/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060511.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 11, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 93 Headlines AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits Over Cargo Pricing AUSTRALIA: Faces Lawsuit Over Ill Effects of Ore Dust Pollution BAYER CORP: Appeals Court Reinstates Lawsuit Over Cipro in Wis. BRISTOL-MYERS: Sued on Failure to Pull Out Tequin from Market CALIFORNIA: Judge Defers Decision on High School Exit Exam Suit CANADIAN NATIONAL: Offers $7.5M to Wabamun Oil Spill Victims CAREER EDUCATION: Overtime Suit Now Includes Temporary Workers COMMUNITY HOSPITAL: ADA Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 28 ENRON CORP: Credit Suisse to Pay $90M in Lawsuit Over Bankruptcy EXXONMOBIL: Franchisees Win Lawsuit Over Wholesale Gas Pricing GOOGLE INC: AIT Challenging $90M Settlement of Click Fraud Suit MAJOR LEAGUE: Court Junks Bias Lawsuit by Former MLB Players MARVEL EDUCATION: Choking Hazard Prompts Recall of Toy Phones REGAL LAGER: Recalls Strollers for Potential Injury to Children RTM OPERATING: ADA Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set Next Month TREK BICYCLE: Recalls Helmets for Failing Impact Standards UNITED STATES: PwC Study Reveals Decrease in Securities Cases WAL-MART STORES: Managers' Overtime Lawsuit Denied Certification New Securities Fraud Cases ASTEA INT'L: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa. DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit ESTEE LAUDER: Glancy Binkow Sets May 29 Lead Plaintiff Deadline FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Pomerantz Haudek Files N.Y. Securities Suit GMH COMMUNITIES: Howard Smith Files Securities Suit in E.D. Pa. NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Howard G. Smith Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline NEWPARK RESOURCES: Schiffrin Barroway Files La. Securities Suit PXRE GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. PXRE GROUP: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Schatz & Nobel Files Minn. Securities Suit VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Goldman Scarlato Files Calif. Stock Suit ********* AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits Over Cargo Pricing -------------------------------------------------------------- American Airlines, Inc., a subsidiary of AMR Corp., was named as defendant in 25 cargo shipments price-fixing lawsuits, according to its quarterly financial report with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Filed in federal courts across the country, the suits named the Fort Worth-based American along several other airlines, including British Airways, Japan Airlines and United Airlines as defendants (Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2006). The suits are: -- "Animal Land, Inc. v. Air Canada, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 17, 2006; -- "Joan Adams v. British Airways, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 22, 2006; -- "Rock International Transport v. Air Canada, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 24, 2006; -- "Helen's Wooden Crafting Co. v. Air Canada, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 24, 2006; -- "ABM Int'l, Inc. v. Ace Aviation Holdings, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 28, 2006; -- "Blumex USA, Inc. v. Air Canada, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 1, 2006; -- "Mamlaka Video v. Air Canada, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on March 3, 2006; -- "Spraying Systems Co. v. ACE Aviation Holdings, Inc., et al." filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on March 3, 2006; -- "Mitchell Spitz v. Air France-KLM et al.," filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on March 6, 2006; -- "JCK Industries, Inc. v. British Airways, PLC et al.," filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on March 6, 2006; -- "Marc Seligman v. Air Canada, et al.," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 6, 2006; -- "CID Marketing and Promotion Inc. v. AMR Corporation, et al.," filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 7, 2006; -- "Lynn Culver v. Air Canada, et al.," filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on March 8, 2006; -- "JSL Carpet Corp. v. ACE Aviation Holdings, Inc., et al." filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on March 10, 2006; -- "Y. Hata & Co, Ltd. v. Air France-KLM et al." filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 13, 2006; -- "FTS International Express v. ACE Aviation Holdings, Inc., et al." filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on March 15, 2006; -- "Thule, Inc. v. Air Canada, et al.," filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on March 28, 2006; -- "Rosetti Handbags and Accessories, Ltd. v. Air France ADS, et al.," filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on March 31, 2006; -- "W.I.T. Entertainment Inc. v. AMR Corporation, et al. filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 3, 2006; -- "Jeff Rapps v. British Airways PLC, et al." filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on April 7, 2006; -- "Funke Design Build, Inc. v. AMR Corporation, et al.," filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 7, 2006; -- "Sul-American Export Inc. v. Air France ADS, et al.," filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on April 7, 2006; -- "La Regale Ltd. v. British Airways PLC, et al." filed in the Untied States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on April 12, 2006; -- "J.A. Transport Inc. v. ACE Aviation Holdings, Inc., et al.," filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on April 12, 2006; and -- "Caribe Air Cargo, Inc. v. ACE Aviation Holdings, Inc., et al.," filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on April 13, 2006). In addition, there are also 33 similar lawsuits that don't name the carrier, but could add it if the suits are consolidated into a single class action. The flurry of litigation follows an investigation into airline cargo pricing by several countries, including the U.S. Various firms that pay airlines to deliver cargo filed the civil suits. In January, Company officials confirmed that they had been subpoenaed by the U.S. Department of Justice in conjunction with the investigation. Company spokesman Tim Wagner told The Fort Worth Star Telegram that the airline does not believe that it is a target of the government's investigation, and described the lawsuits as "follow-on" litigation. In an emailed statement to Fort Worth Star Telegram, Mr. Wagner further said, "We did not engage in any unlawful activity. We are cooperating with the government's investigation, and we intend to vigorously defend any litigation." AUSTRALIA: Faces Lawsuit Over Ill Effects of Ore Dust Pollution --------------------------------------------------------------- The Commonwealth is facing a class action filed by a group of New South Wales residents who said ore particles that were allowed to pollute the air in their area have affected the health of their children, ABC Regional Online reports. The parents of 24 children in Broken Hill filed a suit in the South Australia District Court alleging the Commonwealth is negligent in allowing toxic ore to blow off the back of freight trains onto their homes. The residents alleged their children suffered permanent health damage as a result of elevated lead levels, causing learning difficulties, diarrhea, persistent nosebleeds, chronic fatigue and lethargy. BAYER CORP: Appeals Court Reinstates Lawsuit Over Cipro in Wis. --------------------------------------------------------------- The 1st District Court of Appeals has reversed a county judge ruling dismissing a suit accusing Bayer Corp. of blocking generic versions of antibiotic Cipro, the Associated Press reports. A group of Wisconsin residents filed the lawsuit in 2000 against Bayer and Barr Laboratories after Bayer successfully preserved its exclusive rights to the production of the antibiotic. In 1991, Barr asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration permission to market a generic form of Cipro arguing that Bayer's patent was invalid and unenforceable. Bayer sued Barr in New York. Eventually, in 1997, they settled the suit with Barr agreeing not to market generic Cipro while Bayer's patent was in effect and Bayer paying what eventually totaled $398 million. The patent expired in 2004. The lawsuit filed by Wisconsin residents alleged the agreement is illegal under Wisconsin anti-trust law because it eliminated any generic competition for Cipro, resulting in inflated prices for consumers. The argument was dismissed by a Milwaukee County judge three years ago on grounds Wisconsin's anti-trust laws applied only to commerce within the state and not to inter-state transactions. On appeal, the suit was reinstated by the court basing on a state Supreme Court case last year that allowed Wisconsin antitrust laws to apply to interstate commerce if the alleged conduct "substantially affects" the people of Wisconsin. The class action was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or paid for the prescription drug Cipro(R) since January 8, 1997. It was filed in San Diego Superior Court as Cipro(R) Cases I and II, J.C.C.P. Nos. 4154 and 4220. Also named as defendants are Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and The Rugby Group, Inc. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2004). There are two types of plaintiffs: (1) consumer plaintiffs are people that paid for some or all of the price of Cipro in California. A consumer plaintiff purchased Cipro from a pharmacy or was administered Cipro in a hospital. The consumer plaintiff must have lived in California at any time since January 8, 1997, and paid for some or all of the total cost of a Cipro prescription in California during that time. (2) third-party payor plaintiffs include insurance companies, union health and welfare benefit plans, and other organizations that paid for all or part of a Cipro prescription obtained by one of its California members since January 8, 1997. Excluded from the class are all persons who obtained Cipro through the MediCal Prescription Drug Program, governmental entities, the defendants and their related entities, any purchaser of Cipro who paid a flat copayment and who would have paid the same copayment for a generic substitute under the terms of their health insurance coverage, and anyone that purchased Cipro for purposes of resale. For more details, contact Cipro Class Counsel by Mail: P.O. Box 2820, San Francisco, CA 9411 or visit the litigation Web site: http://www.california-cipro-litigation.com. BRISTOL-MYERS: Sued on Failure to Pull Out Tequin from Market ------------------------------------------------------------- Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada Co. and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company face a $200,000 class action over its alleged failure to warn patients of the risks associated with Tequin, a commonly prescribed antibiotic, CTV.ca reports. The lawsuit alleges the drug should have been pulled from sale years ago, as the risks were known. The statement of claim alleges that 70-year-old Alban Conlon, one of the plaintiffs, fell into a coma after taking three doses of the drug in March 2002 to treat bronchitis. The suit also alleges that Mr. Conlon was hospitalized for seven months and that he will now require medical care for the rest of his life. Some hospitals stopped using the drug three years ago, but Tequin continued to be prescribed across Canada to about 500 patients per day. Earlier this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration required increased warnings on the drug's label. Bristol-Myers Squibb spokesman Eric Miller said the company will return rights to the drug to Japan's Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., noting that the decision was made after a commercial evaluation of the product as well as an ongoing transition in the company's focus. The drugmaker confirmed earlier this month that it plans to stop making and selling Tequin, known generically as gatifloxacin. Meanwhile, Health Canada was also advised that Tequin will no longer be sold to Canadian pharmacies. The lawyer for the plaintiffs is Charles Wright. CALIFORNIA: Judge Defers Decision on High School Exit Exam Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Superior Court Judge Robert Freedman postponed a final ruling on whether thousands of high school seniors who haven't passed the state's high school exit exam will be able to graduate, the Mercury-Register reports. On Monday, Judge Freeman issued a tentative ruling indicating high school diplomas could be annotated to indicate whether a student had passed or failed the exit exam. On Tuesday, Judge Freedman deferred a final decision until Friday pending lawyers' arguments on whether a preliminary injunction would apply to all the diploma-eligible students who hadn't passed the exam or just the six plaintiffs. The students whose fate is in the balance are about 47,000, or 11% of the graduating class. They are mostly English learners, African American, Hispanic and low-income students. Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued their client were not given the same opportunity to learn the material as other students across the state in violation of their constitutional rights. Five Richmond High School students and five others from around California filed the suit in San Francisco Superior Court against state Superintendent Jack O'Connell, the State of California, the state Department of Education and the state Board of Education as defendants, the report said. Students named in the complaint come from Hayward, Newark, Oakland, Fair Oaks and Rialto (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 10, 2006). The test is required for a diploma starting this year. The class of 2006 will be the first to be denied a diploma if they don't pass the state standardized test. The plaintiff's argument are: (1) by denying a diploma to students who would otherwise graduate the state would be depriving them of their fundamental right to public education; (2) the state violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution by providing inadequate instruction in the first place and unfairly distributing money dedicated to helping students pass the test; and (3) the state violated California's due process law when by failing to thoroughly research alternatives as mandated by the Legislature when it approved the exit exam in 1999. The plaintiffs' lawyer is Arturo J. Gonzalez, Partner in Morrison & Foerster LLP, 425 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-2482: Phone: 415-268-7000; Fax: 415-268-7522. CANADIAN NATIONAL: Offers $7.5M to Wabamun Oil Spill Victims ------------------------------------------------------------ Canadian National Railway is offering $7.5 million in compensation to about 1,600 households on Lake Wabamun in Northern Alberta that were affected by an oil spill from a train derailment last year, the Canadian Press reports. The company says owners of property nearest the spill site, as well as those whose properties were most contaminated will be eligible for the largest payouts of $15,000. They have until June 30, 2006 to decide on whether or not to accept the offer. Calvin Davey, a resident of Half Moon Bay on Wabamun Lake, filed the suit in Alberta Court of Queen's Bench on Feb. 17. The suit seeks $950 million in general and punitive damages, and a declaration that the railway was negligent in the derailment and spill. Should the suit be certified as class action, it would include everyone living and owning land and homes within a 5-km. radius of the lake's shore. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 21, 2006) The company 's chief legal officer is Sean Finn of Montreal, Quebec. CAREER EDUCATION: Overtime Suit Now Includes Temporary Workers -------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Judge William Hart of the Illinois Northern District has allowed temporary employees of Career Education Corp. to join a class action over unpaid overtime work filed against the company, according to Chicago Business. The temporary employees eligible to join in the suit are those who worked as admissions advisers for Career Education and one of its campuses, American InterContinental University, as far as 2001. The employees solicited students to sigh up for online education through Career Education's campuses. The suit, filed in August 2005, alleged the company violated state and federal overtime laws by forcing workers not to report some overtime and work off the clock. The employees' lawyer, Robin Potter, said the suit was granted class status in January. It involves more than 100 workers. He said some 800 temporary workers are receiving notices that they, too, are eligible to join. The suit is "Vennet, et al. v. American Intercontinental University Online, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04889," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge William T. Hart. Representing the plaintiffs is Robin B. Potter of Robin Potter & Associates P.C., 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 861-1800, E-mail: robinpotter@igc.org. Representing the defendants is James M. Gecker of Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, 525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60661, Phone: 312-902-5200, E-mail: james.gecker@kattenlaw.com. COMMUNITY HOSPITAL: ADA Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 28 ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the suit "Access Now, Inc., et al. v. Community Hospital of Andalusia, et al., Case No. 4:01-CV-02" on June 28, 2006, 2:00 p.m., Eastern Time. The case involves disability access at the facilities of Athens Regional Medical Center, LLC; Hillside Hospital, LLC; and Livingston Regional Hospital, LLC (defendants). It alleges on behalf of all disabled individuals, including individuals with mobility, visual, or hearing impairments, that the defendants are in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and other state anti-discrimination laws affecting persons with such disabilities. The class is essentially defined as an individual with any type of disability whatsoever, and seek, have sought, or will seek access to or use any facility of the named defendants. The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, 800 Market Street, Courtroom 1B, Knoxville, TN 37902. Any objections to the settlement must be filed by June 7, 2006. For more details contact Access Now, Inc., 19333 West Country Club Drive #1522, Aventura, Florida 33180, Phone: 305 705-0059, Fax 305-574-0341, E-mail: info@adaaccessnow.org, Web site: http://www.adaaccessnow.org. ENRON CORP: Credit Suisse to Pay $90M in Lawsuit Over Bankruptcy ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. affiliate of Swiss bank Credit Suisse agreed to pay $90 million to the bankruptcy estate of Enron Corp. to settle claims by investors who lost money from the energy giant's collapse, AFX reports. The settlement between Credit Suisse First Boston and Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette will allow the return of $92 million in bankruptcy claims that Credit Suisse no longer holds, according to the report. Credit Suisse is not admitting liability or wrongdoing under the agreement. The deal is part of a broader class action on behalf of Enron investors against financial services companies accused of helping the energy trader commit accounting fraud that led to its collapse. The suit against Enron is "In Re: Enron Corp Securities, et al. (4:02-md-01446)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas under Judge Melinda Harmon. Representing the defendant are: J Mark Brewer of Brewer and Pritchard, Three Riverway Ste 1800, Houston, TX 77056, Phone: 713-209-2950, Fax: 713-659-5302; E-mail: brewer@bplaw.com; and William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin et al., 655 West Broadway, Ste 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058. EXXONMOBIL: Franchisees Win Lawsuit Over Wholesale Gas Pricing -------------------------------------------------------------- A group of current and former ExxonMobil franchisees settled a class action filed against ExxonMobil, its wholly owned subsidiary, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, and the companies' officers and directors. The class action complaint stemmed from methods employed by ExxonMobil to undermine the profitability of its franchisees, including setting the wholesale prices paid by franchisees at or above the retail prices being charged by the plaintiffs' competitors. The suit alleged that ExxonMobil intentionally caused its franchisees to choose between two evils: either sell gas at a loss to keep pace with the competition, or try to sell gas at a reasonable profit and lose customers to the better priced competition. According to the plaintiffs' attorneys, ExxonMobil engaged in practices that were specifically designed to drive franchisees out of business and increase the number of company operated stations. The lawsuit sought to recover damages to compensate franchisees for their losses as a result of ExxonMobil's unlawful actions, as well as damages for ExxonMobil's intentional and outrageous behavior towards its franchisees, including violations of the franchise and antitrust laws. The complaint also sought rescission of the franchisees' contracts. "We're quite happy with the settlement. My clients now have the freedom to build a future without regard to the repressive conduct of ExxonMobil," stated attorney Norman Yatooma of Norman Yatooma & Associates, P.C. Prior to the litigation, Exxon dealer plaintiffs were subject to outlandish liquidated damage provisions, approaching $1 million per store for early termination, on top of personal requirements to pay Exxon's attorney fees. "Those punitive measures are now just bad memories. Exxon is righting its wrong and compensating my dealers," remarked Mr. Yatooma. "It makes sense for Exxon too. Now they'll no longer have to require every prospective dealer nationally to disclaim their rights in their class action litigation," Mr. Yatooma concluded. Norman Yatooma on the Net: http://www.normanyatooma.com GOOGLE INC: AIT Challenging $90M Settlement of Click Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Web hosting company Advanced Internet Technologies, Inc. (AIT), the lead plaintiff in a pending federal class action against Google over click fraud in California, is mounting a dual challenge to the proposed settlement in an Arkansas case on the same issue. Clarence Briggs, AIT's Chief Executive Officer, says the $90 million dollar offer leaves the central issue of fraud itself unresolved. So, Mr. Briggs is not only pursuing the case in a California courtroom but also in a Washington hearing room. "I've gone to Capitol Hill and spoken with members of the U.S. Senate and representatives for the Judiciary Committee," said Mr. Briggs. "We have been contacted and asked for additional information on this issue; they have told us that hearings are likely and I expect to go testify," said Mr. Briggs. "When officials see the scope of the issue, businesses losing potentially billions annually, they will find it extremely disturbing." AIT's legal team has termed the proposed settlement as "financially meaningless" to Google. The only cash involved -- about $30 million -- is for attorney's fees. Click verification service providers are scratching their heads, too, wondering why advertisers would even bother to look for fraud in their pay- per-click campaigns if the effort produces no relief. "Unchecked, fraud is only going to get worse, and this settlement strips advertisers of any protection," said Charles Petruzzi, President of Click Authority, an independent click fraud detection service. "As it is, all advertisers get is promises from the major pay-per-click providers that fraud is under control, but when the settlement says nothing about improving fraud prevention, those promises sound very hollow." Many of the click verification service providers have expressed reservations on behalf of their clients due to fear of retribution from Google if they complain publicly or "opt out" of the settlement. "Google is a great company that has achieved some wonderful things on behalf of the Internet community," says Mr. Briggs. "We are asking them to fix this problem so the Internet can continue to be the phenomenon that enriches the lives of the global community." AIT -- http://www.AIT.com-- is also using a non-profit organization it created called iGeryon -- http://Igeryon.org-- to collect information and consolidate complaints from companies who believe they have been defrauded. Mr. Briggs contends that, central to the fraud, is a sprawling affiliate network that syndicates Google AdWords advertising, with site owners being paid every time someone or an automated software program clicks on ads on their sites in order to generate false clicks. These networks are frequently located offshore, raising some questions as to where payouts are going. "It's not a stretch to believe that activity contrary to U.S. national interests is being funded this way," said Mr. Briggs. "Stories in several in major newspapers and magazines -- The Washington Post, USA Today, Wired -- have documented online communities that promote terrorism. The Internet is a fundraising tool that is difficult to audit so a terror group setting up affiliate sites and getting paid when someone or something clicks on their ads is very possible." Mr. Briggs is a former Army combat veteran as are about 70% of AIT's staffers. Case Background In April, a judge in the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas, approved Google Inc.'s $90 million settlement of a "click fraud" class action filed against it by advertisers, The Texarkana Gazette reports (Class Action Reporter, April 25, 2006). Initially, the suit was filed by Texarkana gift shop Lane's Gifts and Collectibles. On Feb. 4, 2005, John C. Goodson and Dallas lawyer Joel Fineberg filed a suit against Google, Yahoo! Inc., Overture Services Inc., America Online Inc., Ask Jeeves Inc., Looksmart Ltd., Lycos Inc., Netscape Communication Corp., Buena Vista Internet Group, Findwhat.Com Inc. and Time Warner Inc., (Class Action Reporter, March 10, 2006). The suit specifically alleged that the Company overcharged thousands of advertisers for bogus sales referrals through the "click fraud" strategy. The scheme involves sending fraudulent clicks to advertisers, effectively increasing their accounts, (Class Action Reporter, March 10, 2006). Though the Company settled its case with its clients, the "click fraud" class action is still alive in Miller County in relation to the other named defendants. As part of the settlement reached by the Company, the advertising clients will have a $60 million fund to file a claim and receive a percentage of what it is owed. They will not receive cash, but they will get advertising credits to pay half of future bills with the Company. The remaining third of the $90 million will be paid to the lawyers for their fees and expenses. Entitled, "Click Defense, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (5:05-cv-02579- RMW)," AIT's suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. A hearing for nationwide class certification of that case is slated for May 14, 2006, (Class Action Reporter, March 14, 2006). Lawyer Kevin Crass of Little Rock represents the company. MAJOR LEAGUE: Court Junks Bias Lawsuit by Former MLB Players ------------------------------------------------------------ A U.S. appeals court upheld a ruling dismissing a discrimination case filed by retired Chicago White Sox player Mike Colbern against the Major League Baseball, Reuters reports. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District in San Francisco ruled that the rights of a group of mostly white players who sued the MLB of discrimination were not violated when they were excluded from benefit plans for former Negro League players. The benefits were granted to aging African-American players who were barred from Major League Baseball until 1947 because they were black. The medical plan was set up in 1993; the income plan in 1997. The suit alleged violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It names as defendants MLB Commissioner Bud Selig and all major league teams. According to the report, the appellants played in the majors for less than four years between 1947 and 1979 -- a period short enough to qualify for benefits under the vesting rules in effect at that time. Mr. Colbern played for the Chicago White Sox in 1978 and 1979. The lawsuit also alleged players were given cortisone shots and other drugs without their "informed" consent. But the appeals court panel said the former players failed to show "substantial risk of injury as a result of the administration of the cortisone shots and other drugs." MARVEL EDUCATION: Choking Hazard Prompts Recall of Toy Phones ------------------------------------------------------------- Marvel Education Company, of New York, New York, in cooperation with U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is recalling about 6,000 Marvel Education cordless push button toy telephones. The company said the push buttons on the toy phone can detach, posing a choking hazard to young children. Marvel is not aware of any incidents involving this toy telephone. The toy phone is made of wood. It has push buttons with black numbers, and has a black rubber antenna. The toy phone sits in a wooden caddy. The caddy has "TELEPHONE" printed on it. The toy phones are made in Vietnam and are sold in major school supply distributors, including Kaplan and Ajax School Office Source, from January 2004 through February 2006 for about $20. Consumers are advised to stop using these toy phones immediately and contact the firm for a free replacement toy phone. The replacement toy phone has red push button numbers and red graphics printed on it. For more information, contact Marvel Education Co. at (866) 460- 8769 between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or e- mail Marvel at marvel_ed@yahoo.com REGAL LAGER: Recalls Strollers for Potential Injury to Children --------------------------------------------------------------- Regal Lager Inc., of Kennesaw, Georgia, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission is recalling about 425 Phil & Teds e3 Twin Buggy strollers. The company said the plastic hinge on the handlebar can crack or break causing the handlebar to detach while in use, posing a risk of injury to young children. Regal Lager has received two reports from consumers of the handlebars breaking, but no injuries were reported. Phil & Teds e3 twin buggy has a metal frame and side-by-side cloth seats. The strollers were sold in a variety of colors including red, orange, black, charcoal grey and navy. "e3 twin" is embroidered on the front of each seat and the Phil & Teds logo is printed on the crotch piece of each harness. The strollers were made in China and sold by Web retailers, baby furniture and baby product stores nationwide from November 2005 through March 2006 for about $650. Consumers are advised to contact Regal Lager for information on receiving a free replacement hinge set for the handlebar. Picture of the recalled strollers: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06154.jpg For more information, contact Regal Lager at (800) 593-5522 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or email at info@regallager.com. Consumers can also visit the firm's Web site at www.regallager.com RTM OPERATING: ADA Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set Next Month ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida will hold a fairness hearing on June 14, 2006 for the proposed settlement in the matter: "Access Now, Inc. and Christ Soter Tavantis, et al. v. RTM Operating Company d/b/a Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc., Case No. 02-23374-CIV- Martinez/Bandstra." The case involves all persons who have qualified, qualify, or will qualify as having a "disability," as that term is defined by the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and who have been or will be a guest, customer, patron, visitor or otherwise, and who have been, are, or will be denied full and equal access to or have been, are, or will be discriminated against under title iii of the ADA or regulations promulgated thereunder, or similar federal, state, or local law, rule, order, or ordinance (excluding claims for all damages, other than statutory damages), because of their "disability," at or in connection with: -- all restaurants doing business as "Arby's" now or hereafter owned and/or operated by defendant rtm operating company, inc., -- or its affiliated companies, which are located in the fifty states in the U.S. of America and the District of Columbia. The hearing is before the Honorable Jose E. Martinez, U.S. District Judge, in Dade County, Florida on the 14th day of June, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 301 N. Miami Ave., Miami, Florida 33128. Any objections to the settlement must be made by May 29, 2006. For more details contact: (1) Access Now, Inc., 19333 West Country Club Drive #1522, Aventura, Florida 33180, Phone: 305 705-0059, Fax 305- 574-0341, E-mail: info@adaaccessnow.org, Web site: http://www.adaaccessnow.org;and (2) Rosen & Switkes, PL, Phone: 305-534-4757 and 954-653- 0457, Fax: 305-538-5504 and 305-538-5504, E-mail: jentin@rosenandswitkes.com, Web site: http://www.rosenandswitkes.com/classactions/index.html. TREK BICYCLE: Recalls Helmets for Failing Impact Standards ---------------------------------------------------------- Trek Bicycle, of Waterloo, Wisconsin, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission is recalling about 4,500 Trek Anthem C Elite and Anthem C Elite WSD Model Bicycle Helmets. The company said product testing has demonstrated that these helmets do not comply with CPSC safety standards for impact resistance. Consumers could suffer impact head injuries in a fall. No incidents or injuries have been reported. Anthem C Elite and Anthem C Elite WSD has a label inside the helmet, which identifies the helmet as "Trek Anthem C." The helmets are available in men's sizes in black/charcoal, blue/silver and blue/red, and in women's sizes in aqua blue/silver and white/silver. This recall includes all sizes of this helmet. The helmets are manufactured in China and are being sold in authorized Trek Dealers nationwide from October 2005 through May 2006 for about $129. Consumers are advised to stop using the helmets immediately and return their helmets to an authorized Trek dealer for a full refund. For more information, contact Trek Bicycle at (800) 373-4594 between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday. UNITED STATES: PwC Study Reveals Decrease in Securities Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- The number of private securities litigation filed in the U.S. was down to its lowest level in nine years, according to the 2005 PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) Securities Litigation Study. While the number of class actions subsided, the study shows settlement values skyrocketed by 156 percent from a $27.8 million average value of settlements in 2004 to an average of $71.1 million in 2005, excluding Enron and WorldCom settlements. In 2005, 29 cases settled for over $20 million. Twenty of those cases settled for over $60 million, 11 of which were "mega- settlements" of over $100 million. The total 168 cases reported in 2005 represent a 17 percent decline from the 203 cases filed in 2004, and is slightly below the ten-year average of 188 cases per year. However, the value of settlements has increased so drastically that it is costing companies more to settle now than ever before. These mega-settlements can possibly be attributed to several factors, including enormous case-related losses, the role of lead plaintiffs, the effect of Sarbanes-Oxley, as well as the fact that companies now have to deal with the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), Department of Justice (DOJ) and various states' attorneys general. "Since 2001, the U.S. economy has been strong. If the U.S. does enter into another recessionary period, it is likely that securities litigation and mega-settlements will increase," says Daniel Dooley, partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers. "That is to say, this may be the lull before the next storm." Mega-settlements during 2005 included the continuing settlements of Enron and WorldCom, where settlements with financial institutions and other third parties have pushed total settlements for the cases to more than $7.1 billion and $6.1 billion, respectively. In 2005, accounting cases represented 46 percent of all private securities class actions filed, which is the lowest percentage since 1996 and also the first time since 1996 that the figure fell below 50 percent. The average settlement value of accounting cases in 2005 was $94 million, excluding the cases of Enron and WorldCom, 178 percent higher than the $33.8 million average value in 2004. Also in 2005, 55 percent of all accounting cases filed asserted that companies' internal controls were materially weak and contributed to financial fraud. The 2005 survey also showed some relief for foreign private issuers, as securities regulators in the U.S., European Union countries and other nations have improved coordination of their regulatory and enforcement policies and activities. In 2005 the number of securities class actions filed against foreign issuers fell by 34 percent, from 29 in 2004 to 19 in 2005. Grace Lamont, partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers, notes: "The increased cooperation among global regulators and the increased focus by the SEC on foreign issuer related matters should serve to confirm that U.S. domestic companies and foreign issuers are equally accountable. There is no indication that foreign issuers should expect to be any less subject to securities litigation than their U.S. counterparts as we look to the year ahead." Other noteworthy trends that continued through 2005 include: -- Hedge fund fraud on the rise. The total number of hedge fund enforcements through December 31, 2005, was 22 cases, some of which involved multiple enforcement actions against hedge funds, related parties, and hedge fund managers and advisors. This is something that should be followed closely, as hedge funds typically present high risk and are subject to certain reporting and compliance rules. -- An increase in mega-settlements for foreign cases. Two of the foreign settlements were among the ten largest settlements for both domestic and foreign issuers during the year. -- Health services and pharmaceutical industries continued to be plagued by private securities class actions, many of them sued for accounting or disclosure violations. -- Electronics, high-technology and software sectors once again led the list of industries being sued in private securities class actions, representing 29 percent of all such cases filed. For more details, contact Kathryn Oliver of PricewaterhouseCoopers, Phone: 860-241-7333, E-mail: kathryn.oliver@us.pwc.com or Suzanne Dawson of Linden Alschuler & Kaplan, Phone: 212-329-1420, E-mail: sdawson@lakpr.com. WAL-MART STORES: Managers' Overtime Lawsuit Denied Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge refused to certify a class action filed on behalf of some 2,750 current and former assistant managers of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. alleging they were not paid for overtime work and denied meal breaks, the Bloomberg News reports. U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer in Los Angeles said the plaintiffs' claims that they performed non-managerial tasks and were improperly classified as exempt from overtime pay should be considered individually. In California, workers who spend at least half their time on managerial duties that require them to exercise discretion and independent judgment are exempt from overtime pay rules. But, workers alleged in their suit filed in 2004 their titles don't reflect the non-managerial work they do, including operating the cash register. The workers' lawyer is Robert Drexler of The Quisenberry Law Firm, A Professional Corporation, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2200, Los Angeles, California 90067 (Los Angeles Co.), Phone: 310-785-7966, Fax: Fax: 310-785-0254. New Securities Fraud Cases ASTEA INT'L: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., initiated a securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Astea International Inc. (ATEA) between May 11, 2005 through March 31, 2006, inclusive. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements contained in press releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts: -- that the Company lacked an adequate internal system of controls necessary to accurately ascertain the Company's overall condition; -- that the Company's quarterly guidance concealed the true financial health of the Company; and -- that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's statements with respect to its future prospects and the intrinsic value of its business lacked in all reasonable basis. According to the complaint, the defendants materially overstated and exaggerated Astea's financial condition throughout the Class Period by failing to accurately account for the Company's software development costs under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). As a result, Astea overstated its earnings by failing to comply with GAAP when recording its expenses. On March 31, 2006, the Company announced that it would have to restate its financial results for the three quarters ended September 30, 2005, in order to adjust for the improper accounting. On this news, the price of Astea stock plummeted from $16.50 to $11.73 per share, a loss of nearly 30%. During the Class Period, Astea stock traded as high as $25.71 per share. Interested parties may, no later than June 5, 2006, move to be appointed as a Lead Plaintiff in this class action. For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman, Phone: 888-844- 5862, E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com, Web site: http://www.srk- law.com. DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all securities purchasers of Discovery Laboratories, Inc. (DSCO) from December 28, 2005 through April 25, 2006, inclusive. The Complaint charges Discovery and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: -- that problems regarding the manufacturing of Surfaxin existed; -- specifically, that the Company failed to disclose that manufacturing problems with Surfaxin caused instability with the drug's active ingredient; -- that the FDA's concerns regarding Surfaxin's stability would result in a significant delay in the drug's approval; and -- as a result of the above, the Company's statements concerning Surfaxin were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. Throughout the Class Period, Discovery repeatedly asserted that it anticipated that Surfaxin would receive U.S. regulatory approval in April 2006. On April 24, 2006, Discovery announced that U.S. regulatory approval of Surfaxin was being delayed over manufacturing problems. Specifically, Discovery reported that Surfaxin's ability to be stored for extended periods of time without change in its efficacy or chemical profile, or stability, had not been achieved. As a result of this failure, the U.S. regulatory process would be significantly delayed. The Company acknowledged that stability had never been achieved for the drug. On this news, shares of Discovery dropped $2.49, or 53 percent, to close, on April 25, 2006, at $2.20 per share. Interested parties may, not later than June 30, 2006, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class. For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Phone: 1-888-299- 7706 or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site: http://www.sbclasslaw.com. ESTEE LAUDER: Glancy Binkow Sets May 29 Lead Plaintiff Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing shareholders of The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., reminds regarding the deadline to file as lead plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit against the Company. All persons and institutions who purchased securities of The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. between April 28, 2005 and October 25, 2005, inclusive, may move the Court not later than May 29, 2006, to serve as lead plaintiff. The Complaint, filed on in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, charges Estee Lauder and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning Estee Lauder's financial performance and prospects caused the Company's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. The Complaint alleges that the Company's market share was decreasing at the commencement of the Class Period, and, rather than reverse this negative trend or fully disclose it, defendants launched a largely successful campaign that employed channel stuffing and the dissemination of materially false and misleading statements to prop up reported revenues and earnings and the Company's share price long enough for Company insiders to sell millions of their personally held Estee Lauder shares to unsuspecting investors at prices that were artificially inflated by defendants' false and misleading statements. On September 19, 2005, defendants disclosed that the Company would not meet its guidance for the first half of fiscal 2006, causing the Company's stock to fall 9%, from $40.51 to $36.05 per share. Estee Lauder shares, however, continued to trade at artificially inflated levels until October 26, 2005 when defendants were forced to disclose fiscal first-quarter 2006 earnings of only $61.8 million, or $0.28 per share -- down 38% from the prior year's earnings of $95.7 million, or $0.41 per share -- on essentially flat sales. These results were well below analysts' revised consensus earnings estimate of $0.32 per share on revenue of $1.54 billion. Following this disclosure, the Company's share price fell to $30.71. By this time, Estee Lauder insiders had, during the Class Period, sold 3,380,399 shares of their Estee Lauder common stock to unwitting investors for proceeds of $88,077,150. Interested parties may move the Court, not later than May 29, 2006, to serve as lead plaintiff. For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq. and Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com. FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Pomerantz Haudek Files N.Y. Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, against Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd. (FFH) and certain of its officers, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of the Company between March 24, 2004 to March 21, 2006, inclusive. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Fairfax, headquartered in Toronto, Canada, engages in property and casualty insurance products principally in Canada, the U.S., and the United Kingdom. It also provides claims adjusting, appraisal, and loss management services. The Complaint alleges the following: -- that the Company's current reserve accounts were understated; -- that the Company over utilized aggressive off-balance sheet funding mechanisms; -- that the Company improperly accounted finite reinsurance contracts; -- as a consequence of the above, the Company's reported earnings were materially inflated throughout the Class Period; and -- that defendants consistently downplayed the seriousness of regulatory inquiries and subpoenas issued against the Company. On March 22, 2006, Fairfax announced that U.S. securities regulators issued subpoenas to third parties (including the Company's independent auditor and a shareholder) in an ongoing probe into certain financial transactions, including nontraditional insurance or reinsurance product transactions. On this news, shares of Fairfax fell $16.97 per share or 12.96 percent, to close at $113.93 per shares. Interested parties have until June 12, 2006 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the Class. For more details, contact Teresa L. Webb or Carolyn S. Moskowitz of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, Phone: (888) 476-6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com and csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com, Web site: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com. GMH COMMUNITIES: Howard Smith Files Securities Suit in E.D. Pa. --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities of GMH Communities Trust (NYSE:GCT) between October 28, 2004 and March 10, 2006, inclusive. The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period concerning the Company's operations and financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of GMH securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. Interested parties have until June 5, 2006, in which to move for Lead Plaintiff status. For more details, contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com. NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Howard G. Smith Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith sets a June 2, 2006, deadline to file as lead plaintiff in the securities class action filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities of Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. (Pink Sheets:NATR) between October 19, 2004 and March 24, 2006, inclusive. The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period concerning the Company's operations and financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of Nature's Sunshine Products securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com. NEWPARK RESOURCES: Schiffrin Barroway Files La. Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of all securities purchasers of Newpark Resources, Inc. (NYSE:NR) from February 28, 2005 through April 16, 2006, inclusive. The Complaint charges Newpark and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: -- that defendants, among other things, had irregularly processed and paid invoices at the Company's subsidiary, Soloco Texas, LP; -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and -- that the Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). On April 17, 2006, before the market opened, Newpark revealed that, based on information that had come to its attention, the Company's Audit Committee had commissioned an internal investigation regarding "potential irregularities involving the processing and payment of invoices" by Soloco Texas, LP, one of the Company's smaller subsidiaries and "other possible violations." The Company also announced that defendant James D. Cole, recent Chief Executive Officer of the Company, defendant Matthew W. Hardey, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, and an officer of Soloco Texas, LP, had been placed on administrative leave. Following this disclosure, shares of Newpark sank $1.28 per share, or 17.25 percent, to close, on April 17, 2006, at $6.14 per share. For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Phone: 1-888-299- 7706 or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site: http://www.sbclasslaw.com/. PXRE GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock and other securities of PXRE Group Ltd. (PXT) between July 28, 2005 and February 16, 2006, inclusive. The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose or concealed from investors the full impact on its business of hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. As a result, on February 16, 2006, PXRE announced that it would be increasing its estimates of the net pre-tax impact of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma by an amount between $281 million to $311 million for the year ended December 31, 2005 compared to the high end of their prior announced estimates. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esquire or Marc L. Ackerman, Esquire of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 877-LEGAL-90, E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com. PXRE GROUP: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., filed a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of PXRE Group Ltd. (PXT) between July 28, 2005 and February 16, 2006, inclusive. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendant PXRE, Jeffrey L. Radke and John M. Modin. 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. Interested parties may move the court no later than July 3, 2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class. 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. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Schatz & Nobel Files Minn. Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of UnitedHealth Group, Inc. (UNH) between May 4, 2001 and April 7, 2006, inclusive. Also included are all those who acquired UnitedHealth's securities through its acquisitions of AmeriChoice, Mid Atlantic Medical, Oxford Health Plans and Pacificare Health. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false statements. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and omitted material facts concerning UnitedHealth's backdating of stock option grants to defendants William W. McGuire and Stephen J. Hemsley. UnitedHealth represented that the exercise price of all stock options would be no less than the fair market value of UnitedHealth's common stock, measured by the publicly traded closing price for UnitedHealth stock on the day of the grant. However, in reality, those options were backdated so their exercise price correlated to a day on or near the day UnitedHealth stock hit its low price for the year, or directly in advance of sharp increases in the price of UnitedHealth stock. Defendants McGuire and Hemsley have collectively earned over $500 million by exercising these backdated options. As the truth concerning United Health's practice of backdating option grants became known to the market from a variety of sources, the price of UnitedHealth stock fell $6.76, or 12%, over several trading sessions. Interested parties may, no later than July 7, 2006, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton and Nancy A. Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net. VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Goldman Scarlato Files Calif. Stock Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation (VTSS) between October 23, 2003 and April 26, 2006, inclusive. The lawsuit was filed against Vitesse and certain officers and directors. The complaint alleges that Defendants made material misstatements and omitted critical information regarding the timing of stock option grants made to key executives. On March 18, 2006, the Wall Street Journal published an article indicating potential options backdating activity at several companies, including Vitesse. On April 17, 2006, Vitesse CEO Louis Tomasetta, Executive Vice President Eugene Hovanec and the Company's CFO, Yatlin Mody, were placed on administrative leave as the Company investigated certain stock options transactions. On April 26, 2006, Vitesse further announced that it was restating its financial statements for the fiscal years ending September 2003, 2004, and 2005, as well as the quarter ending December 31, 2005. In reaction to this news, shares of Vitesse fell from $2.51 per share to $1.82 per share, or 27.5%. Interested parties may move the Court no later than July 3, 2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class. For more details, contact Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: (888) 753-2796, E-mail: info@gsk-law.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, Janice Mendoza 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 * * *