CV 524," filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County, Ohio, under Judge David E. Henderson. Representing the Plaintiff is Gary M. Stern Of Stern, Stern & Stern Co., LPA, 108 South Fourth St., Steubenville, OH 43952, Phone: (740) 284-1211, Web site: http://www.sternlawyer.com/complaint.htm. OHIO: Hamilton County Ordered to Pay for Wrongful Detentions ------------------------------------------------------------ A federal judge in Cincinnati ruled that the Hamilton County Justice Center was wrong in imprisoning hundreds of people because of their failure to pay fines, The Kentucky Post reports. U.S. District Judge S. Arthur Spiegel said the county's public attorneys should have sought court hearings to determine defendants' ability to pay their fines. The hearings are vital because they allow judges to declare a poor defendant indigent and wave the fine, the report said. Judge Spiegel said the problem dates back to 1982. He ordered the payment of $100 per day of imprisonment, although he hasn't written a final order. Robert Newman, the Cincinnati lawyer who filed the class action against Hamilton County said there are some 500 people eligible for the awards. He did not name the amount of possible total claims. The suit is styled "Powers v. Hamilton Co Publ Def, et al. (1:02-cv-00605-SAS)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Also representing the plaintiff is Lisa Talmadge Meeks of Newman & Meeks Co., LPA, 617 Vine Street, Suite 1401, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513/639-7000; E-mail: lisameeks@newman-meeks.com. Representing the defendants is: David Todd Stevenson, Hamilton County Prosecutor, Civil Unit, 230 E Ninth Street, Suite 4000 Cincinnati, OH 45202-2151, Phone: 513-946-3120; E-mail: dstevens@prosecutor.hamilton-co.org. OHIO: Court Sets Limit on Traffic Camera Lawsuit V. Girard City --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John Stuard of Trumbull County Common Pleas Court has certified a class action against the city of Girard's use of automatic traffic camera, but limited it to those who paid speeding fines, Vindy.com reports. The judge earlier allowed authorities to continue using the camera, but ordered that fines collected from the date of his ruling be put into an interest-bearing escrow account, and not into the city's coffers (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 24, 2006). $60 of the $85 fine goes to the city, and the remaining goes to Traffipax of Columbia, MD, the company contracted to install and operate the device. Judge Stuard ordered that Traffipax's portion of the fine also be placed in escrow. Judge Stuard had rejected a motion by Trafficpax to dismiss complaint of fraud against the company. He said facts supporting fraud claims need to be proved at a hearing to succeed but do not necessarily need to be a part of the complaint. Councilman Daniel Moadus and and co-counsel Kim Kohli filed the complaint. Mr. Moadus is represented by James A. Denney, 1631 S. State Street, Girard, Ohio, (Trumbull Co.). The city of Girard is represented by John Solomon. OHIO: Kenneth Blackwell Agrees to Remove Social Security Numbers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell agreed to remove Social Security numbers from financial documents posted on his agency's Web site and to take steps to prevent the numbers from being posted there in the future, The Associated Press reports. The State Secretary made the decision in a hearing before U.S. District Judge Michael Watson in Ohio. Sec. Blackwell's office also is creating an online sign-in system requiring a password to search the financial files, Frederick Erny, a private attorney representing Mr. Blackwell in the case told The Associated Press. The settlement resolves a federal class action filed last March 2, 2006, by a southwest Ohio truck driver whose Social Security number appeared on Sec. Blackwell's Web site without his knowledge. Both sides will submit a final written document with complete details of the settlement to the judge within ten days, Mr. Erny told The Associated Press. He added that Sec. Blackwell was sensitive to the concerns raised by the lawsuit "and thought as a policy matter we should try to resolve the issue." Sec. Blackwell acted correctly after initial resistance to removing the numbers, according to Christian Jenkins, an attorney representing truck driver Darrel Estep. He told Th Associated Press, "What we've seen here is a 180-degree about- face and a decision to do the right thing. I see that as a very good result in a very short time." Left unresolved by the agreement, however, was a law requiring documents posted by the secretary of state to provide a Social Security number as an identification measure. Sec. Blackwell is working with lawmakers to address the discrepancy, spokesman Carlo LoParo told The Associated Press. Both Democrats and Republicans plan legislation to keep the numbers private. The Social Security numbers appear on records of debts and other financial information used by banks and creditors in making loans and by law must be posted on the Internet within three days by the secretary of state. Sec. Blackwell's office says most of the records were filed by attorneys or banks, rather than the people whose Social Security numbers were included. In addition, Sec. Blackwell's office also says that he didn't remove the numbers in the past because the state's only role was posting the documents and because state law didn't address the specific situation of removing Social Security numbers on these particular documents. The suit is styled, "Estep v. Blackwell, Case No. 1:06-cv-00106- MHW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Michael H. Watson. Representing the plaintiffs are, Stacy Ann Hinners, Christian A Jenkins and Marc David Mezibov of Mezibov & Jenkins, 401 East Court St., Ste. 600, Cincinnati, Ohio, Phone: 513-723-1600, Fax: 513-723-1620, E-mail: shinners@mezibovjenkins.com, cjenkins@mezibovjenkins.com and mmezibov@mezibovjenkins.com; and John Charles Murdock of Murdock Goldenberg Schneider & Groh, LPA, 35 East Seventh Street, Suite 600, Cincinnati, OH 45202-2015, Phone: 513-345- 8291, E-mail: jmurdock@mgsglaw.com. Representing the defendants are, Matthew D. Shuler and Frederick Michael Erny of Dinsmore & Shohl - 1, 1900 Chemed Center, 255 E. 5th Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-977-8200, Fax: 513- 977-8560, E-mail: matthew.shuler@dinslaw.com; and fred.erny@dinslaw.com. REFCO INC: Underwriters Move to Stall Probe Pending Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------- The underwriters of Refco Inc.'s 2005 public offering is unwilling to open its books to creditors for the moment, according to Dow Jones. The underwriters, a group of eight Wall Street investment banks, asked the bankruptcy court handling Refco's case to stall the investigation of their books pending discovery in a number of Refco-related securities class action in federal court. U.S. District Judge Gerald Lynch, who is overseeing about 20 Refco- related lawsuits, wants to coordinate discovery in all the Refco suits to save time and money, according to the report. Refco's creditors committee has asked the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York for the right to look at the books of the eight banks that underwrote Refco's $583 million public offering in August 2005. They are insisting the underwriters should have known about $430 million in hidden debt owed to Refco by Refco Group Holdings, Inc. The discovery of the debt led to the bankruptcy filing of Refco Inc. and its 23 affiliates. The eight underwriters are Goldman Sachs Group, Credit Suisse First Boston, Deutsche Bank, J. P. Morgan & Chase Co., Sandler O'Neil & Partners, Bank of America Corp., HSBC Holdings Plc and Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York appointed Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann and Grant & Eisenhofer as lead plaintiffs' lawyers in the securities class action against Refco Inc.'s underwriters and directors, Bloomberg reported (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 8, 2005). The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled "Joseph Mazur, et al. v. Refco, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910, New York, NY, 10119, Phone: 212.279.5050, Fax: 212.279.3655, E-mail: JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com (2) Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA), One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 2109, Phone: 617.542.8300, Fax: 617.230.0903, E-mail: info@bermanesq.com (3) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO, 80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E- mail: info@dyershuman.com (4) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com (5) 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 (6) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com (7) 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, (8) 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, (9) 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 (10) Paskowitz & Associates, Phone: 800.705.9529, E-mail: classattorney@aol.com (11) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone: 212.661.1100, Fax: 212.661.8665, E-mail: info@pomerantzlaw.com (12) Sarraf Gentile LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1005, New York, NY, 10018, Phone: 212.868.3610, Fax: 212.918.7967, (13) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com (14) Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com (15) Scott & Scott LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax: 860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com (16) Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP (New York), 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, New York, NY, 10018, Phone: (212) 239-4340, Fax: (212) 239-4310, E-mail: lawyer@lawssb.com (17) Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail: info@whhf.com (18) 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 (19) Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10022-6689, Phone: 877.370.7703, Fax: 212.486.2093, E-mail: IRRep@wolfpopper.com (20) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (LA), 1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: (310) 201-915, Fax: (310) 201-916, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com (21) Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100, Wilmington, DE, 19801, Phone: 302.622.7000, Fax: 302.622.7100, E-mail: info@gelaw.com (22) 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 (23) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax: 610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com (24) Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 16 West 46th Street 7th Floor, New York, NY, 10036, Phone: 212.490.9550, Fax: 212.986.0158, E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Agilent Shareholders Urged to File Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- The Securities Arbitration Law Firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A. (K&T) advises all Robertson Stephens customers who are eligible to participate in the Settlement of "In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)", to explore all of their legal options against Robertson Stephens, one of the non-settling defendant underwriters. According to K&T, investors should strongly consider pursuing an individual securities arbitration claim as a means to recovering their financial losses. According to the IPO Securities Litigation, various issuers and underwriters caused securities to trade at artificially inflated prices, in connection with the initial public offering of the securities, causing customers to lose billions of dollars. Investors who may have a claim against Robertson Stephens, a non-settling defendant underwriter, include those who suffered net losses as a result of their purchase and/or receipt of these stocks through Robertson Stephens, during: Agilent Technologies (A) Nov. 17, 99 - Dec. 6, 00 Antigenics (AGEN) Feb. 3, 00 - Dec. 6, 00 Avanex (AVNX) Feb. 3, 00 - Dec. 6, 00 Backweb Technologies (BWEB) Jun. 7, 99 - Dec. 6, 00 Several defendant underwriters, including Robertson Stephens, have not settled with the Class Members of the Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation. Therefore, K&T urges investors who suffered substantial losses to proceed with a securities arbitration claim against Robertson Stephens, rather than waiting for a potential class action settlement. Empirical evidence shows that investors may achieve an overall higher rate of recovery by filing an individual securities arbitration claim. Accordingly, K&T -- http://www.nasd-law.com-- plans to assist individual investors who purchased and/or received an allocation of shares through an IPO to recover their financial losses from Robertson Stephens, in securities arbitration claims before the National Association of Securities Dealers and the New York Stock Exchange. Additionally, because the IPO Litigation is not the exclusive remedy for injured investors, K&T strongly encourages all eligible IPO Settlement recipients to contact Lawrence L. Klayman, Esquire, at 888-997-9956 to discuss their legal options and/or the possibility of pursuing an individual securities arbitration claim. ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Intersil Shareholders Urged to File Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- The Securities Arbitration Law Firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A. (K&T) advises all Robertson Stephens customers who are eligible to participate in the Settlement of "In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)", to explore all of their legal options against Robertson Stephens, one of the non-settling defendant underwriters. According to K&T, investors should strongly consider pursuing an individual securities arbitration claim as a means to recovering their financial losses. According to the IPO Securities Litigation, various issuers and underwriters caused securities to trade at artificially inflated prices, in connection with the initial public offering of the securities, causing customers to lose billions of dollars. Investors who may have a claim against Robertson Stephens, a non-settling defendant underwriter, include those who suffered net losses as a result of their purchase and/or receipt of these stocks through Robertson Stephens, during: Internet Capital Group (ICGE) Aug. 4, 99 - Dec. 6, 00 Intersil Corp. (ISIL) Feb. 24, 00 - Dec. 6, 00 Interwoven, Inc. (IWOV) Oct. 8, 99 - Dec. 6, 00 Intraware, Inc. (ITRA) Feb. 25, 99 - Dec. 6, 00 Several defendant underwriters, including Robertson Stephens, have not settled with the Class Members of the Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation. Therefore, K&T urges investors who suffered substantial losses to proceed with a securities arbitration claim against Robertson Stephens, rather than waiting for a potential class action settlement. Empirical evidence shows that investors may achieve an overall higher rate of recovery by filing an individual securities arbitration claim. Accordingly, K&T -- http://www.nasd-law.com-- plans to assist individual investors who purchased and/or received an allocation of shares through an IPO to recover their financial losses from Robertson Stephens, in securities arbitration claims before the National Association of Securities Dealers and the New York Stock Exchange. Additionally, because the IPO Litigation is not the exclusive remedy for injured investors, K&T strongly encourages all eligible IPO Settlement recipients to contact Lawrence L. Klayman, Esquire, at 888-997-9956 to discuss their legal options and/or the possibility of pursuing an individual securities arbitration claim. SIPEX CORP: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 6, 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, will hold a fairness for the proposed $6 million settlement in the matter, "In re Sipex Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File No. 05-CV-00392-WHA." The case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired the Company's common stock between April 10, 2003 and January 20, 2005. The hearing will be held on April 6, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable William H. Alsup at the U.S. Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on May 8, 2006. Any objections to the settlement must be filed by March 24, 2006. For more details, contact David A. Priebe of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary U.S., LLP, 2000 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2248, Phone: 650-833-2000; Fax: 650-833-2001; E-mail: david.priebe@dlapiper.com; Uri Seth Ottensoser of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-779-1414, Fax: 212-779-3218, Web site: http://www.bernlieb.com;Dale Richard Bish of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone: 650-804-4018, E-mail: dbish@wsgr.com; and Boris Feldman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com. STOCK EXCHANGES: Antitrust Settlement Hearing Set May 1, 2006 ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a fairness haring for the proposed settlement in the matter: "In re: Stock Exchanges Options Trading Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 1283, Case No. 99CV0962)." The case was brought on behalf of all persons, firms, corporations and other entities that during period from January 22, 1990 through April 30, 2003, purchased and/or sold one or more Class Option Contracts and/or paid transaction costs, including without limitation all fees and other charges, incurred in connection with the purchase and/or sale of one or more Class Option Contracts. The hearing will be held on May 22, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. Any objections to the settlement must be filed by May 1, 2006. For more details, contact Options Trading Antitrust Litigation c/o Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9007, Jericho, NY 11753-8917, Phone: (866) 208-0188; Craig C. Corbitt of Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette, LLP, 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400, Suite 3400, San Francisco, CA 94104-2301, Phone: (415) 693-0700; Andrew David Friedman, Samuel K. Rosen and Stuart D. Wechsler of Wechsler, Harwood, L.L.P., 488 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 935-7400; Joseph C. Kohn of Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., One South Broad Street, Suite 2100, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389, Phone: (215) 238-1700; and Thomas James McKenna of Gainey & McKenna, 485 Fifth Avenue, 3rd Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 983-1300. SWISHER INTERNATIONAL: Merging with HB Fairview to Settle Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Swisher International, Inc. shareholders have adopted a Plan of Merger with HB Fairview Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and HB Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of HB Fairview. HB Merger Sub will be merged with and into Swisher International and Swisher International will become wholly owned by HB Fairview. The merger agreement is being entered into in connection with a proposed settlement of a purported stockholder class action pending in Delaware state court, and the completion of the merger is contingent upon court approval of that settlement. The holders of a majority voting power of the outstanding shares of Swisher International voted to adopt the merger agreement at a meeting duly noticed and held March 15, 2006. The merger, which is contingent upon certain customary conditions, is currently expected to be completed in the second quarter of 2006. Under the Plan of Merger, Swisher International stockholders (other than HB Fairview) would receive a cash payment of $7 per share. Swisher International, Inc. -- http://www.swisher.com/-- offers hygiene services and products to businesses across the country. For more information, contact Thomas C. Byrne, Phone: +1-954- 713-1160, E-mail: tbyrne@newrivercapital.com. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Students Fees Ruling Appeal Criticized ---------------------------------------------------------------- The University of California (UC) should reconsider its apparent decision to appeal a recent ruling by San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren, which awarded $33.8 million to thousands of students whom UC hit with unexpected fee increases in 2003, The InsideBayArea.com reports. The university's rationale for keeping the case alive falls short morally as well as legally. To spend more money defending the case would be improper and, in our estimation, foolish, according to an InsideBayArea.com article. In a court opinion released on March 6, UC was ordered to pay $33.8 million to rectify the damages incurred after thousands of professional students faced unexpected fee increases. The multi-million dollar lawsuit, filed by eight UC professional students in 2003, stipulated the university breached its contract with more than 50,000 professional students -- around 9,000 of who saw their fees more than double. Judge Warren said in the court opinion that in: "university-wide publications" such as student catalogues, the university made a promise to professional students that fees would remain constant, and they did not follow through, (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 10, 2006). The biggest chunk of money, $28 million of the $33.8 million awarded, goes to 9,163 professional school students - business, law, medical, etc. - with the other $5.3 million targeted for other students. Judge Warren specifically ruled that bills sent to students before fees rose were binding contracts, and terms outlined in each university fee schedule released from 1996 to 2003 were not "vague or indefinite." The judge cited that the key statement accompanying prior fee schedules read "Increases in the fee apply to new students only. The fee will remain the same for each student for the duration of his or her enrollment in the professional degree program." In addition, Judge Warren pointed out, "The promise was stated with clarity, and the parties understood what was expected of them. A reasonable person would be entitled to rely on the university's representation that the ... fee would remain the same throughout his or her enrollment, regardless of what happened to the rest of tuition." Attorneys for UC argued that there was no contract, that students were told "repeatedly" that fees were subject to change and that students were aware that increases dictated by a state budget crisis were likely. With regards to professional students, fees almost tripled in three years, from $6,000 in the 2002-03 academic year to as much as $15,258 in the fall of 2005. Mo Kashmiri, the class-action's lead plaintiff and a student at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law when the fees increased, and others were forced to drop out of school temporarily or take additional jobs to earn extra money to pay the difference. WARBURG PINCUS: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set April 24, 2006 ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter: "Hanley v. Warburg Pincus Cap, et al., Case No. 4:96-cv-00390- FRZ." The case was brought on behalf of all persons who tendered their warrants to acquire Magma Cooper Company common stock at an exercise price of $8.50, expiration November 30, 1995 self-tender at $8.25 per warrant. The hearing will be held on April 24, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Frank R. Zapata, at the U.S. Courthouse, 405 West Congress St., Courtroom 5A, Tucson, Arizona 85701. Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on December 31, 2006. For more details, contact Magma Cooper Warrants Securities Litigation, c/o RSM McGladrey, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 1387, Blue Bell, PA 19422, Phone: (800) 222-2760; and Jay W. Eng and Wendy H. Zoberman of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, Esperante Bldg., 222 Lakeview Ave., Ste. 900, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Phone: 561-835-9400, Fax: 561-835-0322, E- mail: jeng@bermanesq.com and wzoberman@bermanesq.com. WASHINGTON: Workers, National Group File Suit Over Union Dues ------------------------------------------------------------- A group of current and former state workers launched a federal lawsuit against the Washington Federation of State Employees over what they call improper and forced union dues, Associated Press reports. The suit seeks class-action status, and was filed on March 15, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Plaintiffs named in the suit are: (1) Andre Opsal, (2) Darrel Mollenhour, (3) Debbie Koepp, (4) James Szpek, (5) Joanne Rice, (6) Kimberly Johnson, (7) Liz Flugel, (8) Maxine Dunkelman, (9) Patricia Woodward, and (10) Stephen Sergi. They allege that their due process rights were violated, since union officials did not say how their dues were being spent. Some of them also claim that they have been fired, because they refused to pay union dues or the legally required alternative fees. Backed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the statewide class action seeks to stop the Washington Federation of State Employees from forcing 40,000 workers to pay union dues, (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 16, 2006). Tim Welch though, a spokesman for the Washington Federation of State Employees says that the Right to Work Foundation is just trying to undermine strong union contracts that benefit workers. The suit is styled, "Opsal, et al. v. Washing Federation of State Employees, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00079-EFS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington under Judge Edward F. Shea. Representing the plaintiffs are, Stephen Ross Matthews of Phillabaum Ledlin Matthews & Sheldon, 421 West Riverside, Suite 900, Spokane, WA 99201-0413, Phone: 509-838-6055, Fax: 15096251909, E-mail: sm@spokelaw.com. WDET 101.9: Exec Accused of Embezzling In-kind Contributions ------------------------------------------------------------ The general manager of an FM station facing class action over allegations that the station tricked listeners regarding its donation campaign, has been charged with felony embezzlement. Michael Coleman, general manager of WDET 101.9 FM, was charged in Ann Arbor at his former employer, Michigan Public Media, which operates the city's public radio station, WUOM 91.7 FM, Crains Detroit.com reports. Two other former employees, Justin Ebright, and Jeremy Nordquist, were similarly charged. Mr. Ebright was development director; Mr. Nordquist, account executive. Timothy Slottow, executive vice president and CFO at the University of Michigan said financial improprieties committed by the three involve converting in-king corporate contributions for personal use. In-kind contributions involve companies donating of services, goods or money in exchange for on-air mentions. WDET is facing a class action in Wayne County Circuit Court over allegations that the station tricked listeners into making donations by delaying news that their favorite shows were being canceled, the report said. XCHANGE INC: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set May 1, 2006 --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter: "In re: Xchange, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:01-cv-10322-RWZ." The case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Exchange Applications, Inc., a/k/a Xchange, Inc. during the period December 9, 1998 to September 29, 2000. The hearing will be held before the Honorable Rya W. Zobel in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Courtroom 12, Boston, MA 02210 at 2:00 p.m., on May 1, 2006. Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on May 29, 2006. Any objections to the settlement must be filed by April 14, 2006. For more details, contact In re: Xchange, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 2463, 2710 Concord Road, Suite 5, Aston, PA 19014, Phone: (866) 274-4004, Web site: http://www.strategicclaims.net; and James F. Conway, III and Dennis J. Johnson of Johnson & Perkinson, 1690 Williston Road, South Burlington, VT 05403, Phone: 802-862-0300, Fax: 802-862-0060, E-mail: jconway@jpclasslaw.com. New Securities Fraud Cases BAUSCH & LOMB: Stull, Stull & Brody Files Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Bausch & Lomb, Inc. (NYSE: BOL) between January 27, 2005 and December 22, 2005, inclusive. The Complaint alleges that defendant violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false statements concerning Bausch & Lomb's results. Specifically, defendants issued positive statements while concealing material adverse information about the true nature of Bausch & Lomb's revenues, the lack of adequate internal controls and the underpayment of taxes resulting in tens of millions of dollars in penalties, which ultimately resulted in the restatement of the Companys financials over a period of five years. On December 22, 2005, after the markets closed, the Company provided an update on an internal investigation related to its Brazil subsidiary and announced that it would restate its financial results for 2000 through the first half of 2005. On this news, Bausch & Lomb's stock fell to a close of $72.00 per share on December 23, 2005, a decline of over $7.00 from its close on December 22, 2005. It is alleged that, prior to these revelations of accounting fraud the Companys top officers and directors illegally reaped over $29 million in insider trading proceeds. For more information, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com, Phone: 1-800-337-4983 (toll-free), Fax: at 212/490-2022; Web site: http://www.ssbny.com. CHICAGO BRIDGE: Murray, Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all securities purchasers of Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. (CBI) between March 9, 2005 and February 3, 2006, inclusive. According to the complaint, the Company, a global engineering, procurement, and construction firm, repeatedly reported strong financial results in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and in publicly disseminated press releases. The Company also reported to have a "record backlog" of construction projects that would generate significant revenues and contribute to the Company's continuing growth. These statements were materially false and misleading, because defendants failed to disclose that the Company's purportedly positive results and guidance were the result of, in material part, fraudulent accounting. On October 26, 2005 the truth began to emerge, because on that day, the Company announced that it would not be able to timely file its report for the third quarter of 2005 with the SEC. In reaction to this news, the price of CBI stock fell $6.21 per share in a single day. On October 31, 2005, the Company revealed in a press release that the delay in releasing its results for the third quarter of 2005 "was precipitated by a memo from a senior member of CB&I's accounting department alleging accounting improprieties, including the determination of claim recognition on two projects and the assessment of costs to complete two projects." According to the release, the Company's Audit Committee had commenced an independent investigation of the matter. Despite this announcement, defendant Gerald Glenn, maintained a positive outlook for the Company's performance. On January 27, 2006, the Company disclosed in a filing with the SEC that it had entered into a lucrative "Stay Bonus Agreement" with the Company's Vice President and Controller, Tommy Rhodes, valued at over $1.74 million, in an apparent attempt to cover up its previously announced "accounting improprieties" and to silence a potential whistle-blower. On February 3, 2006, as further evidence that CBI's problems were much more serious than defendants had suggested at the time, the Company announced, without explanation, that it had fired defendants Glenn and Robert B. Jordan. On February 4, 2006, in reaction to this news, the price of CBI stock plummeted again, falling to $22.33 per share, or 23%, from its closing price of $29.00 on February 3, 2006. For more information, visit: http://www.murrayfrank.com/CM/NewCases/NewCases.asp. Plaintiff's counsel is Eric J. Belfi and Bradley P. Dyer of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, Phone: (800) 497-8076, Phone: (212) 682-1818; Fax: (212) 682-1892; E-mail: info@murrayfrank.com. ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina 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 * * *