/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060322.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, March 22, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 58 Headlines ACLARA BIOSCIENCES: IPO Pact Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006 ADHERIS INC: Mass. Court Dismisses Suit Over Prescription Data AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Court Okays Securities Suit Settlement ART TECHNOLOGY: Mass. Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Suit C.P. PARTNERS: Ad Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set March 27, 2006 COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Settlement Hearing Set on Ill. Junk Fax Suit CURRENT USA: Recalls 12-Gallon Aquariums Due to Shock Hazard EXELON CORP: Ill. Community to Discuss Tritium Spill Suit Today FOODS INC: Issues Alert on Mexican Bread with Undeclared Milk GLOBAL CROSSING: Settles Consolidated Stock, ERISA Suits in N.Y. GOOGLE INC: Blacklisted Web Site Files Anti-Trust Suit in Calif. IBASIS INC: IPO Settlement Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006 INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS: Inks Settlement for Del. Securities Suit LABRANCHE & CO: Amended Consolidated Stock Suit Filed in N.Y. LABRANCHE & CO: Court Rejects Claims in Consolidated Stock Suit LEXAR MEDIA: Shareholders Opposed to Micron Merger File Lawsuit LIBYA: Victims of IRA Terrorism Seeking Redress in U.S. Courts LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: IPO Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006 LOUISIANA: Loses Final Appeal on Tangipahoa River Flooding Suit MANNATECH INC: Has 60 Days to Respond to Consolidated Stock Suit MICHIGAN: Faces Lawsuit Over On-Line Sex-Offender Registry MICHIGAN: Court Sides with Plaintiffs in Medicaid Refill Lawsuit MISSOURI: Boone County Oncologist Sued for Defrauding Patients MIVA INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Payday's Click-Fraud Lawsuit MIVA INC.: Court Nixes Suit, Gives Plaintiffs Leave to Amend MIVA INC.: Dismissal Motion Filed in Ark. Click-Fraud Lawsuit MIVA INC.: Faces Internet Gambling, Unfair Trade Suits in Calif. MOTIENT CORP: Court Junks Breach of Fiduciary Duties Lawsuit NETFLIX INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit NIGERIA: Ethnic Group Sues Over Veracity, Legality of Census NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces "Hidden City" Tickets Suits in Mich. NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Privacy Suits Dismissed, Another on Appeal PINNACLE FOODS: Issues Allergy Alert on Brownie Mix with Walnuts RIDGEWOOD ORGANIZATION: Ad Suit Settlement Trial Set April 24 REPUBLIC TITLE: Real Estate Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 4 SUNTRIPS: Airlines, Hotels Sue to Recover Payments After Sale TASER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Ariz. TASER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Device's Safety THESTREET.COM INC: IPO Suit Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006 TREX CO: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Va. UICI: Settles Tex., Okla. Lawsuits Opposing Proposed Disposal UNION PACIFIC: Suit by Laramie County Residents Returned to Wyo. WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Wash. Securities Suit's Dismissal ZURICH AMERICAN: Enters $171.7M Settlement for Bid-Rigging Suit Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases CHICAGO BRIDGE: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit CHICAGO BRIDGE: Klafter & Olsen Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit H&R BLOCK: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in Miss. MILLS CORP: Kahn Gauthier Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Va. NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Bernard Gross Files Stock Suit in Ill. PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Shalov Stone Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit PHH CORP: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.J. PHH CORP: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J. ********* ACLARA BIOSCIENCES: IPO Pact Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold an April 24, 2006 a final approval hearing for the proposed settlement in a suit over ACLARA BioSciences, Inc.'s initial public offering (IPO). ACLARA, with which Monogram Biosciences, Inc. merged in December 2004, and certain of its former officers and directors were named as defendants in a securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit was filed on November 13, 2001 and is now captioned, "ACLARA BioSciences, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation." It names several of the underwriters involved in ACLARA's initial public offering, or IPO, as defendants. This class action is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of ACLARA common stock from the time of ACLARA's March 20, 2000 IPO through December 6, 2000. The central allegation in this action is that the underwriters in the ACLARA IPO solicited and received undisclosed commissions from, and entered into undisclosed arrangements with, certain investors who purchased ACLARA stock in the IPO and the after- market. The complaint also alleges that the ACLARA defendants violated the federal securities laws by failing to disclose in the IPO prospectus that the underwriters had engaged in these allegedly undisclosed arrangements. More than 300 issuers who went public between 1998 and 2000 have been named in similar lawsuits. In July 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss all complaints against issuers and individual defendants affiliated with issuers (including ACLARA defendants) was filed by the entire group of issuer defendants in these similar actions. On February 19, 2003, the Court in this action issued its decision on the defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss. This decision dismissed the Section 10(b) claim as to ACLARA, but denied the motion to dismiss Section 11 claim as to ACLARA and virtually all of the other defendants. On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs in the consolidated class action announced a proposed settlement with ACLARA and the other issuer defendants. The proposed settlement, which was approved by ACLARA's board of directors, provides that the insurers of all settling issuers will guarantee that the plaintiffs recover $1 billion from non-settling defendants, including the investment banks who acted as underwriters in those offerings. In the event that the plaintiffs do not recover $1 billion, the insurers for the settling issuers will make up the difference. Under the proposed settlement, the maximum amount that could be charged to ACLARA's insurance policy in the event that the plaintiffs recovered nothing from the investment banks would be approximately $3.9 million. The Company believes that it had sufficient insurance coverage to cover the maximum amount that itmay be responsible for under the proposed settlement. On August 31, 2005, the Court granted unconditional preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. The Court set the settlement fairness hearing for April 24, 2006. ADHERIS INC: Mass. Court Dismisses Suit Over Prescription Data -------------------------------------------------------------- The Suffolk Superior Court in Massachusetts dismissed a purported class action filed against Adheris, Inc., which was acquired by Ventiv Health, Inc. in February 2006. The class action filed on February 20, 1998 is styled, "John Weld, Jr., on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Elensys Care Services, Inc. and Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. (Civil Action No. 98-0897F)." On July 15, 1998, Mr. Weld's complaint was amended to include another plaintiff and to add Warner-Lambert, Merck, Hoffman La-Roche, BioGen and BioTech as additional defendants. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants violated the plaintiff's right to privacy and confidentiality by sending the plaintiff letters based on the plaintiff's prescription history and by CVS sharing the plaintiff's prescription data with The Company and the other parties. The plaintiff sought damages and injunctive relief in this lawsuit. On February 23, 2006, the court due to the class plaintiffs' failure to prosecute the action decertified the class in this action and the case was dismissed as to one of the two named plaintiffs. The dismissal was stayed for 60 days in order to allow a new party and a new law firm to continue the litigation if a suitable class representative and class counsel step forward. The second named plaintiff was permitted to proceed on an individual basis. AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Court Okays Securities Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Akamai Technologies, Inc., certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of its October 28, 1999 initial public offering of common stock. Between July 2, 2001 and November 7, 2001, purported class action seeking monetary damages were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company as well as against the underwriters of the company's October 28, 1999 initial public offering of common stock. The complaints were filed allegedly on behalf of persons who purchased the company's common stock during different time periods, all beginning on October 28, 1999 and ending on various dates. The complaints were similar and allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act primarily based on the allegation that the underwriters received undisclosed compensation in connection with the company's initial public offering. On April 19, 2002, a single consolidated amended complaint was filed, reiterating in one pleading the allegations contained in the previously filed separate actions. The consolidated amended complaint defines the alleged class period as October 28, 1999 through December 6, 2000. A Special Litigation Committee of the Company's Board of Directors authorized management to negotiate a settlement of the pending claims substantially consistent with a Memorandum of Understanding that was negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants and their insurers. The parties negotiated a settlement that was subject to approval by the Court. On February 15, 2005, the Court issued an Opinion and Order preliminarily approving the settlement, provided that the defendants and plaintiffs agree to a modification narrowing the scope of the bar order set forth in the original settlement agreement. The parties agreed to a modification narrowing the scope of the bar order and, on August 31, 2005, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement. ART TECHNOLOGY: Mass. Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts deferred a final order of dismissal of a consolidated class action filed against Art Technology Group, Inc. and certain of its former officers. The Company and certain of the company's former officers were named as defendants in seven purported class action that have been consolidated into one action currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under the caption, "In re Art Technology Group, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File No. 01-CV-11731-NG)." The case alleged that the company, and certain of the company's former officers, have violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule SEC 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, which generally may subject issuers of securities and persons controlling those issuers to civil liabilities for fraudulent actions in connection with the purchase or sale of securities The case was originally filed in 2001, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed in March 2002. In April 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case. On September 4, 2003, the court issued a ruling dismissing all but one of the plaintiffs' allegations. The remaining allegation was based on the veracity of a public statement made by one of the company's former officers. In August 2004, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment as to the remaining allegation, which the court granted in September 2005. The plaintiffs have moved for leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint, which, if allowed, would revive some of the claims previously dismissed by the court. The court deferred a final order of dismissal of plaintiffs' case to allow it time to consider plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint. The Company opposed that motion. The suit was styled "In Re: Art Technology Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:01-cv-11731-NG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Nancy Gertner. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan and Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail: ted@shulaw.com (2) David C. Katz, Weiss & Lurie, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, NY 10176, Phone: 212-682-3025, Fax: 212-682-3010, E-mail: dkatz@wllawny.com (3) Douglas M. Risen, Sherrie R. Savett, Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-875-3000, (4) Patrick K. Slyne, Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-687-7230, Fax: 212-490-2022 Representing the Company are Dyan Finguerra-DeCharme, Mary Jo Johnson, William H. Pane, Jeffrey B. Rudman and Matthew A. Stowe of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, 399 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-230-8800, Fax: 212-230-8888; and Nancy Margaret Gorton, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-742-9100, E- mail: maryjo.johnson@wilmerhale.com, william.paine@wilmerhale.com, jeffrey.rudman@wilmerhale.com, matthew.stowe@wilmerhale.com. C.P. PARTNERS: Ad Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set March 27, 2006 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Chancery Division will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter: "Erold S. Rawson v. C.P. Partners, L.L.C., d/b/a Comfort Inn-O'hare, Case No. 03 CH 15165." The case was brought on behalf of all persons who were sent facsimiles of material advertising the commercial availability of any services by or on behalf of C.P. Partners, LLC, doing business as Comfort Inn O'Hare and with respect to whom Defendant cannot provide evidence of prior express permission for the sending of such faxes, and which were sent to telephone numbers within Illinois within 4 years of the date of service of the summons and complaint upon Defendant. The final fairness hearing will take place on March 27, 2006 at 11:00 a.m., in Room 1703 of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Daley Center, 50 W. Washington, Chicago, Illinois, 60602. Any objections to the settlement must be made by March 10, 2006. Submission of the proof of claim must also be made by March 10, 2006. For more details, contact Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, (12094) 120 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 739-4200, Fax: 312-419-0379, E-mail: edcombs@aol.com, Web site: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?6ba. COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Settlement Hearing Set on Ill. Junk Fax Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter: "James Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Case No. 05 C 2713." The case was brought on behalf of all persons and entities who in June 2004 had ownership, control, or authority over a telephone number to which Robert Brunke of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. sent a certain facsimile advertisement for Equity Loan Balance Transfers. For more details, contact Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, (12094) 120 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 739-4200, Fax: 312-419-0379, E-mail: edcombs@aol.com, Web site: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?6be. CURRENT USA: Recalls 12-Gallon Aquariums Due to Shock Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Current U.S.A. Inc., of Vista, California, is recalling 1,000 AquaPod 12-Gallon Aquariums. The company said these aquariums have three power cords, two for the aquarium lamps and one for the air pump. When only one of the two lamp cords is plugged in, the unplugged lamp cord can become energized, posing an electrical shock hazard to consumers. Current USA Inc. has received nine reports of electrical problems with these aquariums, resulting in seven consumers suffering shocks by touching unplugged, energized lamp cords. This recall affects AquaPod Aquariums with model number 7050. The model number is not written on the aquariums, but is on the owner's manual and the packaging. Only aquariums without a white label containing the manufacturer date and a bar code, which is attached to light reflector inside lid of the aquariums are included in this recall. To check if your unit has a white sticker, open the aquarium lid and look on the bottom left corner of the light reflector. If your AquaPod 12-Gallon System has a white label with a date in black letters and bar code, it is not included in the recall. Model numbers 7051 and 7052 aquariums also are not included in the recall. The aquariums were made in China and sold in Pet stores nationwide, pet merchandise catalogs, and by Web retailers from December 2005 through January 2006 for about $240. Consumers are advised to stop using these aquariums immediately by turning off the power at the breaker switch and unplugging all the cords. Consumers are advised to contact their local retailer or call the firm for information on receiving a free replacement aquarium. Consumer Contact, USA Inc., Phone: (866) 276-8872 (toll-free) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. PT Monday through Friday; Web site: http://www.current-usa.com. EXELON CORP: Ill. Community to Discuss Tritium Spill Suit Today --------------------------------------------------------------- A public discussion about a class action filed against Exelon Corp. over tritium spills will be held March 22, 2006, 6:00 p.m. at Reed-Custer High School, 249 Comet Dri., Illinois, according to Morris Daily Herald. The meeting is specific to the tritium spills at Braidwood, Byron Generating Station near Rockford, and Dresden Station at Morris, Nuclear Information Resource Service spokesman, Paul Gunter, said. A group of residents who live two miles from tritium spills at the Braidwood Generating Station filed a suit against energy companies Commonwealth Edison, its parent company Exelon Corp., and Exelon Generation Co., LLC on March 13, according to STNG Wire (Class Action Reporter, March 16, 2006). The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago. The suit alleged Exelon spilled hazardous wastes into ground water and land since 1996, depreciating the value of the plaintiffs' property (Class Action Reporter, March 16, 2006). Tritium is a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that emits a very low level of radiation and is found in virtually all of the earth's water. It is produced in greater concentrations in commercial nuclear reactors and is discharged into the environment under federal operating permits. The lawsuit is seeking class-action status, reimbursement for past purchases of bottled water, compensation for the loss of use and enjoyment of property, and injunctive relief in the form of future bottled water services, future water monitoring and public health studies. The suit also seeks that the defendants fund and the court supervises a medical monitoring program. Plaintiffs are not alleging personal injuries in the suit. Eleven Braidwood families filed a second multi-count complaint against Exelon Corporation and Commonwealth Edison Corporation related to: -- a series of violations of nuclear waste laws, and -- admitted contaminations of property near the Braidwood nuclear plant in Braidwood, Will County, Illinois. Illinois injury lawyer, Todd A. Smith of Power Rogers & Smith -- http://www.prslaw.com-- made the filing (Case No. 06 L 172) March 14 at the Will County Courthouse in Joliet, Illinois (Class Action Reporter, March 21, 2006). Reported leaks from the Braidwood nuclear plant of a radioactive substance called tritium into the soil and ground of property surrounding the Braidwood Nuclear Reactor, adjacent to Braidwood, Illinois, were first revealed last November. In addition to leaks identified in 2003 -- reported only recently by Exelon -- three other separate contaminations through leakage of tritium have been identified from 1996, 1998 and 2000. The lawsuit filed for the 11 families contains 7 counts, including claims for the creation of a nuisance from the contamination on property, and near their property, for violations of nuclear waste laws and the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, the Illinois Water Pollutant Discharge Act, the Illinois Ground Water Protection Act, and claims for diminution of property. The suit contends that the acknowledged millions of gallons of tritium leakage into the ground jeopardizes the ground water over an extensive area and creates an enormous detrimental stigma for hundreds of citizens in the area. The Chicago suit was styled "Duffin et al. v. Exelon Corporation et al. (1:06-cv-01382)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Suzanne B. Conlon. Representing the plaintiffs is Nicholas Evans Sakellariou of McKeown, Fitzgerald, Zollner, Buck, Hutchison & Ruttle, 2455 Glenwood Avenue, Joliet, IL 60432, Phone: (815) 729-4800. FOODS INC: Issues Alert on Mexican Bread with Undeclared Milk ------------------------------------------------------------- State Agriculture Commissioner Patrick H. Brennan is alerting consumers that Foods, Inc., d/b/a Maizteca Bakery of New York is recalling 1.5 pound packages of "Maizteca Mexican Bread" due to an undeclared milk ingredient. People who have allergies to milk may run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product, a statement in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Web site states. The recalled "Maizteca Mexican Bread" comes in an uncoded plastic package. It was sold in New York and Connecticut. The problem was discovered as a result of routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis by the Department's Food Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of a milk ingredient in product packages, which did not declare a milk ingredient on the label. No illnesses have been reported to date to this Department in connection with the problem. Consumers who have purchased "Maizteca Mexican Bread" are advised to return it to the place of purchase. GLOBAL CROSSING: Settles Consolidated Stock, ERISA Suits in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Global Crossing Limited reached a settlement for the consolidated securities fraud class action styled, "In Re: Global Crossing Ltd. Securities & "ERISA" Litigation, Case No. 1:02-md-01472-GEL." The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Following the Company's April 27, 2004 announcement that the Company expected to restate certain of its consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2003, eight separate class action all purporting to be brought on behalf of Company shareholders were commenced against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Courts in New Jersey, New York and California. The cases were consolidated and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to Judge Gerard Lynch of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York based on his past involvement in prior cases involving the Company. On February 18, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint against the Company and two of its past and present officers. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Company defrauded the public securities markets by issuing false and misleading statements that failed to disclose or indicate: (1) that the Company had materially understated its accrued cost of access liabilities by as much as $80 million, (2) that the Company lacked sufficient internal controls to prevent material misstatements, (3) that the Company lacked sufficient internal controls to properly record and report accrued cost of access liabilities and operating expenses, (4) that its financial statements were not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, (5) that the Company did not, contrary to its representations, consistently monitor the accuracy of its systems that measured cost of access, (6) that the Company's results were materially inflated, and (7) that the Company did not have a "clean" balance sheet. The consolidated amended complaint, on behalf of a class of persons who purchased or acquired the Company's common stock between December 9, 2003 and April 26, 2004, asserted claims under the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs contended that the Company's misstatement or omissions artificially inflated the price of the Company's stock, which declined when the "true" costs were disclosed. Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages as well as other relief. The Company and the lead plaintiffs agreed in principle to settle the litigation under the terms of a proposed settlement agreement that remains subject to final negotiation and court approval. The proposed settlement agreement contemplates the creation of a settlement fund by the Company, subject to reimbursement in full by the Company's directors and officers liability insurance carrier. If the case is not settled, defendants anticipate filing a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The suit is styled, "In Re: Global Crossing Ltd. Securities & "ERISA" Litigation, Case No. 1:02-md-01472-GEL, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Gerard E. Lynch. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Jeffrey S. Abraham of Abraham & Associates, One Penn Plaza, Suite # 1910, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212) 714-2444; (2) Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq., Sidney S. Liebesman, Esq. or Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. of Chase Manhattan Centre, 1201 N. Market St., Wilmington, DE, 19801, Phone: (302) 622- 7149, Fax: (302) 622-7100; (3) Kenneth A. Elan of Law Office of Kenneth A. Elan, 217 Broadway, Suite 606, New York, NY 10007, Phone: (212) 619-0261; (4) Gregory M. Egleston of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 779-1414, Fax: (212) 779-3218, E-mail: egleston@bernlieb.com; (5) John Halebian of Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP, 500 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10110, Phone: (212) 608-1900, Fax: (212) 719-4677, E-mail: jhalebian@lshllp.com. Representing the defendants are, Ralph C. Ferrara and Joseph P. Moodhe of Debevoise & Plimpton, 919 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 909-6000 and (212) 909-6284, E-mail: jpmoodhe@debevoise.com; and Carolyn G. Nussbaum of Nixon, Peabody, L.L.P, Clinton Square, P.O. Box 31051, Rochester, NY 14603, Phone: (585) 263-1000. For more details, visit: http://www.globalcrossinglitigation.com GOOGLE INC: Blacklisted Web Site Files Anti-Trust Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- KinderStart.com is suing online search engine Google Inc. for alleged wrongful banning of the company's Web site from the latter's list, Associated Press reports. The Norwalk, California-based company filed a civil complaint on March 17 in U.S. District Court in San Jose, asking to represent owners of all Web sites blacklisted by Google's search engine since January 2001. It is seeking class certification for the suit. KinderStart's complaint relates to Google's system of ranking Web sites according to the content's relevance to a request. Because competition is high, some Web sites engage in devious schemes to raise their status. Google ensures the veracity of its index by taking these fraudsters' Web sites off. In worst cases, it exiles these Web sites, according to the report. In its complaint, KinderStart alleged that Google have wrongfully banned some Web sites. It also said that these Web sites could no longer be restored because Google does not disclose its procedures. It said it was dropped from Google's index a year ago without being informed. KinderStart alleges the practice is anti-competitive. According to the company, its Web site traffic has plunged by 70% after it was dropped from Google's index. It claims to have more than 10 million visits a month. KinderStart also claims Google misled the public by positioning its search engine as an objective source for finding Internet content. The suit seeks unspecified financial damages and a court order that would require Google to change its practices. KinderStart's lawyer is Gregory Yu of Chen-Yu Enterprises LLC 1601 Bayshore Hwy, Suite 311, Burlingame, California, (San Mateo Co.). IBASIS INC: IPO Settlement Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006 -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold an April 24, 2006 a final approval hearing for the proposed settlement in litigation regarding iBasis, Inc.'s initial public offering (IPO). Beginning July 11, 2001, the Company was served with several class action complaints that were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against it and several of its officers, directors, and former officers and directors, as well as against the investment banking firms that underwrote its November 10, 1999 initial public offering of common stock and the company's March 9, 2000 secondary offering of common stock. The complaints were filed on behalf of persons who purchased the company's common stock during different time periods, all beginning on or after November 10, 1999 and ending on or before December 6, 2000. The complaints were similar to each other and to hundreds of other complaints filed against other issuers and their underwriters, and allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 primarily based on the assertion that there was undisclosed compensation received by the company's underwriters in connection with the company's public offerings and that there were understandings with customers to make purchases in the aftermarket. The plaintiffs sought an undetermined amount of monetary damages in relation to these claims. On September 4, 2001, the cases against the company were consolidated. On October 9, 2002, the individual defendants were dismissed from the litigation by stipulation and without prejudice. On June 11, 2004, the company and the individual defendants, as well as many other issuers named as defendants in the class action proceeding, entered into an agreement-in-principle to settle this matter, and on June 14, 2004, this settlement was presented to the court. The district court granted a preliminary approval of the issuers' settlement on February 15, 2005, subject to certain modifications to the proposed bar order, to which plaintiffs and issuers agreed. On August 31, 2005, the court issued a preliminary order further approving the modifications to the settlement and certifying the settlement classes. The court appointed Garden City Group as the notice administrator for the settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement be distributed to all settlement class members beginning on November 15, 2005 and completed by January 15, 2006. The deadline for filing objections to the settlement is March 24, 2006, and the fairness hearing has been set for April 26, 2006. INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS: Inks Settlement for Del. Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Insight Communications Company, Inc. reached a memorandum of understanding to settle the consolidated securities class action filed against it and each of its directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Between March 7 and March 15, 2005, five purported class action were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming Insight Communications Company, Inc. and each of its directors as defendants. Three of the lawsuits also named The Carlyle Group as a defendant. The cases were subsequently consolidated under the caption, "In Re Insight Communications Company, Inc. Shareholders Litigation (Civil Action No. 1154-N)," and, on April 11, 2005, a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed against each director and The Carlyle Group. The Complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendant directors breached their fiduciary duties to the company's stockholders in connection with a proposal from Sidney R. Knafel, Michael Willner, together with certain related and other parties, and The Carlyle Group to acquire all of the company's outstanding, publicly-held Class A common stock. The Complaint also alleged that the proposed transaction violated the company's Charter and that The Carlyle Group aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary duty breaches. The Complaint sought: (1) the certification of a class of the company's stockholders; (2) a declaration that the proposed transaction violates the company's Charter; (3) an injunction prohibiting the defendants from proceeding with the proposed transaction; (4) rescission or other damages in the event the proposed transaction is consummated; (5) an award of costs and disbursements including attorneys' fees; and (6) other relief. On July 28, 2005, the parties to the action entered into a memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms of a proposed settlement of the litigation which, among other things, provides that the buyers shall proceed with the merger, subject to the terms and conditions of the merger agreement including the "majority of the minority" stockholder voting condition, and under which the defendants admit to no wrongdoing or fault. The memorandum of understanding contemplated certification of a plaintiff class consisting of all record and beneficial owners of the company's Class A common stock, other than the buyers, during the period beginning on and including March 6, 2005, through and including the date of the consummation of the merger, a dismissal of all claims with prejudice, and a release in favor of all defendants of any and all claims related to the merger. The proposed settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including consummation of the merger, which closed on December 16, 2005, the plaintiffs' approval of a definitive settlement agreement and final court approval of the settlement. LABRANCHE & CO: Amended Consolidated Stock Suit Filed in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the securities class action "In re NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, Case No. 03-8264," filed against LaBranche & Co., Inc., lodged an Amended Consolidated Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. The amended suit adds Robert A. Martin as a plaintiff. The suit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On October 16, 2003 through December 16, 2003, four purported class action were brought by persons or entities who purchased and/or sold shares of stocks of NYSE-listed companies for which LaBranche & Co. LLC and any other NYSE specialist firm acted as specialist, including: (1) Pirelli v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8264, (2) Marcus v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8521, (3) Empire v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8935, and (4) California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) v. The New York Stock Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 9968 On March 11, 2004, a fifth action asserting similar claims, "Rosenbaum Partners, LP v. The New York Stock Exchange, Inc., et al. No. 04 CV 2038," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by an individual plaintiff who does not allege to represent a class. On May 27, 2004, the court consolidated these lawsuits. The court named the following lead plaintiffs: California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and Empire Programs, Inc. On September 15, 2004, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws and Breach of Fiduciary Duty alleging that they represent a class consisting of all public investors who purchased and/or sold shares of stock listed on the NYSE from October 17, 1998 to October 15, 2003. Plaintiffs alleged that the Company, LaBranche & Co. LLC, Mr. LaBranche and other NYSE specialist firms and their respective parents and affiliates violated Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) by failing to disclose improper specialist trading, improperly profiting on purchases and/or sales of NYSE- listed securities and breaching and/or aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs also name the NYSE as a defendant. Plaintiffs sought unspecified money damages, restitution, forfeiture of fees, commissions and other compensation, equitable and/or injunctive relief, including an accounting of and the imposition of a constructive trust and/or asset freeze on trading proceeds, and attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. On December 12, 2005, defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The court dismissed plaintiffs' Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) claims against all defendants for conduct that occurred before January 1, 1999 and dismissed plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims against all defendants. The court also dismissed all claims against the NYSE and certain claims against certain parents and affiliates of specialists other than LaBranche & Co. LLC. On February 2, 2006, plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws and Breach of Fiduciary Duty, adding Robert A. Martin as a plaintiff. This complaint is otherwise identical to plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. The suit is styled, "In Re: NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-08264-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Robert W. Sweet. Representing the plaintiffs are, Mario Alba, Jr. of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail: malba@lerachlaw.com; and Robert Craig Finkel of Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 759-4600, E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com. Representing the defendants are, E. Michael Bradley of John E. Lavelle, Esq., 38 Willis Avenue, Mineola, NY 11501, Phone: (212) 326-3863, Fax: (212) 755-7306, E-mail: embradley@jonesday.com; and Deborah S. Burstein of King & Spalding, LLP, 1185 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Phone: (212) 556-2347, Fax: (212) 556-2222. LABRANCHE & CO: Court Rejects Claims in Consolidated Stock Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed certain claims in a consolidated securities class action filed against LaBranche & Co., Inc. The suit is styled "In re LaBranche Securities Litigation, No. 03 CV 8201." On October 16, 2003 through December 16, 2003, nine purported class action were filed by purchasers of the Company's common stock, including: (1) Sofran v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8201, (2) Semon v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8255, (3) Haug v. LaBranche & Co. Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8265, (4) Labul v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8365, (5) Murphy v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8462, (6) Strain v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8509, (7) Yopp v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8783, (8) Ferris v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8806, and (9) Levin v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8918. On March 22, 2004 the court consolidated these lawsuits under the caption, then named these lead plaintiffs: Anthony Johnson, Clyde Farmer, Edwin Walthall, Donald Stahl and City of Harper Woods Retirement System. On June 7, 2004, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On July 12, 2004, plaintiffs filed a Corrected Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that they represent a class consisting of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock during the period beginning on August 19, 1999 and concluding on October 15, 2003. Plaintiffs alleged that the Company, LaBranche & Co. LLC, and certain of its and/or LaBranche & Co. LLC's past or present officers and/or directors, including George M.L. LaBranche, IV, William J. Burke, III, James G. Gallagher, Alfred O. Hayward, Jr., Robert M. Murphy and Harvey S. Traison, violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by failing to disclose improper specialist trading. Plaintiffs also allege that two other of the Company's past or present officers and/or directors, S. Lawrence Prendergast and George E. Robb, Jr., also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs seek unspecified money damages, attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. On December 12, 2005, motions to dismiss were granted in part and denied in part. The court dismissed the Section 10(b) claims in their entirety against Messrs. Burke, Gallagher and Traison, dismissed the Section 10(b) claims for the period August 19, 1999 through December 30, 2001 against Messrs. LaBranche, Murphy and Hayward, and dismissed the Section 20A claim against Mr. Gallagher. The suit was styled, "In re LaBranche Securities Litigation, No. 03 CV 8201," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Robert W. Sweet. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Robert Craig Finkel and James Abram Harrod, III of Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 759-4600, Fax: (212) 486-2093, E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com and jharrod@wolfpopper.com; (2) Mark Casser Gardy of Abbey, Gardy, L.L.P., 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700, E-mail: mgardy@abbeygardy.com; (3) Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com; and (4) Shane Thomas Rowley of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 983-9330, Fax: (212) 983-9331, E-mail: srowley@faruqilaw.com. Representing the defendants are, E. Michael Bradley of John E. Lavelle, Esq., 38 Willis Avenue, Mineola, NY 11501, Phone: (212) 326-3863, Fax: (212) 755-7306, E-mail: embradley@jonesday.com; and Irwin Howard Warren of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, 767 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10153, Phone: (212) 310-8000, Fax: (212) 310-8007, E-mail: mark.ribaudo@weil.com. LEXAR MEDIA: Shareholders Opposed to Micron Merger File Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Lexar Media, Inc. and certain of its directors were named as defendants in stockholder class actions that were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. The suit asserts claims relating to the March 8, 2006 merger agreement with Micron Technology, Inc. Filed on March 9, 2006 and March 10, 2006, respectively, the complaints allege that, among other things, the defendants engaged in self-dealing and breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger agreement, and that the consideration to be received by the company's stockholders pursuant to the merger agreement is inadequate. Plaintiffs seek, among others, unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees and certain forms of equitable relief, including enjoining the consummation of the merger, rescinding the merger agreement and imposing a constructive trust. LIBYA: Victims of IRA Terrorism Seeking Redress in U.S. Courts -------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers acting for victims of Irish Republican Army atrocities are preparing a class action against Libya, and its government officials accused of supplying war materials to Irish terrorists. The civil action will be launched next month in New York or Washington D.C., The Observer reports, citing lawyers for IRA victims. The 'spearhead group' will be composed of around 20 plaintiffs. The lawsuit is similar to that filed by relatives of victims of the 9/11 terror attacks in the U.S. against rich Saudis accused of financing al-Qaeda, the report said. Victims' groups hope hundreds of people from Northern Ireland, Britain, the U.S. and beyond will join the class action. According to lawyers, up to 6,000 people were killed or injured with Libyan-supplied guns and explosives. The suit will name as defendant Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, and Nasser Ali Ashour, who in the mid-Eighties was third in command of Libyan intelligence. Jason McCue is leading the case for the London-based legal firm H20. Mr. McCue said he and his colleagues plan to use two American laws in its case: the 1996 Foreign Sovereignty Immunity Act, and the Torture Victims Protection Act 1991. The first will be used by U.S. citizens, the second by British. The case will be fought on a no win, no fee basis. Libya is linked with bomb explosions on the Shankill Road in Belfast, Ireland in 1993; in London in the early 90s; and in Canary Wharf and Manchester. Survivors of the attacks and relatives of those who died are seeking millions of pounds in compensation and an apology from Libya, the report said. For more information, contact Mr. McCue of H2O Law, 40-43 Chancery Lane, London C2A 1JQ, Phone: +44 (0) 20 7405 4700; Fax: +44 (0) 20 7061 9461; E-mail: enquiries@h2o-law.com; Web site: http://www.h2o-law.com. LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: IPO Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold an April 24, 2006 a final approval hearing for the proposed settlement in litigation regarding the Lionbridge Technologies, Inc.'s initial public offering to customers. On July 24, 2001, a purported securities class action, captioned, "Samet v. Lionbridge Technologies, Inc., et al., (01- CV-6770)," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain underwriters involved in the Company's initial public offering. The complaint asserted, among other things, that omissions regarding the underwriters' alleged conduct in allocating shares in the Company's initial public offering to the underwriters' customers. In March 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order dismissing without prejudice the claims against the Company and its officers and directors (the case remained pending against the underwriter defendants). On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming as defendants not only the underwriter defendants but also the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The amended complaint asserts claims under both the registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws relating to, among other allegations, the underwriters' alleged conduct in allocating shares in the Company's initial public offering and the disclosures contained in the Company's registration statement. The Company understands that various plaintiffs have filed approximately 1,000 lawsuits making substantially similar allegations against approximately 300 other publicly traded companies in connection with the underwriting of their public offerings. On July 15, 2002, the Company, together with the other issuers named as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a collective motion to dismiss the complaint on various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer defendants. In October 2002, the claims against officers and directors were dismissed without prejudice. In February 2003, the Court issued its ruling on the motion to dismiss, ruling that the claims under the antifraud provisions of the securities laws could proceed against the Company and a majority of the other issuer defendants. In June 2003, the Company elected to participate in a proposed settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation. If ultimately approved by the Court, this proposed settlement would result in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the Company and against any other of the issuer defendants who elect to participate in the proposed settlement, together with the current or former officers and directors of participating issuers who were named as individual defendants. The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of any claims against underwriter defendants, and the litigation as against those defendants is continuing. The proposed settlement provides that the class members in the class action cases brought against the participating issuer defendants will be guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by insurers of the participating issuer defendants. If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the class members from the underwriter defendants, however, the monetary obligations to the class members under the proposed settlement will be satisfied. The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come from participating issuers' directors and officers liability insurance policy proceeds, as opposed to funds of the participating issuer defendants themselves. A participating issuer defendant could be required to contribute to the costs of the settlement if that issuer's insurance coverage were insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share of the settlement costs. The Company expects that its insurance proceeds will be sufficient for these purposes and that it will not otherwise be required to contribute to the proposed settlement. Consummation of the proposed settlement is conditional upon obtaining approval by the Court. On September 1, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement, directed that notice of the terms of the proposed settlement be provided to all class members and scheduled a fairness hearing for April 24, 2006, at which objections to the proposed settlement will be heard. Thereafter, the Court will determine whether to grant final approval to the proposed settlement. If the proposed settlement is not consummated, the Company believes that the underwriters may have an obligation to indemnify it for the legal fees and other costs of defending this suit. The suit was styled, "Samet v. Lionbridge Technologies, Inc., et al., (01-CV-6770)," in relation to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 21 MC 92," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com; (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York, NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065, Phone: 212.594.5300; (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com; (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax: 212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com; (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax: 310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com; and (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.545.4600, Fax; 212.686.0114, e-mail: newyork@whafh.com. LOUISIANA: Loses Final Appeal on Tangipahoa River Flooding Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Louisiana's Supreme Court has rejected the State's final appeal in a class action filed by victims of the Tangipahoa River flooding in 1983, according to The Times-Picayune. Byard Edwards, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, filed the suit in 1984 alleging that the improper design of a nearby Interstate 12 highway created a dam that blocked the river's drainage caused the flooding. The suit was lodged on behalf of about 1,300 plaintiffs. After being assigned to several judges, the case landed in Judge Ray Chutz. At the Department of Transportation and Development's request, damages and liability were determined separately. In 1999, Judge Chutz found the Transportation Department liable for the I-12 design. In 2002, Special Master Thomas Tanner awarded the plaintiffs $92 million. Mr. Edwards said the total amount of the judgment is now $257 million because legal interest begins accruing from the date the suit was filed. He said he has offered to settle the case for lower amounts several times, but now he wants the full amount, according to the report. The State does not plan to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, said Kris Wartelle, spokeswoman for the Louisiana Attorney General's office. MANNATECH INC: Has 60 Days to Respond to Consolidated Stock Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mannatech, Inc. faces a consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico styled, "In re Mannatech, Incorporated Securities Litigation." Previously, the three securities class actions were filed: (1) On August 1, 2005, Mr. Jonathan Crowell filed a putative class action against the company and Mr. Samuel L. Caster, the Chief Executive Officer, in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, on behalf of himself and all others who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between August 10, 2004 and May 9, 2005, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby; (2) On August 30, 2005, Mr. Richard McMurry filed a class action lawsuit against the Company, Mr. Caster, Mr. Terry L. Persinger, the Company's President and Chief Operating Officer, and Mr. Stephen D. Fenstermacher, the Company's Chief Financial Officer; and (3) On September 5, 2005, Mr. Michael Bruce Zeller filed a class action against the Company, Mr. Caster, Mr. Persinger, and Mr. Fenstermacher. The allegations in these class actions are substantially identical. The complaints alleged the company violated Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that defendants artificially inflated the value of the Company's common stock by knowingly allowing independent contractors to recklessly misrepresent the efficacy of the Company's products during the purported class period. On December 12, 2005, the Court granted a motion to consolidate the three putative class actions. These lawsuits were consolidated into the civil action styled, "In re Mannatech, Incorporated Securities Litigation." Also, on January 4, 2006, the Court granted a motion in the consolidated putative class action to appoint "The Mannatech Group," consisting of Mr. Austin Chang, Ms. Naomi S. Miller, Mr. John C. Ogden, and the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund, as lead plaintiffs. The January 4, 2006 court order also appointed the law firms Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as lead counsel, and Freedman Boyd Daniels Hollander & Goldberg, P.A. as liaison counsel, for the putative class. On March 3, 2006, the plaintiffs in the consolidated cases filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Securities Fraud. The Company has sixty days in which to file a response. MICHIGAN: Faces Lawsuit Over On-Line Sex-Offender Registry ---------------------------------------------------------- Bingham Farms attorney Thomas Lazar has filed a federal class action on behalf of eight men required to register on Michigan's public sex offender registry for 25 years, Mr. Lazar argues the registration requirement violates the plaintiffs' right to due process. He is asking U.S. District Judge Patrick Duggan to allow the plaintiffs to press their suit as John Doe I-VIII. The sex-offender registry was launched by the state in 1995 to alert communities to the proximity of predators who posed a continuing threat to children and others vulnerable to sexual assault. It became available on-line in 1999. Five state lawmakers are now taking the first comprehensive review of the registry after the list grew out of proportion its accuracy can no longer be maintained. The suit is styled, "Doe v. Michigan State Police (2:06-cv- 10214-PJD-PJK)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court of Michigan under Judge Duggan, with referral to Paul J. Komives. Representing the defendant is Margaret A. Nelson, Michigan Department of Attorney General, P.O. Box 30736, Lansing, MI 48909, Phone: 517-373-6434; E-mail: nelsonma@michigan.gov. Contact information for Mr. Lazar: Lazar Consulting Services, 30600 Telegraph Road, Suite 3250, Bingham Farms, MI 48025, Phone: 248-644-2833; E-mail: lazlaw1@earthlink.net. MICHIGAN: Court Sides with Plaintiffs in Medicaid Refill Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge David Lawson has required Michigan pharmacists to fill prescriptions of patients on Medicaid even if the customer says he can't afford a co-payment, according to Detroit News. The ruling was issued in a class action by Jeanette Beeker, of Saginaw, and four other Michigan residents. The suit was filed against the state on behalf of nearly 1.5 million recipients of Medicaid. Pharmacists charge adult Medicaid patients $1 for the co-payment for generic drug prescriptions and $3 for name-brand drugs. They are required to fill prescriptions on the first instance the Medicaid patient says he can't afford a co-payment, but is not obliged in succeeding cases. The suit is styled, "Beeker et al. v. Olszewski et al. (1:05-cv- 10089-DML-CEB)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge David M. Lawson, with referral to Charles E. Binder. Representing the plaintiffs is Jacqueline Doig of Center For Civil Justice (Saginaw), 320 S. Washington, 2nd Floor, Saginaw, MI 48607-1115, Phone: 989-755- 3120; Fax: 989-755-3558; E-mail: jdoig@ccj-mi.org. Representing the defendant is Morris J. Klau, MI Department of Attorney General (Detroit), 3030 W. Grand Boulevard, Suite 10- 200, Detroit, MI 48202, Phone: 313-456-0281; E-mail: klaum@michigan.gov. MISSOURI: Boone County Oncologist Sued for Defrauding Patients -------------------------------------------------------------- A former oncologist in Boone County is facing a class action for administering diluted drugs and billing patients the full price of the medication. James Hueser and 22 physicians are accused of shortchanging chemotherapy patients in a suit filed in Boone Country Circuit Court, Associated Press reports. The plaintiff is Ron Merchant, whose wife, Artie Jean Merchant, died in 2003 of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. His suit seeks compensatory damages for over billings and punitive damages to "deter future wrongful conduct" by the defendants. The lawsuit also alleges fraud, breach of contract and civil conspiracy, according to the report. Defendants include: (1) Medical Network Technologies LLC, an affiliated company; and (2) former associates of Hueser in the Boone Clinic medical partnership. According to the report, an affidavit filed by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services investigator Daniel Coney revealed that between at least February 1999 and December 2001, Hueser "routinely billed Medicare for larger doses than were actually given to the patients." Mr. Hueser already surrendered his license and paid a $1 million fine to settle accusations of Medicare fraud with the U.S. attorney's office in Kansas City. Representing Medical Network Technologies and two doctors in the partnership is David L. Knight of Knight & Salladay, 1203 West Broadway, Columbia, Missouri 65203-2125, (Boone Co.), Phone: 573-256-7205; Fax: 573-875-5873. For more information, contact Anthony L. DeWitt of Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Gorny, A Professional Corporation, 715 Swifts Highway, Jefferson City, Missouri 65109, (Cole Co.), Phone: 573-659-4454; Fax: 573-659-4460. MIVA INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Payday's Click-Fraud Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles Division, dismissed a putative class action filed against Miva, Inc. (formerly Findwhat.com, Inc.) and Advertising.com, Inc. by Payday Advance Plus, Inc. The suit, filed on October 19, 2005, alleged that Advertising.com, a MIVA Media Network distribution partner, engaged in click fraud to increase revenues to themselves with MIVA's alleged knowledge and participation. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a putative class of individuals who were allegedly overcharged by the defendants' and sought monetary damages, restitution, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, injunctive relief, and other remedies. On January 3, 2006, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint for improper venue because the Complaint was filed in violation of the forum selection clause in MIVA's contract with the plaintiff, which requires that all disputes be filed in New York. The plaintiff filed a request for voluntary dismissal of the case on February 1, 2006, and the court dismissed the case on February 2, 2006. The plaintiff indicated that they may re- file the lawsuit in New York. The suit was styled, "Payday Advance Plus, Inc. v. Findwhat.Com Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-07531-PA-SH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Percy Anderson with referral to Judge Stephen J. Hillman. Representing the plaintiffs is Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy Binkow and Goldberg, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150. Representing the defendants are, Sharon Ben-Shahar, Terry W. Bird and Thomas R Freeman of Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks and Lincenberg, 1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561, Phone: 310-201-2100, Fax: 310-201-2110, E-mail: sbs@birdmarella.com; and Richard R. Hays, Matthew D. Richardson and David J. Stewart of Alston & Bird, One Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: 404-881-7000. MIVA INC.: Court Nixes Suit, Gives Plaintiffs Leave to Amend ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed a consolidated the securities class action filed against Miva, Inc. (formerly Findwhat.com, Inc.) and certain of its officers and directors, but granted plaintiffs leave to submit a further amended complaint. Beginning on May 6, 2005, five putative securities fraud class action were filed, alleging that the Company and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the individual defendants also violated Section 20(a) of the Act as "control persons" of MIVA. Plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of a class of the company's investors who purchased Company stock between January 5, 2004 and May 4, 2005. Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class period, the Company made misleading statements and omitted material information regarding the goodwill associated with a recent acquisition and certain material weaknesses in its internal controls. Plaintiffs assert that the Company and the individual defendants made these misstatements and omissions in order to keep its stock price high to allow certain individual defendants to sell stock at an artificially inflated price. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief. On June 13 and July 7, 2005, the Company and the other defendants moved to dismiss each of these complaints for failure to comply with the mandatory pleading requirements of the Reform Act and also served answers to the complaints. In response to the motions to dismiss, Plaintiffs requested leave to file a consolidated amended complaint. On July 27, 2005, the Court consolidated all of the outstanding lawsuits under the case style "In re MIVA, Inc. Securities Litigation," selected lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated cases, and granted Plaintiffs leave to file a consolidated amended complaint, which is due on or before August 16, 2005. The Company and the other defendants would then have until September 6, 2005, to file an answer and/or a motion to dismiss. The Company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on September 8, 2005. On December 28, 2005, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court granted plaintiffs leave to submit a further amended complaint, which was filed on January 17, 2006. On February 9, 2006, Defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss. The suit is styled "Zucco Partners, LLC v. Findwhat.com et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00201-JES-DNF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, under Judge John E. Steele. Representing the plaintiffs are Chris A. Barker of Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., 300 W. Platt St., Suite 150, Tampa, FL 33606, Phone: 813/489-1001, Fax: 813/489-1008, E-mail: cbarker@barkerrodemsandcook.com; and Christopher S. Polaszek of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Schulman LLP, 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 600, Tower One, Boca Raton, FL 33486-1018, Phone: 561-361- 5000, Fax: 561-367-8400, E-mail: cpolaszek@milbergweiss.com. Representing the Company is Joseph G. Foster, Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, P.A., 5801 Pelican Bay Blvd., Suite 300, Naples, FL 34108, Phone: 239/593-2900, Fax: 239/593-2990, E- mail: jfoster@porterwright.com. MIVA INC.: Dismissal Motion Filed in Ark. Click-Fraud Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Miva, Inc. (formerly Findwhat.com, Inc.) filed a motion to dismiss against a putative class filed against it and others in the industry, and pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. Lane's Gifts and Collectibles, LLC, U.S. Citizens for Fair Credit Card Terms, Inc., Savings 4 Merchants, Inc., and Max Caulfield d/b/a Caulfield Investigations, filed the suit in Miller County Circuit Court in Arkansas on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, against eleven search engines, web publishers, or performance marketing companies as defendants, including the Company. The plaintiffs' claims are predicated on the allegation that the plaintiffs have been charged for clicks on their advertisements that were not made by bona fide customers. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a putative class of individuals that "were overcharged for (pay per click) advertising," and seeks monetary damages, restitution, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and other remedies. The Company was served in March 2005, and the case was removed by certain of the company's co-defendants to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division, on March 31, 2005. Two plaintiffs - Savings 4 Merchants and U.S. Citizens for Fair Credit Card Terms, Inc. - voluntarily dismissed themselves from the case, without prejudice, on April 4, 2005. An Order remanding the case was entered on July 11, 2005, and the case is stayed while that Order is on appeal to the Eighth Circuit. The Company has not assessed the validity of the claims or the amount of potential damages beyond those facts necessary to file its Motion to Dismiss. On October 7, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) for failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted. On October 14, 2005, the Company timely filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court has not yet ruled on these motions. On January 9, 2006, the court stayed the case for 60 days to permit two defendants, Google Inc. and AskJeeves, Inc., to mediate with the Plaintiffs. The court will enter a new scheduling order for the case after the stay expires. The suit is styled, "Lane's Gifts LLC, et al v. Yahoo! Inc., et al., case no. 4:05-cv-04027-HFB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas under Judge Harry F. Barnes. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) John C. Goodson, Keil & Goodson, P.O. Box 618, Texarkana, AR 75504, Phone: (870) 772-4113, Fax: (870) 773-2967, E-mail: jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com (2) Stephen F. Malouf, Law Offices of Stephen F. Malouf, P.C., 3506 Cedar Springs Road, Dallas, TX 75219, Phone: (214) 969-7373 (3) James M. Pratt, Jr., P.A., 144 Washington NW, Post Office Box 938, Camden, AR 71701, Phone: 870-836-7328, Fax: 870-837-2405, E-mail: jamiepratt@cablelynx.com Representing the Company are L. Wren Autrey and Ned A. Stewart, Autrey Autrey & Stewart, 501 East Sixth St., P.O. Box 960, Texarkana, AR 75504, Phone: 870-773-5684, Fax: 870-773-2900, E- mail: lwautrey@cs.com; and Richard Hays. Rick Holcomb and David J. Stewart, Alston & Bird, One Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree St., Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: (404) 881-7000 MIVA INC.: Faces Internet Gambling, Unfair Trade Suits in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Miva, Inc. (formerly Findwhat.com, Inc.) continues to face a putative class action that was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, by two individuals, Mario Cisneros and Michael Voight, "on behalf of themselves, all other similarly situated, and/or for the general public." The suit also names other Internet search sites and service providers. The complaint alleges that acceptance of advertising for Internet gambling violates several California laws and constitutes an unfair business practice. The complaint seeks unspecified amounts of restitution and disgorgement as well as an injunction preventing the Company from accepting paid advertising for online gambling. Three of the Company's industry partners, each of whom is a co-defendant in the lawsuit, have asserted indemnification claims against the Company for costs incurred as a result of such claims arising from transactions with the Company. The suit is styled, "Mario Cisneros et al, v. Yahoo! Inc., et al, case no. CGC-04-433518," filed in the California Superior Court in San Francisco County, under Judge Richard A. Kramer. Representing the plaintiffs are Kathrein R. Reed and Ira P. Rothken. Lawyers for the Company are David T. Biderman, Robert Harvey Binzel, Janet L. Cullum, Charles H. Dick, Jr., Albert Gidari, Richard Jay Idell, Matthew P. Kanny, David H. Kramer, Thomas P. Laffey, Ryan M. Malone, Laurence F. Pulgram, John C. Rawls, David O. Stewart. MOTIENT CORP: Court Junks Breach of Fiduciary Duties Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Delaware Courts have dismissed a lawsuit filed by Legacy Limited against multiple defendants, including officers and directors of Motient Corp., Tejas Securities and C&TA, consultant to Motient. The complaint was originally filed on August 16, 2005 by Highland Legacy, a hedge fund controlled by former Motient Director James D. Dondero. It alleged, among other things, that Motient's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Motient. It sought recovery of fees paid to certain defendants by Motient. In dismissing the suit, the Delaware Court ruled that Highland failed to introduce facts necessary to support its allegations that the defendant directors of Motient lacked the independence necessary to properly evaluate the transactions in question, or that the challenged transactions were not a valid exercise of their business judgment. In fact, the Court concluded, "Ultimately, the complaint makes generalized allegations that do not raise a reasonable doubt that the challenged transactions were the product of due care." The Court also found that Mr. Dondero's allegation that the board formed an executive committee to exclude him from the board after he had filed his suits to be false, since that board action actually preceded Highland's now discredited lawsuit. Motient filed multiple lawsuits against Mr. Dondero. In the suits, Motient alleges that Mr. Dondero, while still a member of Motient's board and in an apparent scheme to gain control of the company, materially harmed shareholder value by attempting to manipulate Motient's stock price by leaking non-public and misleading information. As noted in one of Motient's lawsuits, and as further detailed in the Form 8-K Motient filed on October 6, 2005, "[Mr.] Dondero has a history of aggressive actions in connection with his investments... For Dondero, litigation is often an essential component of the investment strategy." Christopher Downie, Chief Operating Officer of Motient, said the Company is committed to seeing through its own claims against Mr. Dondero, to recover damages on behalf of the company's shareholders. Motient -- http://www.motient.com-- is a nationwide provider of terrestrial wireless data solutions for Fortune 500 companies and the small to medium size enterprise business market. It is the controlling shareholder of TerreStar Networks Inc., a development-phase satellite communications company, and a minority shareholder of Mobile Satellite Ventures, LP, an established satellite communications company. NETFLIX INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a consolidated securities class action filed against Netflix, Inc. and some of its officers, styled, "In re Netflix, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-02978-FMS." Between July 22 and September 9, 2004, seven purported securities class action were filed against the Company and, in the aggregate, Reed Hastings, W. Barry McCarthy, Jr., and Leslie J. Kilgore. These class actions were consolidated in January 2005, and a consolidated complaint was filed on February 24, 2005. The complaint alleges violations of certain federal securities laws, seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between October 1, 2003 and October 14, 2004. The plaintiffs allege that the Company made false and misleading statements and omissions of material facts based on its disclosure regarding churn and delivery speed, claiming alleged violations by each named defendant of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and alleged violations by certain of its officers of Section 20A of Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On June 28, 2005, the Court dismissed the action with leave to amend. Plaintiffs did so amend, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Following a hearing on that motion, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice on November 18, 2005. The suit is styled, "In re Netflix, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-02978-FMS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Fern M. Smith. Representing the plaintiffs are Arthur L Shingler, III, David R. Scott, Neil R. Rothstein, Scott + Scott, LLC 401 B Street, Suite 401, San Diego, CA 92101 USA Phone: 619-233-4565 Fax: 619-233-0508, E-mail: Ashingler@scott-Scott.com and Drscott@scott-Scott.com; and Brian O O'Mara and William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 USA Phone: 619/ 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 Email: Briano@lerachlaw.com and Billl@lerachlaw.com. Representing the Company are Cynthia A. Dy and Cameron Powers Hoffman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Phone: 650/493-9300 Fax: 650-565-5100 E-mail: cdy@wsgr.com and choffman@wsgr.com. NIGERIA: Ethnic Group Sues Over Veracity, Legality of Census ------------------------------------------------------------ The Idoma of Benue State filed a class action at a Federal High Court in Makurdi asking the federal government to stop a 2006 census in Benue State pending clarifications, the Vanguard reports. The Registered Trustees of Idoma National Forum and three of its principal officers want the census stopped until all the local government areas thickly populated by the Idoma people are properly enumerated. The officers of Idoma National Forum are S.A. Odeh, Francis Ondoma and Cletus Ikese. The plaintiffs alleged that seven of the nine local governments in Benue State, where most Idoma live, were not properly enumerated by the National Population Commission. They said the errors could work against the exercise, citing a failed effort to de-populate the Idoma in a 1991 census because of erroneous figures. Idoma residents in Okopkwu local government successfully challenged the wrong figures ascribed to them at the Census Tribunal, leading to the nullification of the census result. According to This Day, the plaintiffs are also seeking a court order to set aside the enumeration area demarcation and trial census in the affected local government areas as well as a declaration that the exercises infringed on the constitutional rights of the Idoma people to be demographically demarcated and properly counted. The affected local council areas are Ado, Apa, Ohimini, Ogbadibo, Oju, Obi and Otukpo. The actual census is set March 21 to 25, 2006. The trial judge has granted a motion on notice for the abridgement of the time and accelerated hearing of the case, the report said. NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces "Hidden City" Tickets Suits in Mich. -------------------------------------------------------------- Northwest Airlines Corp. is a defendant in several purported class actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan over "hidden city" tickets. The Company is a defendant in an antitrust class action, styled, Chase v. Northwest Airlines and Airline Reporting Corporation, Case No. 96-74711), filed in Michigan federal court on October 1996. The action purports to be brought on behalf of a class defined as all persons who purchased tickets on certain routes into Northwest's hubs at Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul and Memphis from October 11, 1992 to the present. The complaint alleges that Northwest's imposition of restrictions prohibiting the sale of "hidden city" tickets constitutes monopolization in violation of the Sherman Act. It seeks injunctive relief, unspecified damages for the class, and costs and attorneys' fees. The attorneys for the plaintiff in Chase also filed three additional class actions in the same court against other airlines and the Company with parallel allegations similar to those in Chase, including allegations that the defendant airlines conspired to deter hidden city ticketing. These cases are: (1) "Keystone Business Machines, Inc. v. U.S. Airways and Northwest Airlines (U.S. D.C. Eastern District of Michigan, Civ. Action No. 99-72474); (2) BLT Contracting, Inc. v. U.S. Airways, Northwest Airlines and the Airline Reporting Corporation (U.S. D.C. Eastern District of Michigan, Civ. Action No. 99- 72988); and (3) Volk and Nitrogenous Industries Corp. v. U.S. Airways, Northwest Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and the Airline Reporting Corporation (U.S. D.C. Eastern District of Michigan, Civ. Action No. 99-72987). All were assigned to the judge in the Chase case. The Company believes these cases are without merit and intends to defend against them. In November 2000, the plaintiffs filed their class certification motion and defendants filed their summary judgment motion. On May 16, 2002, the Court entered an Order granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification and denying defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Court has not yet set a trial date. NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Privacy Suits Dismissed, Another on Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Northwest Airlines Corp. is a defendant in several purported class actions pending in federal court in Minnesota, North Dakota and Tennessee over certain passenger records to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. In 2004, several purported class actions were filed, and subsequently consolidated, in federal court in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging violations by the Company of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and various state laws in connection with the release by the Company of certain passenger records to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in late 2001. The suits were consolidated under the caption, "In re Northwest Airlines Privacy Litigation, Civ. File No. 04-126." Additionally, similar purported class actions were filed in federal court in North Dakota, styled: (1) "Dyer v. Northwest Airlines Corp. (U.S.D.C. District of North Dakota, Case No. A1-04-033)," and (2) in Federal Court in Tennessee, "Copeland v. Northwest Airlines Corp. (U.S.D.C. Western District of Tennessee, Civil File No. 04-CV-2156)." On June 6, 2004, the District Court in the Minnesota action granted Company's motion for summary judgment on all claims and that decision is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On September 8, 2004, the District Court in the North Dakota action granted Company's motion for summary judgment on all claims and the plaintiffs did not seek appellate review. On February 28, 2005, the Tennessee District Court dismissed the Tennessee case and plaintiffs did not appeal. The suit is styled, "In re Northwest Privacy Litigation, Case No. 0:04-cv-00126-PAM-JSM," on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Paul A. Magnuson with referral to Judge Janie S. Mayeron. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Eric J. Belfi of Murray Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave., Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212- 682-5434, E-mail: ebelfi@murrayfrank.com; (2) Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. of Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, 332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250, St. Paul, MN 55101, Phone: 651-287-2100, E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com; and (3) Richard J. Fuller of Mansfield Tanick & Cohen, PA, 220 S. 6th St., Ste. 1700, Minneapolis, MN 55402-4511, Phone: (612) 339-4295, Fax: (612) 339-3161, E-mail: fuller@mansfieldtanick.com. Representing the defendants are, Theresa M. Bevilacqua, Thomas W. Tinkham and Daniel J. Brown of Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, 50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498, Phone: 612-340- 7883 and 612-340-2600, Fax: 612-340-2868, 612-340-2807 and 612- 340-8800, E-mail: tinkham.tom@dorsey.com, brown.daniel@dorsey.com and bevilacqua.theresa@dorsey.com. PINNACLE FOODS: Issues Allergy Alert on Brownie Mix with Walnuts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pinnacle Foods Group Inc. of Mountain Lakes, New Jersey is recalling a limited production run of Duncan Hines Double Fudge Brownie mix due to undeclared walnuts ingredient. The Brownie mix was manufactured by a co-packer for distribution by Pinnacle. The company said the recall applies only to "DUNCAN HINES(R) CHOCOLATE LOVER'S DOUBLE FUDGE BROWNIES" with Retail Carton UPC Code: 6-44209-33247-2. "Best If Used By Code" located on bottom of carton: Jan. 9, 2007. The Brownie mix was sold at Wal-Mart stores in Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana and Georgia. These cartons may contain `Walnut Brownie' mix rather than the `Double Fudge Brownie' mix and could therefore contain nuts not listed on the carton. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to walnuts may run the risk of a serious or life- threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. This voluntary recall was initiated after the Company received call from a consumer informing the Company that the "DUNCAN HINES(R) CHOCOLATE LOVER'S DOUBLE FUDGE BROWNIES" he purchased actually contained a walnut brownie mix. There have been no reports of illness as a result of this incident. People who are allergic to or have a severe sensitivity to treenuts should not consume this product. Consumers are advised to return the product to the store where it was purchased for a full refund. The product is safe to eat by people who are not allergic to nuts. Consumer contact: Phone: 1-800-554-5680. This announcement applies only to the "DUNCAN HINES(R) CHOCOLATE LOVER'S DOUBLE FUDGE BROWNIES and does not apply to any other Duncan Hines products sold by Wal-Mart in the above 12 states. RIDGEWOOD ORGANIZATION: Ad Suit Settlement Trial Set April 24 ------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Chancery Division will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter: "Jerold S. Rawson and Creatine Fun, Inc. v. Levin Robin d/b/a The Ridgewood Organization, 03 CH 10844." The case was brought on behalf of all persons who on or after June 27, 1998 were sent advertising faxes by The Ridgewood Organization. The hearing will take place on April 24, 2006 at 11:00 a.m., before Judge McGann in Room 1703 of the Richard J. Daley Center, 50 W. Washington, Chicago, Illinois, 60602. For more details, contact Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, (12094) 120 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 739-4200, Fax: 312-419-0379, E-mail: edcombs@aol.com, Web site: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?6bc. REPUBLIC TITLE: Real Estate Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 4 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter: "IN RE: RUIZ V. REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY, No. 04 CH 8043 (12094)." The case was brought on behalf of all persons who participated in settlements of the purchase, sale or refinance of residential, Illinois real estate in which Republic Title Company was the settlement agent from February 1, 1998 to the date of Final Approval of this settlement, and all of such persons, parents, siblings, spouses, children or any other family members, and their subsidiaries, affiliates, successors and assigns, but excluding Settlement Defendants and their affiliates. The fairness hearing will take place on April 4, 2006 at 2:00 p.m., in Room 2305 of the Richard J. Daley Center, Chicago, IL 60602. For more details, contact Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, (12094) 120 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 739-4200, Fax: 312-419-0379, E-mail: edcombs@aol.com, Web site: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?6bb. SUNTRIPS: Airlines, Hotels Sue to Recover Payments After Sale ------------------------------------------------------------- Troubled travel firm Suntrips in New Jersey is facing a suit filed by travel agents in Carmel and Colorado, who allege they haven't been paid promised commissions, according to Mercury News. The suit seeks class-action status. Airlines and hotels have also filed suit to recoup payments, Peter Gallic, president of Crystal Hospitality, which recently bought the company's name, including entire operation, which includes 100 employees and a client database. The acquisition did not include SunTrip's entire operation, which includes 100 employees and a client database. SunTrips was brought down by the rise of online discount sites. All its deals booked before April 5 have been cancelled and refunds are being processed, said SunTrips president, Matthew Holliday, in an e-mail responding to a Mercury News' questions. SunTrips -- http://www.suntrips.com-- files about 160,000 people a year to Hawaii, Mexico and other sunny spots. TASER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Ariz. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Taser International, Inc. is a defendant in a consolidated securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Beginning on or about January 10, 2005, numerous securities class actions were filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. These actions were filed on behalf of the purchasers of the Company's stock in various class periods, beginning as early as May 29, 2003 and ending as late as January 14, 2005. The majority of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Four actions were filed in New York and one Michigan. The New York and Michigan actions were transferred to the District of Arizona. Judge Susan Bolton consolidated the class actions and Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel were selected. The Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint (which became the operative complaint for all of the class actions) on August 29, 2005. The operative class period is May 29, 2003 to January 11, 2005. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which has been fully briefed for the Court but has not yet been decided. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief against all defendants. The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that the Company and the individual defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding, among other things, the safety of the Company's products and the Company's ability to meet its sales goals, including the validity of a $1.5 million sales order with the Company's distributor, Davidson's, in the fourth quarter of 2004. The consolidated complaint also alleges that product defects were leading to excessive product returns by customers. TASER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Device's Safety ------------------------------------------------------------ Taser International, Inc. is a defendant in a class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, styled, "Village of Dolton v. Taser International Inc." In August 2005, the Company was served with a summons and complaint in which the Plaintiff alleges that defendant misled the plaintiff about the safety of the TASER device when they purchased the TASER device and are seeking damages. The plaintiff is seeking to certify the lawsuit as a class action. The Company has filed an answer to the complaint and a motion to dismiss. In October 2005, the Company filed a declaration of the former chief of police for the Village of Dolton, which refutes many of the allegations made in the complaint and the Company filed a motion for sanctions. In the same month, the Court issued an order partially granting the Company's Motion to Dismiss, and denied the balance of the motions. The case is now moving forward with discovery. The suit is styled, "Village of Dolton v. Taser International Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-04126," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge James F. Holderman. Representing the plaintiffs is John K. Vrdolyak of Edward R. Vrdolyak, Ltd., 741 North Dearborn St., Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: (312) 482-8200. Representing the defendants is David Thomas Ballard of Barnes & Thornburg, One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4400, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 312-357-1313, E- mail: dballard@btlaw.com. THESTREET.COM INC: IPO Suit Fairness Hearing Set April 24, 2006 --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold an April 24, 2006 final approval hearing for the proposed settlement in litigation regarding TheStreet.com, Inc.'s initial public offering (IPO). On December 5, 2001, a class action alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as defendants TheStreet.com, Inc., certain of its former officers and directors and James J. Cramer, a current director, and certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Chase H&Q, Thomas Weisel Partners LLC, FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, and Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.). Plaintiffs allege that the underwriters of TheStreet.com, Inc.'s initial public offering violated the securities laws by failing to disclose certain alleged compensation arrangements (such as undisclosed commissions or stock stabilization practices) in the offering's registration statement. The plaintiffs seek damages and statutory compensation against each defendant in an amount to be determined at trial, plus pre-judgment interest thereon, together with costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. Similar suits were filed against over 300 other issuers that had initial public offerings between 1998 and December 2001, and they have all been consolidated into a single action. Pursuant to a Court Order dated October 9, 2002, each of the individual defendants to the action, including Mr. Cramer, has been dismissed without prejudice. On June 8, 2004, the Company and its individual defendants (together with the Company's insurance carriers) entered into a settlement with the plaintiffs. The settlement is subject to a hearing on fairness and approval by the court overseeing the litigation. Although the lawsuit against the Company is an independent cause of action vis-a-vis the lawsuits pending against other issuers in the consolidated proceeding, and no issuer is liable for any wrongdoing allegedly committed by any other issuer, the proposed settlement between the plaintiffs and the issuers is being done on a collective basis. Generally, under the terms of the settlement, in exchange for the delivery by the company's insurers and those of the other defendants of an undertaking guaranteeing that the plaintiffs will recover, in the aggregate, at least $1 billion from the underwriters, and the assignment to the plaintiffs by the issuers of their interests in claims against the underwriters for excess compensation in connection with their IPOs, the plaintiffs will release the non-bankrupt issuers from all claims against them (the bankrupt issuers will receive a covenant not to sue) and their individual defendants. The costs and expenses of the settlement are expected to be borne by the Company's insurers. Pursuant to an Opinion and Order dated February 15, 2005, the court, subject to certain minor modifications, preliminarily approved the settlement. Such modifications have been made and were approved by the Court pursuant to an Order dated August 31, 2005. The court also appointed the Notice Administrator for the settlement and ordered that notice of the settlement be distributed to all settlement class members beginning on November 15, 2005. The settlement fairness hearing was scheduled for April 24, 2006. TREX CO: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Va. ------------------------------------------------------------ Trex Company is a defendant in a consolidated securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, alleging violations of federal securities laws. Commencing on July 8, 2005, two class actions named as defendants, the Company, Robert G. Matheny, a director and the former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Paul D. Fletcher, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company. Plaintiffs and defendants agreed that the two lawsuits should be consolidated, and on December 27, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint. The complaints principally allege that the company, Mr. Matheny and Mr. Fletcher violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of and Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, making false and misleading public statements concerning the company's operating and financial results and expectations. The complaints also allege that certain directors of the company sold shares of the company's common stock at artificially inflated prices. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages. The suit is styled, "Mehigan, et al. v. Trex Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:05-cv-00047-gec-bwc," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia under Judge Glen E. Conrad with referral to Judge B. Waugh Crigler. Representing the plaintiffs are, Eric Lechtzin of SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY, LLP, 280 KING OF PRUSSIA ROAD, RADNOR, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail: elechtzin@sbclasslaw.com; and Lionel Z. Glancy of GLANCY & BINKOW, LLP, 1801 AVENUE OF THE STARS, LOS ANGELES, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, Fax: 310-201-9160. Representing the defendants are, Christian J. Mixter, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004, Phone: 202-739- 5073, Fax: 739-3001 and Marc J. Sonnenfeld of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 1701 MARKET STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2921, Phone: 215-963-5572, Fax: 215-963-5001, E-mail: msonnenfeld@morganlewis.com. UICI: Settles Tex., Okla. Lawsuits Opposing Proposed Disposal ------------------------------------------------------------- UICI reached an agreement in principle to resolve purported class actions filed in Texas and Oklahoma relating to the pending acquisition of UICI by a group of private equity firms led by The Blackstone Group. Under the terms of the proposed settlements, the claims of the named plaintiffs and the proposed class of public shareholders will be settled and released as to all defendants. The proposed settlements are subject to several conditions, including the negotiation of final documentation, court approval and completion of the pending acquisition. In connection with the settlements, supplemental disclosures were included in UICI's proxy statement/prospectus, dated February 28, 2006, provided to shareholders in connection with the special meeting of UICI stockholders to be held on March 29, 2006, at which shareholders will be asked to vote on the transaction. In addition, the purchasers have agreed, in the event the termination fee becomes payable pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, to unilaterally waive their right to receive any portion of the termination fee in excess of $50 million. According to a Nov. 23, 2005 issue of Class Action Reporter, the suits were styled: (1) Green Meadows Partners L.P. v. UICI, et al., filed on September 15, 2005 in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, E-101st Judicial District, Case No. 05- 09693; (2) Ruediger v. UICI, et al., filed on September 28, 2005 in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, D-95th Judicial District, Case No. 05-10033; (3) Scott v. UICI, et al., filed on September 30, 2005 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, Case No. CJ-2005-7731; (4) Pepper v. UICI, et al., filed on October 11, 2005 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, Case No. CJ-2005-7967; and (5) Bauer v. William J. Gedwed, et al., filed on October 6, 2005 in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, Case No. 236-214443-05 Previously, plaintiffs in a pending shareholder derivative action, styled "In re UICI Derivative Litigation," pending in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 352nd Judicial District, Lead Cause No. 352-206106-04," filed an amended petition asserting similar claims. The petitions generally challenge the price to be paid in the proposed transaction and the process leading up to the transaction. Headquartered in North Richland Hills, Texas, UICI -- http://www.uici.net-- through its subsidiaries offers insurance (primarily health and life) to niche consumer and institutional markets. UNION PACIFIC: Suit by Laramie County Residents Returned to Wyo. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is sending back to Wyoming a class action alleging improper profiting by Union Pacific Railroad, Casper Star Tribune reports. The case left Wyoming after U.S. District Judge Alan Johnson ruled in 2001 that his court didn't have jurisdiction to hear the case, which involves claims under both federal and state law. The suit, filed by Warren D. Nicodemus and John and Norma Morris, all of Laramie County, accused Union Pacific of generating huge profits by allowing telecommunications companies to bury fiber optic cable under railroad rights of way. The suit is styled "Nicodemus, et al. v. Union Pacific Corp, et al. (2:01-cv-00009-ABJ)." Representing the defendants are: Ron Bodinson of Shook Hardy & Bacon, 84 Corporate Woods, 10801 Mastin, Suite 1000, Overland Park, KS 66210-1669, Phone: 913/451-6060; Fax: 451-8879; and Raymond W Martin of Sundahl Powers Kapp & Martin, P.O. Box 328, Cheyenne, WY 82003-0328, Phone: 307/632-6421; Fax: 307/632-7216; E-mail: rmartin@spkm.org. Representing the plaintiffs are: Kim D. Cannon of Davis & Cannon, P.O. Box 728, Sheridan, WY 82801-0728, Phone: 307/672- 7491; Fax: 307/672-8955; and John B Massopust of Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette, LLP, 33 South 6th Street, Suite 4400, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: 612/339-2020; Fax: 336-9100. WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Wash. Securities Suit's Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss a consolidated amended securities complaint filed against it and some of its current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. On April 8, 2005, a holder of the company's common stock, on behalf of himself and purportedly on behalf of a class of the company's stockholders, filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, or the Washington Court, alleging violations of the federal securities laws arising out of, among other things, the company's announcement on March 15, 2005 that the company were restating some of the company's financial results for interim periods of 2004. Subsequently, a number of other related purported class action also alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed by holders of the company's common stock. The various actions were consolidated by the Washington Court, and are referred to herein as the Action. On October 3, 2005, a consolidated amended complaint was filed in the Action and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The motion is currently pending before the Washington Court. The suit is styled, "Pius v. Watchguard Technologies Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00678-JLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under Judge James L. Robart. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Aelish M. Baig and Tamara J Driscoll LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS, Phone: 415-288-4545 and 206-749-5544, Fax: 206-749-9978, E-mail: AelishB@lerachlaw.com and tdriscoll@lerachlaw.com; (2) Juli Farris Desper and Lynn Lincoln Sarko of KELLER ROHRBACK, 1201 3RD AVE., STE. 3200, SEATTLE, WA 98101- 3052, Phone: 206-623-1900, Fax: 206-623-3384, E-mail: jdesper@KellerRohrback.com and lsarko@kellerrohrback.com; (3) W. Scott Zanzig of HALL ZANZIG ZULAUF CLAFLIN MCEACHERN, 1200 5TH AVE., STE. 1414, SEATTLE, WA 98101, Phone: 206-292-5900, Fax: 206-292-5900, E-mail: szanzig@hallzan.com. Representing the defendants are, Stephen M. Knaster, James N. Kramer and Justin M. Lichterman of ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, 405 HOWARD ST., 7TH FLOOR, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105, Phone: 415-733-5700, E-mail: sknaster@orrick.com, jkramer@orrick.com and jlichterman@orrick.com; and Louis David Peterson of HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, 1221 SECOND AVE., STE. 500, SEATTLE, WA 98101-2925, Phone: 206-623-1745, Fax: 206- 623-7789 (fax), E-mail: ldp@hcmp.com. ZURICH AMERICAN: Enters $171.7M Settlement for Bid-Rigging Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said that Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich) will pay $151.7 million in restitution and reform its business practices to settle allegations that it unlawfully rigged bids for commercial insurance and made undisclosed payments to brokers for steering clients to Zurich. "Zurich participated in schemes with brokers and other insurers that inflicted financial harm on businesses and damaged the marketplace," said Mr. Lockyer. "This settlement holds Zurich accountable for its misconduct, compensates clients it harmed, and provides reforms and ongoing enforcement by Attorneys General to help ensure the company does not commit similar abuses in the future." The settlement resolves antitrust and unfair business practices investigations by Mr. Lockyer and Attorneys General in nine other states. Mr. Lockyer within weeks will formally file California's settlement in state court. The alleged bid-rigging scheme worked like this: Insurers submitted phony, inflated bids, knowing there was no real competition and that the winner had been predetermined. The designated winner also would submit an inflated bid, but lower than its "competitors." Brokers then told clients that the winning bid was the best deal available. Brokers guaranteed the "losers" they would win other bids pursuant to the same, rigged process, and allegedly threatened to punish insurers who balked at participating. The clandestine bid rigging defrauded business clients and caused them to pay artificially high prices for commercial insurance, officials said. The investigation by Mr. Lockyer and other Attorneys General found that Zurich played a central role in the bid rigging scheme, along with major brokers and other insurers. The second targeted practice involved undisclosed "contingent" payments made by insurers to brokers. In addition to standard commissions, which were disclosed to insured businesses, major national insurers allegedly made secret payments to brokers based on how much clients the broker steered to them and kept for them. The contingent payments posed a potential conflict of interest for brokers by creating an incentive to sell insurance that earned them extra fees, instead of coverage that best fit the needs and pocketbooks of their clients. The contingent payments should have been fully disclosed to business clients, said Lockyer, so they had all material information they needed to make informed decisions. Settlement Terms The restitution will be provided to Zurich customers eligible to receive compensation in a private class action now pending in New Jersey federal court. The money will be allocated among the settling states under a schedule to be developed by the private class action counsel, in consultation and cooperation with the Attorneys General. That allocation plan, which must be approved by the New Jersey federal court, and other factors will determine how much of the $151.7 million ultimately goes to eligible California businesses, said Mr. Lockyer. Aside from the restitution, the settlement requires Zurich to pay the states a total of $20 million to cover their costs and fees. To guard against future unlawful practices, the settlement requires Zurich to adopt specific reforms of the way it conducts its business. Zurich will be prohibited from submitting artificially inflated bids or colluding with others to rig bids. And prior to a commercial insurance policy taking effect, Zurich must disclose to prospective clients whether the compensation it pays a broker includes contingent compensation. Zurich also will be required to implement a compliance program that includes employee training and other measures to prevent, report and punish improper conduct. If an Attorney General believes Zurich has violated the settlement's terms, the Attorney General must notify Zurich and give the company a chance to cure the alleged violation. If Zurich fails to remedy the problem within 60 days from the notification date, the Attorney General can go to court to compel compliance. In addition to California, the other settling states include: Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. Lockyer in October 2004 launched an investigation into bid rigging and contingent payments in the commercial insurance industry. The broader investigation remains ongoing. Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- March 23-24, 2006 FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE LITIGATION & ARBITRATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Boston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com March 27-28, 2006 CATASTROPHIC EVENT INSURANCE CLAIMS American Conference Institute New York Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com March 29-30, 2006 FINITE RISK REINSURANCE American Conference Institute Bermuda Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com March 30, 2006 EMAIL DISCOVERY & RETENTION POLICIES CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Grand Hyatt, New York Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 5-6, 2006 AML COMPLIANCE FOR INSURANCE American Conference Institute New York Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com April 5-8, 2006 13TH INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE Mealey Publications The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 6-7, 2006 2006 CLASS ACTION & UCL CONFERENCE Bridgeport CE Renaissance Hollywood Hotel, Los Angeles, CA Contact: http://reconferences.com/classaction.htm;818-783-7156 April 10, 2006 ASBESTOS MEDICINE CONFERENCE Mealey Publications W Chicago Lakeshore Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 11, 2006 WELDING ROD LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications W Chicago Lakeshore Chicago Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 24-25, 2006 INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS Mealey Publications Hyatt Regency, Chicago Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 27-28, 2006 RUN-OFF AND COMMUTATIONS American Conference Institute New York Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com April 27-28, 2006 BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES American Conference Institute San Francisco Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com May 1-2, 2006 INSURANCE/REINSURANCE COMPANY RUN-OFF CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton (Arlington St.) Boston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 8-9, 2006 VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Amelia Island, FL Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 8-9, 2006 HURRICANE AND NATURAL DISASTER CONFERENCE SERIES Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Amelia Island, FL Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 8-9, 2006 CATASTROPHIC LOSS CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton, Amelia Island, FL Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 18, 2006 MEALEY'S EMAIL DISCOVERY & RETENTION POLICIES CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Fairmont San Francisco Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 25-26, 2006 INSURANCE COVERAGE 2006: CLAIM TRENDS & LITIGATION Practising Law Institute New York Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu June 5-6, 2006 ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton (Arlington St.) Boston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 8-9, 2006 RETAIL & HOSPITALITY LIABILITY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Intercontintental Buckhead, Atlanta Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 8-9, 2006 ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Chicago Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 12-13, 2006 BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton, Marina del Rey Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 22-23, 2006 PACIFIC NORTHWEST CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Hotel Monaco, Seattle Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com July 19-20, 2006 LITIGATION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 28-30, 2006 LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS ALI-ABA Boston Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 November 16-17, 2006 CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE ISSUES ALI-ABA Washington, D.C. Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 November 30-December 1, 2006 ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY ALI-ABA New Orleans Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Online Teleconferences ------------------------ March 01-30, 2006 HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com March 01-30, 2006 CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com March 01-30, 2006 HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com March 01-30, 2006 IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS: CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY? CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com March 01-30, 2006 BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE -- FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE & CONSUMER LAW UPDATES CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com March 01-30, 2006 HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND TORT CASES IN TEXAS" CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com March 01-30, 2006 CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com March 01, 2006 HURRICANE AND NATURAL DISASTER CONFERENCE SERIES TELECONFERENCE: AFFECT ON THE INSURANCE AND REINSURANCE INDUSTRIES TELECONFERENCE Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com March 28, 2006 WORKING WITH EXPERTS IN PHARMACEUTICAL CASES TELECONFERENCE Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com March 30, 2006 LEAD LITIGATION: THE IMPACT OF THE RI DECISION TELECONFERENCE Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 11, 2006 HURRICANE AND NATURAL DISASTER CONFERENCE SERIES TELECONFERENCE: BUSINESS INTERRUPTION CLAIMS ANALYSIS Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 18, 2006 FRAUDULENT JOINDER TELECONFERENCE Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 26, 2006 P2P NETWORKS AND LIABILITY TELECONFERENCE: PROTECTION OF DIGITAL MATERIALS Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 4, 2006 TOUGH CASES IN TOUGH PLACES TELECONFERENCE: STRATEGIES IN PLAINTIFF FRIENDLY JURISDICTIONS Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 16, 2006 WORKING WITH EXPERTS IN A TOXIC TORT CASE TELECONFERENCE Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 18, 2006 ETHICS TELECONFERENCE: THE CLASSIFICATION OF CLIENT EXPENSES IN MASS TORTS--CASE SPECIFIC VS. COMMON BENEFIT EXPENSES Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 23, 2006 EMERGING TRENDS IN BAD FAITH LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 6, 2006 PREEMPTION TELECONFERENCE Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 15, 2006 ARE YOU COVERED - WHAT EVERY IN-HOUSE LAWYER NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT INSURANCE Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 20, 2006 FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com July 13, 2006 TEFLON LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN DISCOVERY CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com PAXIL LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION? LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE LawCommerce.Com Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO SALES AND ADVERSTISING American Bar Association Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org ________________________________________________________________ The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. New Securities Fraud Cases CHICAGO BRIDGE: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Berman DeValerio lodged a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased CBI common stock from March 9, 2005 through and including February 14, 2006. To view the complaint, visit: http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/ChicagoBridge-Cplt.pdf. The lawsuit claims that CBI and a number of individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t, and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, promulgated there under. CBI designs, builds and maintains processing, treatment and storage facilities worldwide for clients in the energy and water industries. According to plaintiff's complaint, the Company issued materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that: (1) CBI failed to disclose that it had improperly recognized revenue on two projects for which it was unable to collect payment; (2) that CBI lacked adequate internal controls to ensure the accuracy of its reported results and guidance; and (3) that CBI's financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and revenue and earnings were therefore materially overstated. The Company's stock price plummeted when the truth emerged in a series of public disclosures beginning in the fall of 2005, the complaint says. Among them: (1) on October 26, 2005, CBI announced a delay in the release of its third quarter financial results. In reaction to the news, the stock dropped approximately 21% from $29.68 to $23.47; (2) On October 31, 2005, CBI disclosed that the delay "was precipitated by a memo from a senior member of the Company's accounting department alleging accounting improprieties, including the determination of claim recognition on two projects and the assessment of costs to complete two projects." As a result, the stock fell another $1.02 per share to close at $21.25; (3) On January 27, 2006, in a current report filed with the SEC on a Form 8-K, the Company disclosed that it had entered into a lucrative "Stay Bonus Agreement" with the Company's Vice President and Controller, Tommy Rhodes, valued at over $1.8 million. The complaint alleges that Rhodes was being paid over $1.8 million for releasing claims arising out of his accusations that the Company, among other things, was improperly recording revenue and earnings; (4) On February 3, 2006, CBI announced, without explanation, the termination of Defendant Gerald M. Glenn, the Company's chairman, president and chief executive officer, and Defendant Robert B. Jordan, the Company's executive vice president and chief operating officer. The stock dropped 23% to $22.33 per share from $29.00; and (5) Finally, before the market opened on February 15, 2006, the Company announced that it was slashing its 2005 guidance and that the Company was in communication with the SEC regarding the audit committee investigation. The stock dropped an additional $0.77 per share from its prior close of $22.95. For more information, contact Michael J. Pucillo, Esq. or Jay W. Eng, Esq. of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, Esperante Building, 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 900, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Phone: (800) 349-4612; E-mail: lawfla@bermanesq.com. CHICAGO BRIDGE: Klafter & Olsen Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Klafter & Olsen LLP initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the securities of Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. NV (CBI) between March 9, 2005 and February 15, 2006, inclusive. The suit filed against CBI and certain of its officers, alleged that during the Class Period, defendants reported fraudulent financial results and provided fraudulent guidance premised on improper conduct and accounting concerning several significant projects. The truth began to emerge on October 26, 2005 when CBI announced that it would not be able to timely file its third quarter financials. On October 31, 2005, the Company revealed that this delay "was precipitated by a memo from a senior member of CBI's accounting department alleging accounting improprieties, including the determination of claim recognition on two projects and the assessment of costs to complete two projects." Indications of the scope of CBI's improper conduct came on February 3, 2006 when CBI announced that it had fired Gerald Glenn (its President, CEO and Chairman) and Robert Jordan (its COO), and on February 15, when CBI announced that it was slashing its earnings guidance for 2005 by half to between $0.40 to $0.50 per share principally due to "issues related to unapproved change orders and claims on several projects, including those previously announced." CBI also revealed that the SEC was investigating these matters. The cumulative effect of these announcements was to drive CBI stock down by $7.50 per share. During the Class Period, Glenn, Jordon and other senior managers sold over 715,837 shares of CBI shares for proceeds of more than $30.8 million. For more information, contact Klafter & Olsen LLP -- http://www.klafterolsen.com-- Phone: 202/261-3553. H&R BLOCK: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in Miss. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of H&R Block, Inc. (HRB) (NYSE: HRB) between January 31, 2005 and March 14, 2006, inclusive. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, against defendant HRB and Mark A. Ernst, the Company's Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E- mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com. MILLS CORP: Kahn Gauthier Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Va. ------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC (KGS) initiated a securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, on behalf of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of The Mills Corporation (NYSE: MLS), including (A) (NYSE: MLS-PE) = MILLS CORP PFD SER E (B) (NYSE: MLS-PG) = MILLS CORP DEP SHS (C) (NYSE: MLS-PC) = MILLS CP 9% PFD C, between the dates of July 29, 2004 and November 21, 2005. No class has yet been certified in this action. The Complaint that has been filed alleges that defendants have violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false statements regarding Mills' business and operations. On November 9, 2005, Mills disclosed, among other things, weakness in its internal controls. On January 6, 2006, Mills announced it will restate its financial statements for 2000 through 2004, and for the first three quarters of 2005, eliminate jobs and write off projects, which will result in approximately $77 million in charges for the fourth quarter. For more details, contact Lewis Kahn of KGS, Phone: 1-866-467- 1400, ext. 100, or 504-648-1850, E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com. NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Bernard Gross Files Stock Suit in Ill. --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. initiated a class action, numbered 06-1493, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, before the Honorable George M. Marovich, on behalf of purchasers of Northfield Laboratories, Inc. securities during the class period between February 20, 2004 and February 21, 2006, including purchasers in the May 2004 and February 2005 stock offerings, who have been damaged thereby. The action is pending against defendants Northfield Laboratories, Inc. and Steven A. Gould, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The Complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements regarding the safety profile and history of PolyHeme, a blood substitute, by failing to disclose the data from the ANH study concerning ten patients who had heart attacks within seven days of taking PolyHeme, that two of those patients died and that none of the patients taking real blood experienced heart attacks. On February 22, 2006, a story in The Wall Street Journal reported that the data available to defendants from the ANH clinical trial, but not to the public, revealed that ten of 81 patients who received PolyHeme suffered a heart attack within seven days, and two of those died. The data further showed defendants that none of the 71 patients in the ANH clinical trial who received real blood were found to have suffered a heart attack. In the aftermath of receiving this data, defendants shut down the ANH clinical study in 2000 and kept this highly adverse data hidden from the public view. Defendants, in a press release on February 22, 2006, responding to The Wall Street Journal article, did not dispute the data concerning the patient heart attacks and deaths from the ANH clinical trial. Rather, defendants admit that they did not publish the data concerning patient heart attacks and deaths, and defendant Gould stated in the press release that "(w)e believe that publishing the full data upon closing the study, would have shown that PolyHeme could not be isolated as the cause of the observed serious adverse events." The market was stunned by the disclosure of the secret, adverse data from the long-closed ANH clinical trial and the market price of Northfield's common stock fell with the belated disclosures. On February 21, 2006, the day before the disclosure by The Wall Street Journal, Northfield's common stock closed at a price of $12.23 per share. On February 22, 2006, on extraordinary volume of more that 4.1 million shares, Northfield's common stock closed at a price of $11.64 per share. The price continued to drop as the market absorbed all of the news, including the announcement on February 24, 2006, by U.S. Senator Charles E. Grassley, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, that he has begun an inquiry into the matter. For more details, contact The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C., Suite 450, John Wanamaker Building, Juniper and Market Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, Phone: 1-866-561-3600 or (215) 561-3600, Fax: (215) 561-3000, E-Mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com, Web site: http://www.bernardmgross.com. PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Shalov Stone Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP commenced a class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of PainCare Holdings, Inc. (PRZ) between August 27, 2002, and March 15, 2006. The lawsuit, which names as defendants PainCare and certain of its ranking executives, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The complaint alleges that PainCare and the individual defendants violated the federal securities laws by overstating and exaggerating the company's financial health. In particular, according to the complaint, PainCare went on a buying spree, growing its business by corporate acquisition, but accounting for such acquisitions in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Accordingly, the company overstated its earnings by failing to comply with GAAP in recording its non-cash growth. On March 15, 2006, the last day of the class period, the company announced that it would have to restate its financial figures going back to 2000 -- to its founding -- in order to adjust for the improper accounting of its corporate acquisitions. In the wake of the revelation of the defendants' wrongful conduct, the company's stock sunk to new lows, having recently traded at under $1.75 per share -- down from its class period high of $5.25 per share. In just the first day of trading following the announced restatement, PainCare's stock dropped 12.6%, on extremely heavy volume, down over 50% from its class period high. For more information, contact Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr., at Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, New York, New York 10018, Phone: (212) 239-4340; E-mail: tciarlone@lawssb.com. PHH CORP: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.J. --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired PHH Corporation (NYSE: PHH) stocks between May 12, 2005 and March 1, 2006, inclusive. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, against the company and certain key officers and directors. The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. For more information, contact, Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., at 261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, E- mail: FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net; Phone: (215) 886-1900. PHH CORP: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.J. -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of PHH Corporation (NYSE: PHH) between May 12, 2005 to March 1, 2006, inclusive. The suit seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against defendants PHH, Terence W. Edwards (CEO and President) and Neil J. Cashen (CFO). A copy of the complaint is available at http://www.milbergweiss.com. The Complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period statements, made in press releases and SEC filings, were materially false and misleading for these reasons: (i) the Company materially overstated its deferred tax assets, by tens of millions of dollars; (ii) the Company's reported net income was materially overstated; (iii) the Company's internal controls over financial reporting had material weaknesses, were not effective and adversely affected the Company's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's reported results were materially inflated and deceived investors. On March 1, 2006, the Company issued a press release revealing that the Company's reported results were materially overstated, for the reasons discussed above, and that an ongoing accounting review would prevent it from timely filing with the SEC its annual report on Form 10-K. The Company also announced that it had replaced its Chief Financial Officer, defendant Neil J. Cashen. In response to this announcement, the price of PHH common stock dropped from $28.73 per share on March 1, 2006 to $26 per share on March 2, 2006, on unusually heavy trading volume. For more information, contact Steven G. Schulman or Peter E. Seidman or Andrei V. Rado of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (800) 320-5081; E-mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com; Web site: http://www.milbergweiss.com. ********* 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 * * *