/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060516.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, May 16, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 96 Headlines ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in S.D. Ohio ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Faces Overtime Compensation Suit in Wash. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Workers File Suit Over Required Purchases ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Calif. "Kimbell" Deal Gets Final Approval ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Ohio Court Consolidates Stock Fraud Suits ADVENTURE PLAYSETS: Fall Hazard Prompts Recall of Wooden Swings AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Security Guards Launch Wage Suits in Calif. AT&T CORP: Calif. Court to Hear Motions in Wiretapping Suit Wed. BARNES & NOBLE: Reaches $10M Settlement in Calif. Overtime Suit BORDERS GROUP: Continues to Face Labor Violations Suit in Calif. BURLINGTON COAT: Calif. Court Seals Labor Lawsuit Settlement BURLINGTON COAT: Deal Reached in N.J. Suit Over Bain Purchase CANADA: Same Sex Partners to Appeal Pension Suit in Court Today CANADIAN BROADCASTING: CBC Pensioners' Suit Gets Certification CASH STORE: Canadian Court Certifies "Payday Loan" Litigation CINTAS CORP: Calif. Court Orders Arbitration for ERISA Lawsuit CINTAS CORP: Calif. Court Orders Arbitration for "Houston" Case CINTAS CORP: Continues to Face Racial Bias Lawsuit in Calif. DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Fulfills Calif. Labor Suits Settlement Terms DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Settles Labor Law Exemption Suits in Calif. DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Wash. Suit Over Rest Breaks in Arbitration DUANE READE: Continues to Face Overtime Wage Lawsuit in N.Y. DUANE READE: EEOC Launches Sexual Discrimination Lawsuit in N.Y. DUANE READE: Faces Del., N.Y. Lawsuits Over Oak Hill Purchase EXXONMOBIL CORP: Judge Refuses to Certify Suit Over La. Fire HOLLISTER CO: Continues to Face Labor Violations Suit in Calif. HOMEQ SERVICING: Judge Sides with Firm in Suit Over Loan Deal JC PENNEY: Faces Tex., N.Mex. Suits Over Insurance Transactions MCCORMICK & SCHMICK'S: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit MERIX CORP: Motions Ore. Court to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit MONSANTO CO: January Trial Date Slated for Farmer's Suit in Mo. MONSANTO CO: 2007 Trial Date Set for American Seed Suit in Del. NATIONAL CITY: Ill. Suit is "Manufactured," Defense Counsel Says NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR: Settlement Reached in Calif. Injury Suit PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. Pa. RALPHS GROCERY: Reaches Settlement in "The Great Escape" Cases SEMPRA ENERGY: Judge Keeps Terms of Natural Gas Suit Settlement SOLECTRON CORP: Calif. Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final OK TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Face RICO Violations Suit in Fla. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Potential $5B Suit Over NSA Link WAL-MART STORES: Canadian Court Rejects Unionized Workers' Suit YAHOO INC: Facing Spyware Click Fraud Lawsuit in California New Securities Fraud Cases AMERICA SERVICE: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Next Month CHINA ENERGY: Charles J. Piven Files Stock Fraud Suit in N.Y. DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Stock Suit in Pa. ESCALA GROUP: Ann D. White to File Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ESCALA GROUP: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ESCALA GROUP: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. NEWPARK RESOURCES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in La. VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Kaplan Fox Files Calif. Securities Suit VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Yourman Alexander Files Calif. Stock Suit XM SATELLITE: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C. ********* ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Abercrombie & Fitch Co. is defendant in a purported securities class action "In re Abercrombie & Fitch Co. Securities Litigation, MDL-1336" pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Thomas P. Griesa. The company is aware of 20 actions filed against it and certain of its current and former officers and directors on behalf of a purported, but as yet uncertified, class of shareholders who purchased the company's Class A Common Stock between Oct. 8, 1999 and Oct. 13, 1999. These 20 actions were filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, alleging violations of the federal securities laws and seeking unspecified damages. On Apr. 12, 2000, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a Transfer Order transferring the 20 pending actions to the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York for consolidated pretrial proceedings under the caption, "In re Abercrombie & Fitch Co. Securities Litigation, MDL-1336." On Nov. 16, 2000, the court signed an order appointing the Hicks Group, a group of seven unrelated investors in A&F's Common Stock, as lead plaintiff, and appointing lead counsel in the consolidated action. On Dec. 14, 2000, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint in which they did not name as defendants Lazard Freres & Co. and Todd Slater, who had formerly been named as defendants in certain of the 20 complaints. On Feb. 14, 2001, the company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On Nov. 14, 2003, the motions to dismiss the amended complaint were denied as to all defendants except Michelle Donnan-Martin. On Dec. 2, 2003, the company and the other defendants moved for reconsideration or re-argument of the Nov. 14, 2003 order denying the motions to dismiss. On Feb. 23, 2004, the motions for reconsideration or re-argument were denied. On Apr. 1, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On Apr. 8, 2005, the company and the other defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The court has yet to rule on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The parties are currently conducting merits discovery. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in S.D. Ohio --------------------------------------------------------------- Abercrombie & Fitch Co. is defendant in a consolidated class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In each action, the plaintiffs, on behalf of their respective purported class, seek injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of economic and liquidated damages. In the suit "Melissa Mitchell, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.," which was filed on June 13, 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, the plaintiffs allege that assistant managers and store managers were not paid overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and Ohio law. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add Scott Oros as a named plaintiff on Oct. 28, 2004. On June 17, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion to further amend the complaint to add claims under the laws of a number of states, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted that motion on Nov. 8, 2005. On June 24, 2005, the defendants filed motions seeking summary judgment on all of the claims of each of the three plaintiffs. On Jul. 1, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Rule 23 Motion for Certification of a Class of State Wage Act Claimants and a Motion for Designation of FLSA Claims as Collective Action and Authority to Send Notice to Similarly Situated Employees. The defendants filed their opposition to both motions on Dec. 8, 2005. On Mar. 27, 2006, the court issued an order indicating that it intended to rule on the defendants' motions for summary judgment forthwith and, for purposes of docket administration, denied the plaintiffs' motions to certify their class. The court also indicated that it would reactivate, as appropriate, the motions to certify following resolution of the defendants' motions for summary judgment. On Mar. 31, 2006, the court issued an order granting defendants' motions for summary judgment on all of the claims of each of the three plaintiffs. These cases have been consolidated with the Fuller case described in the following paragraph. Casey Fuller Lawsuit In "Casey Fuller, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.," which was filed on Dec. 28, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, the plaintiff alleges that he and other similarly situated assistant managers and managers in training were not paid properly calculated overtime during their employment and seeks overtime pay under FLSA. Because of its similarities to the Mitchell case, on Apr. 19, 2005, the defendant filed a motion to stay the Fuller case pending the outcome of the Mitchell case or, in the alternative, transfer the Fuller case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. On May 31, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee transferred the Fuller case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. On Sept. 2, 2005, the Fuller case was consolidated with the Mitchell case for all purposes. Unlike the Mitchell case described above, defendants have not moved for summary judgment in the Fuller case and it remains pending. The Mitchell case is "Mitchell, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch, et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00306-EAS-NMK," and the Fuller case is "Fuller v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv- 00596-EAS-NMK," both filed in the in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Edmund A. Sargus with referral to Judge Norah McCann King. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) "Mitchell": Bryan L. Clobes of Miller Faucher & Cafferty, LLP, One Logan Square, Suite 1700, 18th & Cherry Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-864- 2800, Fax: 215-864-2810, E-mail: bclobes@millerfaucher.com; and (2) "Fuller": John William Ferron of Ferron & Associates, 580 N Fourth Street, Suite 450, Columbus, OH 43215- 2125, Phone: 614-228-5225, Fax: 614-228-3255, E-mail: jferron@ferronlaw.com. Representing the company is Thomas Brennan Ridgley of Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease, P.O. Box 1008, 52 E. Gay Street, Columbus, OH 43216-1008, Phone: 614-464-6400, E-mail: tbridgley@vssp.com. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Faces Overtime Compensation Suit in Wash. -------------------------------------------------------------- Abercrombie & Fitch Co. is defendant in a purported class action "Eltrich v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc." filed in the Washington Superior Court of King County. In the suit filed Nov. 22, 2005, the plaintiff alleges that store managers, assistant managers and managers in training were misclassified as exempt from overtime compensation requirements of the State of Washington, and improperly denied overtime compensation. The Plaintiff filed an amended con Nov. 30, 2005. The amended complaint seeks compensatory damages for alleged unpaid wages due to the plaintiff and the purported class, penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, interest and costs. The defendant filed an answer to the amended complaint on or about Jan. 27, 2006. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Workers File Suit Over Required Purchases -------------------------------------------------------------- Abercrombie & Fitch Co. is defendant in a purported class action "Rankin, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.," filed in the Circuit Court of the state of Oregon for the County of Multnomah. Will Rankin filed the suit on Dec. 9, 2005. A first amended complaint dated Jan. 9, 2006 named two additional plaintiffs named: Chris Masagatani and Kayti Kersten. The plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and a purported class of in-store managers and hourly employees, that they were required to purchase clothing and that the costs of purchases reduced actual wages earned in violation of Oregon's minimum wage laws. The first amended complaint seeks payment of alleged wages due to plaintiffs and the purported class, civil penalties under Oregon statutes, a permanent injunction, attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest. The defendant filed an answer to the first amended complaint on Feb. 8, 2006. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Calif. "Kimbell" Deal Gets Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- The California Superior Court for Los Angeles County gave final approval to the settlement of the class action filed against Abercrombie & Fitch Co., alleging violations of overtime wage laws. The suit is "Bryan T. Kimbell, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated and on Behalf of the Public v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc." The plaintiffs, on behalf of their respective purported class, seek injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of economic and liquidated damages. The plaintiffs allege that California general and store managers were entitled to receive overtime pay as "non-exempt" employees under California wage and hour laws, (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 12, 2006). The parties have agreed to a settlement of the matter, which must be approved by the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County. The parties filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on Aug. 26, 2005. The California Superior Court for Los Angeles County preliminarily approved the settlement on Sept. 14, 2005, (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 12, 2006). The parties have agreed to a settlement of this matter, which was finally approved by the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County on Jan. 12, 2006. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Ohio Court Consolidates Stock Fraud Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Abercrombie & Fitch Co. faces consolidated securities fraud class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio that was filed on behalf of a purported class of all persons who purchased or acquired shares of Class A Common Stock of the company between June 2, 2005 and Aug. 16, 2005. The first suit, "Robert Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Company, et al.," was filed on Sept. 2, 2005. The suit also named as defendants the company's officers. In September and October of 2005, five other purported class actions were subsequently filed against the company and other defendants in the same Court. All six cases seek to allege claims under the federal securities laws as a result of a decline in the price of the company's Class A Common Stock in the summer of 2005. On Nov. 1, 2005, a motion to consolidate all these purported class actions into the first case was filed by some of the plaintiffs. The company joined in that motion. On Mar. 22, 2006, the motions to consolidate were granted, and these actions were consolidated for purposes of motion practice, discovery and pretrial proceedings. The suit is "Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Company, et al. (2:05- cv-00819-EAS-TPK)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Soutthern District of Ohio under Judge Edmund A. Sargus with referral to Judge Terence P. Kemp. Representing the plaintiffs is Keith W. Schneider of Maguire & Schneider, 250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200, Columbus, OH 43215, Phone: 614-224-1222, Fax: 614-224-1236, E-mail: kwschneider@maguire-schneider.com. Representing the defendants are: (1) Philip Albert Brown of Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, 52 East Gay Street, Columbus, OH 43216-1008, Phone: 614-464-6400, Fax: 614-464-6400, E-mail: pabrown@vssp.com; (2) Roger Philip Sugarman of Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter, 65 E State Street, Suite 1800, Columbus, OH 43215-4294, Phone: 614-462-5400, Fax: 614-462-5422, E-mail: rsugarman@keglerbrown.com; and (3) Michael Roy Szolosi, Sr. of McNamara and McNamara, 88 East Broad Street, Suite 1250, Columbus, OH 43215, Phone: 614-228-6131, E-mail: mrs@mcnamaralaw.us. ADVENTURE PLAYSETS: Fall Hazard Prompts Recall of Wooden Swings --------------------------------------------------------------- Adventure Playsets (dba Backyard Ventures Inc.) of Amarillo, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission, is recalling about 26,000 wooden swing sets. The company said defective bolts could cause the swing set frame to detach from the fort structure, posing a fall hazard to the user. Backyard Ventures has received 64 reports of the bolt heads twisting off during installation. No injuries have been reported. The swing set models include: The Durango, Tacoma, Odyssey, Bellvue, Monarch, Grand Teton and Outlook II. The swing sets are made of wood, and feature various types of slides, swings and a fabric canopy over part of the structure. The swing sets were manufactured in China and the U.S. and are being sold in Wal-Mart, Menards, and Toys "R" Us stores nationwide and Wal-Mart.com from February 2006 through March 2006 for about $1,000. Consumers are advised to stop using the swings set immediately and contact Backyard Ventures to receive repair instructions and free replacement bolts for the recalled swing sets. Pictures of the Durango, Tacoma, and Odyssey models: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06163a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06163b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06163c.jpg Additional models can be viewed at: http://www.adventureplaysets.com For more information, call Backyard Ventures at (800) 856-4445 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.adventureplaysets.comor e-mail the firm at custservice@adventureplaysets.com. AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Security Guards Launch Wage Suits in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Commercial Security Services (ACSS) is defendant in purported class actions in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County filed by ACSS security guards in California. The suit was filed on Jul. 12, 2005 and is styled, "Augustus v. American Commercial Security Services." The potential class consists of all ACSS security guards in California. The plaintiff alleges that ACSS failed to provide meal breaks and rest breaks under California's wage and hour laws. On Feb. 23, 2006, the same named plaintiff in the same forum representing the same class and alleging violations of California's wage and hour laws and unfair business practices filed a second purported class action. AT&T CORP: Calif. Court to Hear Motions in Wiretapping Suit Wed. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. government filed a motion on May 13 to dismiss the Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF's) class action against AT&T Corp. for illegally handing over its customers' telephone and Internet records and communications to the National Security Agency. The government claims that its legal brief and two affidavits from senior intelligence officials that accompanied the motion are classified, preventing even the parties to the lawsuit, EFF and AT&T, from seeing them. While EFF was not permitted to see the government's entire brief, in a redacted version made publicly available, the government said the case against AT&T should be immediately terminated because any judicial inquiry into the whether AT&T broke the law could reveal state secrets and harm national security. "The government is trying to lock out any judicial inquiry into AT&T and the NSA's illegal spying operation," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "It is illegal for major telecommunications companies to simply hand over private customer information to the government. They should not be allowed to hide their illegal activity behind government assertions of 'state secrets' to prevent the judiciary from stepping in to expose and punish the illegal behavior. If the government's motion is granted, it will have undermined the freedoms our country has fought so hard to protect." EFF's federal lawsuit against AT&T alleges that the telecommunications company has given the NSA secret, direct access to the phone calls and emails going over its network, and has been handing over communications logs detailing the activities of millions of ordinary Americans. This week, a USA TODAY report bolstered key allegations in EFF's lawsuit, detailing how AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth provided phone call records about of tens of millions of their customers to the NSA without any legal authorization. The same week, lawyers at the Justice Department were forced to halt their probe into the Department of Justice's involvement in the spying program because they were refused security clearance by the NSA. "The press has already widely reported on the illegal domestic surveillance that is the basis for our case. Allowing a court to determine whether AT&T broke the law would in no way harm national security. Indeed, our case is meant to protect Americans -- by requiring that the AT&T follow the law and protect its customers from unchecked spying into their personal communications," said EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. On Wednesday, May 17, at 10 a.m., a U.S. District Court judge in San Francisco will hear oral arguments about the unsealing of critical documents in the lawsuit. The sealed evidence at issue includes a declaration by Mark Klein, a retired AT&T telecommunications technician, and several internal AT&T documents that support EFF's allegations. AT&T wants the documents returned and argues that they should not be used as evidence in the case. For more information about attending the hearing, send an e-mail to press@eff.org. The suit is "Hepting, et al. v. AT&T Corp., et al., case no. 3:06-cv-00672-VRW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Vaughn R. Walker. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Cindy Ann Cohn of Electronic Frontier Foundation, 454 Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110, Phone: 415- 436-9333 x 108, Fax: (415) 436-9993, E-mail: cindy@eff.org; and (2) Jeff D. Friedman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288- 4534, E-mail: JFriedman@lerachlaw.com Representing the defendant are: Bruce A. Ericson and Jacob R. Sorensen of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, 50 Fremont St., Post Office Box 7880, San Francisco, CA 94120-7880, Phone: (415) 983-1000, Fax: (415) 983-1200, E-mail: bruce.ericson@pillsburylaw.com and jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com For more details, visit, http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/. BARNES & NOBLE: Reaches $10M Settlement in Calif. Overtime Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of California, Orange County entered a final judgment approving Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s $10,000,000 settlement of an overtime class action filed against it. On Mar. 14, 2003, a company employee filed the suit alleging that the company improperly classified the assistant store managers, department managers and receiving managers working in its California stores as salaried exempt employees. The also alleges that these employees spent more than 50% of their time performing non-exempt work and should have been classified as non-exempt employees. In addition, the complaint alleges violations of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code and sought relief, including overtime compensation, prejudgment interest, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs. On Nov. 18, 2004, an amended complaint was filed alleging that the company improperly classified the music managers and cafe managers working in its California stores as salaried exempt employees. The parties reached agreement on a settlement that provides for a maximum payment of $10,000,000 to the class, including attorneys' fees, costs and class representative enhancement an amount which is not different from that accrued by the company. On Mar. 21, 2006, the court entered final judgment on the settlement, and the case was dismissed with prejudice. The company anticipates that the settlement funds will be disbursed in June 2006. BORDERS GROUP: Continues to Face Labor Violations Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Borders Group, Inc. is defendant in a purported class action alleging labor violations that is pending in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco. The suit was filed by two former employees, individually and on behalf of a purported class consisting of all current and former employees who work or worked as inventory managers or sales managers in company stores in the state of California at any time from Sept. 30, 2001 through the trial date. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual plaintiffs and the purported class members were improperly classified as exempt employees and that the company violated the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code by failing to: -- pay required overtime; -- provide meal periods, rest periods, and accurate itemized wage statements; -- keep accurate records of employees' hours of work; and -- pay all compensation owed at the time of termination of employment to certain members of the purported class. The relief sought includes damages, restitution, penalties, injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees and such other relief, as the court deems proper. BURLINGTON COAT: Calif. Court Seals Labor Lawsuit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ The Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda gave final approval to the settlement of a putative class action "Lewis v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp." A former employee filed the suit on Nov. 10, 2004 on behalf of himself and certain current and former management-level employees at the company's California stores. The plaintiff alleged that the company violated a California state law by classifying these employees as "exempt" managerial/executive employees for purposes of the payment of overtime compensation and failing to pay them the overtime premium required for non- exempt employees. The suit also claims that the company failed to provide employees with meal and rest periods required under California law. In his complaint, the plaintiff sought certification as a class, damages and penalties in unspecified amounts, statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive and declaratory relief, and costs of litigation, including attorney fees. The company filed an answer denying the claims and asserting various affirmative defenses on Dec. 22, 2004. On Jul. 22, 2005, the company entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle this claim. The settlement is subject to court approval. On Oct. 21, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval to the settlement (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 23, 2006). The Court granted final approval to the settlement on Feb. 24, 2006 and all claims have been paid. The settlement did not have a material adverse effect on the company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. BURLINGTON COAT: Deal Reached in N.J. Suit Over Bain Purchase ------------------------------------------------------------- Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. reached a tentative settlement in the purported class action over a Jan. 18, 2006 sale agreement with Burlington Coat Factory Holdings, Inc. and BCFWC Mergersub, a wholly owned subsidiary of the holding company (Merger Sub). The suit is "Lemon Bay Partners v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation et al. (CA No. Bur. C-000014-06)." On Jan. 27, 2006 a purported class action complaint was filed by putative stockholders of the company in the Superior Court of New Jersey in and for Burlington County against the company and its directors (individual defendants) challenging the proposed acquisition of the company by newly formed affiliates of Bain Capital Partners, LLC -- the holding company and Merger Sub. On Mar. 7, 2006, plaintiff served the company and the individual defendants with a first amended shareholder class action complaint. The complaint asserts on behalf of a purported class of company stockholders a claim against the Individual defendants for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the consideration to be paid to holders of company common stock in the merger is inadequate. It further alleges that the company and the individual defendants have breached a disclosure duty to the company's stockholders by failing to provide them with material information and/or providing them with misleading information concerning the proposed merger in the company's proxy statement. In addition, the complaint also asserts a claim against Bain Capital Partners, LLC for aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Individual defendants. The complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the consummation of the merger, that the transaction be rescinded if it is not enjoined, and an award of compensatory and rescissory damages as well as attorneys' fees. On Mar. 30, 2006, the company and its directors entered into a memorandum of understanding for a settlement, which will be subject to court approval, pursuant to which the lawsuit will be dismissed against all parties to the lawsuit. The terms of the merger are unchanged. CANADA: Same Sex Partners to Appeal Pension Suit in Court Today --------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Canada will hear two appeals from a landmark ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal in "Hislop et al. v. Attorney General of Canada" on May 16, 2006, 9:20 a.m. at the Supreme Court building 301 Wellington St. Ottawa. The class members are gay men and lesbians whose partners died between Apr. 17, 1985 and Jan. 1, 1998. They will be continuing their battle against the federal government seeking equal treatment under the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) survivor pensions. The federal government has continued to deny equal pensions to the class members on the basis of the class members' sexual orientation. The federal government has appealed the Ontario Court of Appeal's ruling arguing that no class member is entitled to any CPP survivor pension. The class members are also appealing the Ontario Court of Appeal's ruling because the Court of Appeal's decision means that deceased class members will receive nothing and some class members may only receive one case, they could be owed as much as 20 years. There are an estimated 1,500 class members across Canada. The federal government enacted the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act in August 2000. However, that legislation served only to forever exclude these class members. That legislation provides for a CPP survivor's pension to gay men and lesbians, but only if their partners died on or after Jan. 1, 1998. There is no such restriction for heterosexual survivors. The class members, in their appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada are seeking to restore the decision of the trial judge, which guarantees a full and equal pension to heterosexual survivors. The class members also seek a full and equal pension for the estates of survivors. For more information, contact Don Huff, Environmental Communication Options, Phone: 416-972-7404, Mobile: 416-805- 7720, on the Net: http://www.reko.ca. CANADIAN BROADCASTING: CBC Pensioners' Suit Gets Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified a class action brought by a pensioner against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). The court appointed Donald Waterston as the representative plaintiff for these class of persons: those people, wherever resident, together with their survivors, who were in receipt of an annuity or pension from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation under the CBC Pension Plan on Dec. 31, 2002 and/or on Dec. 31, 2005. Mr. Waterston alleges that the CBC entered into a "Surplus Allocation Agreement" in the early 1990's in which it agreed to share 30% of the available actuarial surplus identified in regular triennial actuarial valuations of the plan with plan beneficiaries, including pensioners. The sharing was to be based on the historical levels of employer/employee contributions to the plan of 60:40. Since the adoption and implementation of the Surplus Allocation Agreement, CBC has used its share of the available surplus to take contribution holidays and the portion allocated to plan beneficiaries has been distributed in the form of cash, increased benefits, and reductions to the active employees' contribution rate. The CBC last applied the Surplus Allocation Agreement to the available surplus identified in Actuarial valuation of the Plan as at Dec. 31, 1999. At Dec. 31, 2002, the actuarial valuation for the plan disclosed an available actuarial surplus of CA$156 million, but the CBC decided to use 30% of the available surplus to fund its own contributions, without any apportionment to the Plan beneficiaries, including the pensioners. The CBC therefore used the available surplus entirely for its own benefit. Mr. Waterston seeks a mandatory order directing the CBC to return to the plan 30% of the available surplus identified in the 2002 actuarial valuation, and to administer the 2002 surplus, as well as all subsequent available surpluses, in accordance with the Surplus Allocation Agreement. The case has yet to be heard and no court has ruled on the merits of the dispute. Fore more information, contact lawyers Arleen Huggins, Ari Kaplan and Clio Godkewitsch of the Toronto law firm of Koskie Minsky LLP, Phone: (416) 595-2087, On the Net: http://www.koskieminsky.com. CASH STORE: Canadian Court Certifies "Payday Loan" Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified under the Class Action Proceedings Act, 1992 a class action against Rentcash Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, The Cash Store Inc. The certification is conditional on the plaintiffs providing the judge with a satisfactory plan regarding notification of the proceeding to the class members. The class has been determined to be any person in Canada, resident outside of the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, who borrowed money as a 'Payday Loan' from a Cash Store location, and who repaid the loan at a standard broker fee charged by The Cash Store at: -- 22.54% of the loan amount to Mar. 11, 2004; and -- 25% of the loan amount after Mar. 11, 2004 on or after the due date of the loan. The class definition may be amended at a later stage to include residents of Alberta if a similar action in Alberta is permanently stayed or discontinued without a settlement on the merits. A similar class action proceeding was certified against The Cash Store Inc. in 2005 in British Columbia where the class was confined to residents of British Columbia. Rentcash is the only payday advance broker in Canada publicly traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX:RCS). Rentcash operates more than 424 stores across Canada under three banners: The Cash Store, Instaloans and Insta-rent. The Cash Store and Instaloans act as brokers to facilitate payday advance services to income-earning consumers and provide two private-label debit cards, The Cash Store Cash Card and InstaWorld Debit Card, to those who may not be able to obtain them from traditional banks. Insta-rent rents brand-name furniture, appliances, electronics and computers, with or without an option to purchase. Insta- rent operates primarily in The Brick and United Furniture Warehouse locations, which are part of The Brick Group, one of Canada's largest volume retailers of household furniture, mattresses, appliances and home electronics. Rentcash employs more than 1,700 associates and is headquartered in Edmonton, Alberta. For more information, contact: Gordon J. Reykdal, chairman and chief executive officer, Phone: (780) 408- 5118. CINTAS CORP: Calif. Court Orders Arbitration for ERISA Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division ordered arbitration in the class action "Paul Veliz, et al., v. Cintas Corporation." The suit, filed on Mar. 19, 2003, alleges that the company violated certain federal and state wage and hour laws applicable to its service sales representatives, whom the company considers exempt employees, and asserting additional related Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) claims. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief or both. On Aug. 23, 2005, an amended complaint was filed alleging additional state law wage and hour claims under the state laws of: Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief or both. The company denies these claims and is defending the plaintiffs' allegations. On Feb. 14, 2006, the court ordered a majority of the opt-in plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims in accordance with the terms of their company employment agreement. The court or an arbitrator made no determination regarding class certification. The suit is "Veliz et et al. v. Cintas Corp.et al., (4:03-cv- 01180-SBA)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong with referral to Judge Maria-Elena James. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Scott A. Kronland of Altshuler, Berzon et al., 177 Post Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94108, Phone: 415- 421-7151, Fax: 415-362-8064, E-mail: skronland@altshulerberzon.com; and (2) Helen I. Zeldes, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423. Representing the company is Cheryl A. Hipp of Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP, 4900 Key Tower, 127 Public Square, Cleveland, OH 44114, Phone: 516-479-8365. CINTAS CORP: Calif. Court Orders Arbitration for "Houston" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Cintas Corp. faces a racial discrimination class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit was filed on Aug. 3, 2005 on behalf of African-American managers. On Nov. 22, 2005, the Court entered an order requiring the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit to arbitrate all of their claims for monetary damages. The suit is, "Houston et al. v. Cintas Corp. (3:05-cv-03145- JSW)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Jeffrey S. White. Representing the plaintiffs is Roberta L. Steele of Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian, 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000, Oakland, CA 94612, Phone: (510) 763-9800, Fax: 510 835- 1417, E-mail: RLS@gdblegal.com. Representing the defendants is Nancy L. Abell of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, 555 South Flower St., 25th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071-2371, Phone: 213 683-6162, Fax: (213) 627- 0705, E-mail: nancyabell@paulhastings.com. CINTAS CORP: Continues to Face Racial Bias Lawsuit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ Cintas Corp. is defendant in a purported class action "Robert Ramirez, et al., v. Cintas Corp.," filed on Jan. 20, 2004, and pending in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. The case was brought on behalf of all past and present female, African-American and Hispanic applicants and employees of the company and its subsidiaries. It alleges that the company has engaged in a pattern and practice of discriminating against women and minorities in recruitment, hiring, promotions, transfers, job assignments and pay. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney's fees, among other things. The company denies these claims and is defending the plaintiffs' allegations. The court ordered four of the named plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims. On Apr. 27, 2005, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) intervened in order to participate in this lawsuit. No filings or determination has been made in regard to the lawsuit as to class certification. The suit is "Ramirez et al. v. Cintas Corp. (3:04-cv-00281- JSW)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Jeffrey S. White. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Roberta L. Steele of Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dar, 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000, Oakland, CA 94612, Phone: 510/763-9800, Fax: 510-835-1417, E-mail: RLS@gdblegal.com; (2) Sharon K. Legenza, 14 West Erie Street, Chicago, CA 60610, US, Phone: 312-751-1170, Fax: 312-751-0438, E- mail: slegenza@lawmbg.com; and (3) Robert D. Unitas of U.S. EEOC, Office of General Counsel, Systemic Litigation, 1801 L Street NW, Suite 7712, Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202-663-4768, Fax: 02-663-4196, E-mail: robert.unitas@eeoc.gov. Representing the defendant is Rachael Rowe, 6800 Cintas Blvd., Cincinnati, OH 45262, Phone: 513-754-3640. DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Fulfills Calif. Labor Suits Settlement Terms ---------------------------------------------------------------- Darden Restaurants, Inc. is providing an update on the settlement reached in two class actions filed against it Superior Court of Orange County, California, alleging violations of the state's wage and hour laws. In March 2002 and March 2003, three current and former hourly restaurant employees filed two purported class actions against the company, alleging violations of California labor laws with respect to providing meal and rest breaks. Although the company continues to believe it provided the required meal and rest breaks to its employees, to avoid potentially costly and protracted litigation, the company agreed during the second quarter of fiscal 2005 to settle both lawsuits and a similar case filed in Sacramento County, for approximately $9.5 million. Terms of the settlement, which do not include any admission of liability by the company, received preliminary judicial approval, and claims administration is underway. As of the end of the third quarter of fiscal 2006, all settlement proceeds were paid. DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Settles Labor Law Exemption Suits in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Darden Restaurants, Inc. reached a settlement for several class actions pending in California state courts in which the plaintiffs allege that they and other current and former service managers, beverage and hospitality managers and culinary managers were improperly classified as exempt employees under California labor laws. Beginning in 2002, a total of five purported class actions were filed in Superior Courts of California two each in Los Angeles County and Orange County, and one in Sacramento County. The plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime wages and penalties. Two of the cases were removed to arbitration under its mandatory arbitration program, one was stayed to allow consideration of judicial coordination with the other cases, one is proceeding as an individual claim, and one remains a purported class action litigation matter. Although the company continues to believe it correctly classified these employees, to avoid potentially costly and protracted litigation, the company agreed to discuss possible resolution and the cases were stayed in Dec. 2005. Following mediation in February 2006, a tentative settlement was reached. Without admitting any liability, the company agreed to pay up to a maximum total of $11,000 to settle all five cases. The company recorded settlement expenses amounting to approximately $9,000 associated with these lawsuits during the quarter and nine months ended Feb. 26, 2006, which are included in selling, general, and administrative expenses. The settlement amounts of these lawsuits are included in other current liabilities at Feb. 26, 2006. The tentative settlement will be documented in a full settlement agreement and must have court approval. DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Wash. Suit Over Rest Breaks in Arbitration -------------------------------------------------------------- Pre-arbitration motions and briefs are currently pending in a purported class action field against Darden Restaurants, Inc. in Washington State Superior Court in Spokane County. In August 2003, three former employees in Washington filed the suit, alleging violations of Washington labor laws with respect to providing rest breaks. The Court stayed the action and ordered the plaintiffs into the company's mandatory arbitration program. Pre-arbitration motions and briefs are currently pending. DUANE READE: Continues to Face Overtime Wage Lawsuit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ Duane Reade, Inc. is defendant in a purported a class action "Damassia v. Duane Reade, Inc.," pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that, from the period beginning November 1998, the company incorrectly gave some employees the title, "assistant manager," in an attempt to avoid paying these employees overtime, in contravention of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Law. It seeks an award equal to twice an unspecified amount of unpaid wages. The suit is "Damassia v. Duane Reade, Inc., (1:04-cv-08819- GEL)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Gerard E. Lynch. Representing the plaintiffs are Tarik Fouad Ajami, Adam T. Klein and Justin Mitchell Swartz of Outten & Golden, LLP, (NYC), 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 245-1000, Fax: (212) 977-4005, E-mail: tfa@outtengolden.com, atk@outtengolden.com and jms@outtengolden.com. Representing the defendants are, Gerald Thomas Hathaway and Lisa A. Schreter of Littler Mendelson, P.C., Phone: 212.583.2684 and (404) 233-0330, Fax: 212.832.2719 and (404) 233-2361, E-mail: ghathaway@littler.com. DUANE READE: EEOC Launches Sexual Discrimination Lawsuit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Duane Reade, Inc. is defendant in a purported a class action flied by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Filed on Jan. 5, 2005, the suit is alleging, among other things, that the company created a hostile work environment for three female store employees, and potentially a class of such female employees. This action is in its early stages, and accordingly it is not possible to determine the ultimate outcome, which, if adverse, could be material. The suit is "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Duane Reade Inc., (1:05-cv-00036-GBD-DCF)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge George B. Daniels with referral to Judge Debra C. Freeman. Representing the plaintiffs is Judy Ann Keenan of The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 33 Whitehall St., 5th Floor, New York, NY 10004, Phone: (212) 336-3705, Fax: (212) 336-3623, E-mail: judy.keenan@eeoc.gov. Representing the defendant is Daniel Peter Goldberg of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP, (NYC), 1633 Broadway, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212)-506-1970, Fax: (212)-506-1800, E-mail: dgoldberg@kasowitz.com. DUANE READE: Faces Del., N.Y. Lawsuits Over Oak Hill Purchase ------------------------------------------------------------- Duane Reade Holdings, Inc. is defendant in several purported class actions in state courts in Delaware and New York, challenging its acquisition by a group of investors, including Oak Hill Capital Partners, L.P., and members of the company's management team. On Jul. 30, 2004, the acquisition of the company was completed by a group of investors. As part of the acquisition, Duane Reade Acquisition Corp., the company wholly owned subsidiary, merged with and into Duane Reade Inc., with Duane Reade Inc. remaining as the surviving corporation. Initially the company was slapped with six purported class action complaints challenging the Acquisition consummated by the it and Duane Reade Acquisition, which were all filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, referred to as the "Delaware Complaints," as well as three purported class action complaints that were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Two of the New York complaints have been dismissed without prejudice. The other New York complaint is pending, but has not been served on the company. The Delaware complaints name the company's former chairman and certain other members of its board of directors and executive officers as well as Duane Reade as defendants. Four of the Delaware complaints name Oak Hill as a defendant. The New York Complaint names the company's former chairman and certain other members of the company's board of directors and executive officers as well as Duane Reade as defendants. One of the dismissed New York complaints named Oak Hill as a defendant. The Delaware Complaints were consolidated on Jan. 28, 2004, and on Apr. 8, 2004 the plaintiffs in the Delaware actions filed a consolidated class action complaint. EXXONMOBIL CORP: Judge Refuses to Certify Suit Over La. Fire ------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. Magistrate Stephen Riedlinger recommended that a motion for class certification be denied in a lawsuit over an August 1993 fire at the ExxonMobil Corp. plant in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, the 2theadvocate.com reports. Judge Riedlinger refused to certify the suit because there are no longer any class representatives or named plaintiffs with viable claims, and individual plaintiffs are so different with regard to exposure and types of injuries. The report will be presented to a federal judge for review. In January, Riedlinger recommended dismissing the suit saying none of those in the class action have proven the plaintiffs were injured by a smoke plume. Plaintiff attorneys filed an objection to a magistrates' recommendation to dismiss injury claims, saying the recommendation was riddled with legal errors (Class Action Reporter, February 14, 2006). The suit is "In Re: 1993 Exxon Coker Fire, Case No. 3:93-md- 00002-BMGL-SCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana under Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn with referral to Stephen C. Riedlinger. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Richard J. Arsenault of Neblett, Beard & Arsenault, P.O. Box 1190, 2220 Bonaventure Court, Alexandria, LA 71309-1190, Phone: 318-487-9874, Fax: 318-561-2591, E- mail: rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com; (2) Jeffrey Michael Bassett of Morrow, Morrow, Ryan & Bassett, P.O. Drawer 1787, Opelousas, LA 70571-1787, Phone: 337-948-4483, Fax: 942-5234, E-mail: jeffb@mmrblaw.com; and (3) Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. of the Law Offices of Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., P.O. Drawer H. 106 West 7th Street, Reserve, LA 70084, 985-536-1186, Fax: 985-536-6445, E- mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com. Representing ExxonMobil are: (1) Michael P. Cash of Winstead, Sechrest & Minick 910 Travis Street, Suite 2400, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-650-8400, Fax: 713-650-2400, E-mail: mcash@winstead.com; and (2) William Victor Courtney of Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond -- N.O., 909 Poydras Street, Suite 1450, New Orleans, LA 70112, Phone: 504-585-3050, Fax: 504-585- 3051. HOLLISTER CO: Continues to Face Labor Violations Suit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Hollister Co. is defendant in a purported class action filed in the Superior Court of Orange County, California, alleging labor- related violations. The suit is "Gibson v. Hollister Co." Filed on Oct. 25, 2005, the suit alleges these claims on behalf of the plaintiff and a purported class and subclasses of hourly employees employed by the company in the state of California: -- failure to provide and maintain uniforms; -- failure to pay regular and overtime wages; -- failure to provide rest periods and meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; -- failure to timely pay wages due at termination; -- failure to itemize wage statements; -- conversion; and -- violation of unfair competition law. The complaint cites various California statutes, orders and regulations. It also seeks compensatory damages for alleged unpaid wages due to the plaintiff and the purported class, penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, interest and costs. The defendant filed an answer to the complaint on Jan. 25, 2006. HOMEQ SERVICING: Judge Sides with Firm in Suit Over Loan Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- A Circuit Judge in Illinois has ruled against plaintiffs in a class action over mortgage contract filed against HomEq Servicing Corp., according to The Madison County Record. In a summary judgment, Madison County Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron rejected a definition by the defendant's lawyer of the word "until" in the contract between HomEq Servicing and plaintiffs Thomas Hogle and Rebecca Hogle. The Hogles alleged they were charged interest on the same day defendant's received a payoff check. The case had not been certified. The loan note states: "interest will be charged on unpaid principal until the full amount of principal has been paid." "The full amount of principal was paid on Oct. 4, 2000, and defendant charged the plaintiff interest until that full amount was paid on Oct. 4," according to HomEq attorney Jeffrey Pilgrim. Paul Marks of the Lakin Law Firm argued "until" doesn't necessarily mean "through," while the defendant's lawyer maintained that "until" includes the date of reference. Mr. Pilgrim said the case that plaintiffs relied on in their brief was decided in 1850. For more information, contact The Lakin Law Firm, 300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229, Wood River, Illinois 62095, Phone: (618) 254-1127 and (800) 851-5523, Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com/. JC PENNEY: Faces Tex., N.Mex. Suits Over Insurance Transactions --------------------------------------------------------------- J.C. Penney Direct Marketing Services, Inc. (DMS) is defendant in putative insurance-related class actions pending in Texas and New Mexico state courts. One of these suits is "Gayle G. Pitts, et al. v. J.C. Penney Direct Marketing Services, Inc., AEGON Direct Marketing Services, Inc., and J. C. Penney Life Insurance Company (JCPenney Life) n/k/a Stonebridge Insurance Company, Case No. 01-03395-F." The suit involves the sale of J.C. Penney Life Insurance accidental death and dismemberment (ADD) insurance over the telephone. The named plaintiffs allege that they did not give permission to defendants to charge their credit cards for ADD insurance premiums. They also allege that the scripted questions asked during the telephone sales presentation are inadequate to obtain permission to charge the customer's credit card, primarily because the customer is not told that the insurance company already has his or her credit card number. The lawsuit originally also included as defendants J.C. Penney Company, Inc., and J.C. Penney International Insurance Group, Inc. The plaintiffs have since dismissed these parties. The Lawsuit originally also included named plaintiffs who did not deny giving permission to charge their credit cards for premiums, but who alleged that they had submitted claims that were wrongfully denied. Those former named plaintiffs and their claims were severed into a separate lawsuit "York, et al. v. J. C. Penney Company, Inc., J. C. Penney Direct Marketing Services, Inc., J. C. Penney Life Insurance Company, J. C. Penney International Group, Inc., AEGON Direct Marketing Services, Inc., AEGON USA, Inc., and Commonwealth General Corporation, No. 02-2651-F," in the 214th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. The assets of DMS, including the stock of JCPenney Life, were sold to Commonwealth General Corporation, a domestic subsidiary of AEGON, N. V., pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement dated Mar. 7, 2001, among Commonwealth as Purchaser, DMS as Seller, and JCP as Parent corporation of DMS. Thus, as a matter of law, all of the liabilities of JCPenney Life stayed with that company after the sale. Commonwealth is currently providing defense to DMS. Under the Agreement, J.C. Penney Corporation (JCP) and DMS agreed to indemnify Commonwealth for any liability of JCPenney Life, but only to the extent that such liability arises out of or relates to a breach of a representation and warranty in the Agreement. Commonwealth may claim entitlement to indemnification from JCP and DMS if a final determination in the Lawsuit is adverse to JCPenney Life, and Commonwealth successfully contends that the liability arose out of a breach of a representation or warranty in the Agreement. JCP's and DMS's liability for breaches of representations and warranties is subject to both a deductible and a cap. In September 2002, the trial court certified the lawsuit as a national class action. On Jul. 15, 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas reversed the certification order and remanded the case to the trial court. Plaintiffs filed a second supplemental motion for Class Certification, this time seeking a Texas class only. On Jan. 31, 2005, the trial court granted the motion, certifying a Texas class. Defendants have filed a motion to appeal that order with the Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, styled, "Stonebridge Life Insurance Company f/k/a J.C. Penney Life Insurance Company; J.C. Penney Direct Marketing Services, Inc., J. C. Penney Life Insurance Company n/k/a Stonebridge Insurance Company (JCPenney Life), and AEGON Direct Marketing Services, Inc. v. Gayle G. Pitts, et al, No. 13-05-131-CV." The severed lawsuit was originally pled as a class action, but the plaintiffs amended their petition and now assert only individual claims. On Feb. 3, 2005, Vicente Balderaz filed a complaint in the First Judicial District, State of New Mexico, County of Santa Fe (No. D-0101-CV2005-00249), against the same defendants as the lawsuit and asserting essentially the same claims. DMS has since been dismissed. The New Mexico Lawsuit seeks certification of a nationwide class. On Nov. 9 and 10, 2005, the trial court held a hearing on the plaintiff's motion for class certification. MCCORMICK & SCHMICK'S: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaurants, Inc., a group of 61 upscale restaurants across the U.S., was charged with violating federal and state laws against race discrimination in employment in a class action filed on May 11 in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Claiming that the restaurant chain fails to hire qualified African Americans and instead favors white job applicants and employees in an effort to present a "white image" to the public, African American job applicants and current employees of McCormick & Schmick's filed a suit "Wynne et al. v. McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaurants, Inc." The suit is represented by Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the Bay Area, and several other law firms. "McCormick & Schmick's is making employment decisions based on skin color," stated attorney Diana C. Tate, head of the African- American Agenda at the Lawyers' Committee. "Whites are hired for positions in the front of the restaurants as servers, hostesses/hosts, and bartenders. African Americans are either not hired or relegated to low paid, menial jobs where they do not interact with the public. This discrimination and segregation has no place in twenty-first century America." "McCormick & Schmick's touts 'We are in the business of People - - our employees and our guests.' But the company fails to live up to the promise of treating all employees equally and fairly," said Bill Lann Lee, a partner at Lieff Cabraser, and former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Justice. "McCormick & Schmick's uses racial stereotypes to deny job opportunities and promotions to thousands of qualified African American applicants and employees." A central allegation in the lawsuit is that McCormick & Schmick's has a nationwide corporate policy and practice of preferring white employees over African American employees for "front-of-the-house" positions. These are the prominent, better-paying jobs, including server, hostess/host, and bartender. Plaintiff Dante Byrd was not hired as a bartender at McCormick & Schmick's Berkeley restaurant despite having a diploma from bartending school and seven years experience as a bartender. The lawsuit also charges that McCormick & Schmick managers throw away applications from African American job seekers without seriously considering them. In addition, the complaint alleges that managers have been instructed by corporate headquarters to "clean up the restaurant," meaning to hire fewer African Americans, to keep the African American employees away from front-of-the-house positions, and to subject African American employees to harsher discipline. While promotions are preferentially given to white workers without requiring a formal application process, African American employees are denied promotions to management positions at McCormick & Schmick's restaurants throughout the U.S., the suit alleges. The few African Americans lucky enough to be hired are disproportionately assigned to "back-of-the-house" positions. These positions include bussers, bar backs, and less desirable kitchen positions. The few African Americans assigned to server positions are given less desirable shifts and table assignments. Plaintiff Juanita Wynne is the only African American server at McCormick & Schmick's Fresh Fish Grotto in Berkeley. "I have worked hard as a server at the restaurant since 1999, but I haven't been treated fairly. My shifts and pay were cut for no good reason, while white servers' shifts and pay were not," Ms. Wynne said. Ms. Wynne, a 28-year-old resident of Berkeley, filed a complaint last year with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which granted her the right to sue. McCormick & Schmick's operates restaurants across the U.S. under various names, including McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaurant, McCormick's Fish House & Bar, M&S Grill, The Heathman Restaurant, Jake's Famous Crayfish, Jake's Grill, and Spenger's Fresh Fish Grotto in Berkeley, California. The company employs more than 5,400 workers. Although the restaurants have different menus and designs, the lawsuit charges that they all are run by the same corporate management, follow the same human resources policies and practices, and participate in the same racial discrimination. The suit seeks an injunction to reform the discriminatory practices of McCormick & Schmick's and the institution of company programs to ensure equal employment opportunities for African Americans. In addition, the suit is seeking back pay, emotional distress damages, and punitive damages for all class members. Representing plaintiffs are the San Francisco offices of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the Bay Area, the Thomas A. Warren Law Offices of Tallahassee, Florida, Lewis Feinberg Renaker & Jackson, P.C., of Oakland, California, Lafayette & Kumagai of San Francisco, California and Kingsley & Kingsley of Encino, California. For more information, contact Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Phone: (866) 854-4165 (toll free); Web site: http://www.lieffcabraser.com/mccormickcomplaints.htm. MERIX CORP: Motions Ore. Court to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Merix Corp. filed a motion to dismiss a purported securities class action filed against it and several other defendants that is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The original securities class action, "In re Merix Corporation Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court (CV 04-826-MO)," which was originally filed on June 17, 2004, named Merix and four of its officers as defendants in a class action alleging violations of federal securities laws. Forest Grove-based Merix vigorously defended itself and its officers with the filing of a motion to dismiss in February 2005. That motion was granted on Sept. 15, 2005 (Class Action Reporter Sept. 22, 2005). According to Merix, the shareholders filed an amended complaint against the same parties in the original complaint. The amended complaint now alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making certain alleged inaccurate and misleading statements in the prospectus used in connection with the January 2004 public offering. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Merix securities in the offering. On Jan. 26, 2006, the defendant's filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The suit is "Central Laborers Pension Fund v. Merix Corporation et al, Case No. 3:04-cv-00826-MO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon under Judge Michael W. Mosman. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Gregory M. Castaldo, Stuart L. Berman, Darren J. Check, Sean M. Handler and Andrew L. Zivitz of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: (610) 667-7706, Fax: (610) 667-7056, E-mail: sberman@sbclasslaw.com, dcheck@sbclasslaw.com, shandler@sbclasslaw.com and azivitz@sbclasslaw.com; and (2) Lori G. Feldman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, 1001 Fourth Ave., Suite 2550, Seattle, WA 98154, Phone: (206) 839-0730, Fax: (206) 839-0728, E-mail: lfeldman@milbergweiss.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Richard L. Baum of Perkins Coie, LLP, 1120 NW Couch St., 10th Floor, Portland, OR 97209-4128, Phone: (503) 727-2021, Fax: (503) 727-2222, E-mail: baumr@perkinscoie.com; and (ii) Joseph E. Bringman, Ronald L. Berenstain and Douglas W. Greene, III of Perkins Coie, LLP, 1201 Third Ave., Suite 4800, Seattle, WA 98101-3099, Phone: (206) 359- 8501, (206) 359-8477 and (206) 359-8613, Fax: (206) 359-9000, (206) 359-9477 and (206) 359-9613, E-mail: jbringman@perkinscoie.com, RBerenstain@perkinscoie.com and DGreene@perkinscoie.com. MONSANTO CO: January Trial Date Slated for Farmer's Suit in Mo. --------------------------------------------------------------- A Jan. 8, 2007 trial was slated for the lawsuit against Monsanto Co. that is pending in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The suit was originally styled, "Randy Blades, et al. v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 00-403JLF," when it was filed on Feb. 14, 2000 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. It was brought on behalf of five farmers purporting to represent various classes of Farmers and alleging that the company and others violated antitrust laws by allegedly fixing the price of seed containing biotech traits and violated tort and international law through the commercialization of biotech traits. After the lawsuit was transferred to Missouri federal court, the District Court granted the company's motion for summary judgment on all the plaintiffs' tort claims, including all claims relating to alleged violations of law. The District Court also denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify for class action status the plaintiffs' claims that the company and the other defendants have violated various antitrust laws, a decision that was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On Nov. 9, 2005, the District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion seeking to certify a class only of growers of glyphosate- tolerant soybeans from the states of Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois and Indiana. Only two plaintiffs remain in the litigation. A trial on their claims is set for Jan. 8, 2007. The suit is "McIntosh, et al. v. Monsanto Company, et al., Case No. 4:01-cv-00065-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri under Judge Rodney W. Sippel. Representing the plaintiffs is John W. Barrett of Barrett Law Office, 404 Courthouse Square, North, P.O. Box 987, Lexington, MS 39095, Phone: 662-834-2376, Fax: 662-834-2628, E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawoffice.com. Representing the defendants is Philip D. Bartz of McKenna and Long, 1900 K. Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006, Phone: 202-496- 7500, Fax: 202-496-7756, E-mail: pbartz@mckennalong.com. MONSANTO CO: 2007 Trial Date Set for American Seed Suit in Del. --------------------------------------------------------------- An Oct. 15, 2007 trial was slated for a class action filed by the American Seed Company against Monsanto Co. American Seed filed the purported class action against the company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Jul. 26, 2005, supposedly on behalf of direct purchasers of corn seed containing the company's transgenic traits. American Seed essentially alleges that the company have monopolized or attempted to monopolize markets for glyphosate-tolerant corn seed, European corn borer-protected corn seed and foundation corn seed (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 24. 2006). Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive relief. On Dec. 6, 2005, the court denied the company's motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and to consolidate it with an action the company already has pending against American Seed for unpaid royalties. The case was set for trial on Oct. 15, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 24. 2006). The suit is "American Seed Co. Inc. v. Monsanto Company et al. Case No. 1:05-cv-00535-SLR," filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, under Judge Sue L. Robinson. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Richard L. Horwitz of Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, 1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th Flr., P.O. Box 951, Wilmington, DE 19899-0951, Phone: (302) 984-6000, E-mail: rhorwitz@potteranderson.com; and (2) Joelle Eileen Polesky of Smith, Katzenstein, & Furlow, The Corporate Plaza, 800 Delaware Ave., P.O. Box 410, Wilmington, DE 19899, Phone: (302) 652-8400, E-mail: jpolesky@skfdelaware.com. Representing the defendants are Steven D. De Salvo, Peter E. Moll and John J. Rosenthal, Pro Hac Vice, E-mail: desalvos@howrey.com, Mollp@howrey.com and rosenthalj@howrey.com. NATIONAL CITY: Ill. Suit is "Manufactured," Defense Counsel Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- An attorney for National City Mortgage charged at a hearing on a motion for summary judgment in Madison County Circuit Court that the suit over fax fees filed against the company is "manufactured," The Madison County Record reports. The Lakin Law Firm, representing plaintiffs Donald and Patricia Agney, are accusing the lender of charging an unreasonable fee for faxes in refinancing their loan. The fee is stated in the loan agreement, which the plaintiffs were made to sign under compulsion, according to the plaintiffs' lawyer, Steve Schweizer. While asking why didn't the plaintiffs complain at the signing, the judge asked whether the plaintiffs were recruited. He also asked how they got involved in the suit, to which Mr. Schweizer answered: "...I don't know." Mr. Schweizer said he joined the firm a year ago. Defendant's lawyer Troy Bozarth alleged the Agneys were contacted by a lawyer looking through loan closings at Centerre Title. Judge Weber took National City's motion for summary judgment under advisement, according to the report. For more details, contact: (1) The Lakin Law Firm, 300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229, Wood River, Illinois 62095, Phone: (618) 254-1127 and (800) 851-5523, Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com/;and (2) Troy A. Bozarth of Burroughs, Hepler, Broom, MacDonald, Hebrank & True, LLP, Two Mark Twain Plaza, Suite 300, 103 West Vandalia Street, P.O. Box 510, Edwardsville, Illinois 62025-0510, (Madison Co.), Phone: 618-656- 0184, Telecopier: 618-656-1364, Web site: http://www.ilmolaw.com. NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR: Settlement Reached in Calif. Injury Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- National Semiconductor Corp. and a number of its suppliers settled a class action pending in California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara, alleging damages for personal injury. Plaintiff James Harris filed the suit in January 1999 on behalf of the company's former and present employees, alleging that cancer and/or reproductive harm were caused to employees as a result of alleged exposure to toxic chemicals while working at the company. Plaintiffs claim to have worked at sites in Santa Clara and/or in Greenock, Scotland. In addition, one plaintiff claims to represent a class of children of company employees who allegedly sustained developmental harm as a result of alleged in utero exposure to toxic chemicals while their mothers worked at the company. Although no specific amount of monetary damages is claimed, plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of the classes for personal injuries, nervous shock, physical and mental pain, fear of future illness, medical expenses and loss of earnings and earnings capacity. The court has required the Scottish employees to seek their remedies in Scottish courts. The court has also denied plaintiffs' motion for certification of a medical monitoring class. In February 2006, the case was settled and dismissed and the case is now completed. The parties have agreed to keep confidential the terms of the settlement, which did not have a material effect on the company's financial position or results of operations. PEGASUS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. Pa. --------------------------------------------------------------- Pegasus Communications Corp. is defendant in a putative securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Filed on Nov. 8, 2005, the suit also names as defendants the company's chief executive officer, and two former chief financial officers. The class action plaintiff's claims are based on the allegation that certain public statements made by Pegasus Communications during the period from November 2000 to March 2004 were false and misleading for substantially the same reasons set forth by the AIG Plaintiffs. The class action seeks class certification, damages together with interest thereon, and costs and expenses of the litigation. No dollar amount is set forth in the complaint for any alleged damages. The suit is "Madden v. Pagon, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-05868- AB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Anita B. Brody. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Jacob A. Goldberg of Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq., LLC, P.O. BOX 30132, Elkins Park, PA 19027, Phone: 215-782-8235, E-mail: jacobagoldberg@comcast.net; and (2) Laurence Rosen of The Rosen Law Firm, PA, 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508, New York, NY 10118, US, Phone: 212- 686-1060. Representing the defendants are Robert L. Hickok and Christopher J. Huber of Pepper Hamilton, LLP, 3000 Two Logan Sq., 18th & Arch Sts., Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799, Phone: 215-981-4583 and 215-981-4446, E-mail: hickokr@pepperlaw.com and huberc@pepperlaw.com. RALPHS GROCERY: Reaches Settlement in "The Great Escape" Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- Ralphs Grocery Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Kroger Co., reached a tentative settlement for a purported class action pending in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The company is the defendant in a group of civil actions initially filed in 2003 and for which a coordination order was issued on Jan. 20, 2004, "The Great Escape Promotion Cases pending, Case No. JCCP No. 4343." The plaintiffs allege that the company violated various laws protecting consumers in connection with a promotion pursuant to which Ralphs offered travel awards to customers. On Feb. 22, 2006, the Court in The Great Escape Promotion Cases issued an order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The date set for final approval of the class action settlement is set for Aug. 25, 2006. SEMPRA ENERGY: Judge Keeps Terms of Natural Gas Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Ronald Prager rejected a request by the plaintiffs and California Attorney General Bill Lockyer to amend wording in the settlement to resolve claims that Sempra Energy conspired to gouge consumers during the California energy crisis, Bloomberg reports. The attorney general expressed concern in an April filing with the California Superior Court that the state's legal actions against the company on behalf of ratepayers might be in danger if the settlement is interpreted to include public entities as part of the settlement class, which included "all individuals and entities in California who purchased gas and/or electric power for their own use and not for resale or generation of electric power from September 1996 to the date of the agreement" (Class Action Reporter, May 9, 2006). Mr. Lockyer, who opted out of the settlement, is pursuing claims against Sempra in state court, at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and in an arbitration proceeding. He is asking that the settlement terms be modified to specify that the agreement doesn't prevent him from proceeding with additional suits on behalf of state agencies. Sempra has said parties should not be able to pursue claims covered by the proposed settlement, which is valued at $1.9 billion by plaintiffs' attorneys but which Sempra says will cost it about $375 million in direct cash payments. The parties agreed to the proposed settlement in early January, after more than two months of arguing the case in Superior Court in San Diego. After hearing arguments for and against the proposed changes in the ruling, Judge Prager opted to leave it alone. The Continental Forge litigation, consisting of class action and individual antitrust and unfair competition lawsuits consolidated in San Diego Superior Court, allege that Sempra Energy and the California Utilities, along with El Paso and several of its affiliates, unlawfully sought to control natural gas and electricity markets and claim damages of $23 billion after applicable trebling (Class Action Reporter, March 1, 2006). Plaintiff class members include virtually all natural gas and electric consumers served by the California investor-owned utilities. The settlement of Continental Forge would also include the settlement of class action price reporting litigation, consisting of antitrust and unfair competition lawsuits coordinated in the San Diego Superior Court, alleging that Sempra Energy and its subsidiaries unlawfully misreported natural gas transactions to publishers of price indices and engaged in natural gas wash trading transactions. A second settlement agreement relates to class action brought by the Nevada Attorney General in Nevada Clark County District Court and involves virtually identical allegations to those in the Continental Forge litigation. Settlement Terms To settle the California and Nevada litigation, the company would make cash payments in installments aggregating $377 million, of which $347 million relates to the Continental Forge and California class action price reporting litigation and $30 million relates to the Nevada antitrust litigation. Of the $377 million, $83 million would be paid within thirty days of final approval of the settlement by the San Diego County Superior Court, and an additional $83 million would be paid on the first anniversary of that approval. Of the remaining amount, $27.3 million would be paid on the closing date of the settlement and $26.3 million would be paid on each successive anniversary of the closing date through the seventh anniversary of the closing date. At any time after the first anniversary of the closing date, the company would have the option to prepay all or any portion of the remaining unpaid settlement amounts at a discount rate of 7%, with any partial prepayment applied to and reducing each remaining payment on an equal and proportionate basis. Additional consideration for the California settlement includes an agreement that Sempra LNG would sell to the California Utilities, subject to CPUC approval, re-gasified liquefied natural gas from its liquefied natural gas terminal being constructed in Baja California, Mexico at the California border index price minus $0.02. The volumes to be purchased and sold would be up to 500 million cubic feet per day that Sempra Energy subsidiaries currently have contractual rights to purchase and that is not delivered or sold to Mexican entities. The California Utilities also would seek approval from the CPUC to integrate their natural gas transmission facilities and to develop both firm, tradable natural gas receipt point rights for access to their combined intrastate transmission system and SoCalGas' underground natural gas storage system. In addition, Sempra Generation voluntarily would reduce the price that it charges for power and limit the places at which it would deliver power under its contract with the Department of Water Resources (DWR). The California settlement is subject to the approval of the San Diego Superior Court, which has preliminarily approved the settlement, and authorized providing notice to the plaintiff class. The Los Angeles City Council has not yet voted to approve the City of Los Angeles's participation in the settlement and it may elect to continue pursuing its individual case against Sempra Energy and the California Utilities. Final Approval Hearing The final approval hearing for the Continental Forge settlement is scheduled to occur on June 8, 2006. The Nevada settlement is subject to approval by the Nevada Clark County District Court, which has not yet approved notice to the class or scheduled a final approval hearing. Both the California and Nevada settlements must be approved for either settlement to take effect, but the company is permitted to waive this condition. The settlements are not conditioned upon approval by the California Public Utilities Commission, the DWR, or any other governmental or regulatory agency to be effective. SOLECTRON CORP: Calif. Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final OK --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California gave final approval to a settlement in the consolidated securities class action filed against Solectron Corp. and certain of its officers. On Mar. 6, 2003, a putative shareholder class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleged that the defendants issued false and misleading statements in certain press releases and Securities and Exchange Commission filings issued between Sept. 17, 2001 and Sept. 26, 2002. In particular, plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to disclose and to properly account for excess and obsolete inventory in the former Technology Solutions business unit during the relevant time period. Additional complaints making similar allegations were subsequently filed in the same court, and pursuant to an order entered June 2, 2003, the Court appointed lead counsel and plaintiffs to represent the putative class in a single consolidated action. The consolidated amended complaint, filed Sept. 8, 2003, alleges an expanded class period of June 18, 2001 through Sept. 26, 2002, and purports to add a claim for violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on behalf of a putative class of former shareholders of C-MAC Industries, Inc., who acquired Solectron stock pursuant to the Oct. 19, 2001 Registration Statement filed in connection with Solectron's acquisition of C-MAC Industries, Inc. In addition, while the initial complaints focused on alleged inventory issues at the former Technology Solutions business unit, the consolidated amended complaint adds allegations of inadequate disclosure and failure to properly account for excess and obsolete inventory at Solectron's other business units. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of the putative class. On June 14, 2004 the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification seeking to have the court declare this matter as a class action. The court heard the motion on Oct. 1, 2004 and granted the motion. In August 2005, the parties reached an agreement in principal to settle the litigation on terms not material to the company. The parties are currently negotiating the terms of the formal written settlement agreement, which they expect to execute and file with the Court in November 2005. Court approval of the settlement terms was obtained at a Mar. 3, 2006 hearing. The suit is "In re Solectron Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. C-03-0986 CRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge Charles R. Breyer. Plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173; (2) Green & Jigarjian LLP, 235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94104, Phone: 415.477.6700, Fax: 415.477.6710; and (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. Representing the defendant is Ellen H. Ehrenpreis, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto CA 94304-1050, Phone: 650-493-9300, by Fax: 650-565-5100. TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Face RICO Violations Suit in Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tenet Healthcare Corp. is defendant in a purported class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Plaintiff filed this civil action in federal district court in Miami, Florida on Mar. 2, 2005 on behalf of itself and a purported class consisting of most of the acute care hospitals in the U.S., alleging that the company's past pricing policies and receipt of Medicare outlier payments violated the federal RICO Act, causing harm to plaintiffs. The civil complaint asserts claims of RICO violations, as well as claims of fraud, unjust enrichment and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. It seeks unspecified amounts of damages, including treble damages under RICO, restitution, disgorgement and punitive damages. The company was served with this suit on Mar. 2, 2005. It filed a motion to dismiss on Apr. 8, 2005. The suit is "Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation, Case No. 05-80183-CIV," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Patricia A. Seitz. Representing the plaintiff are: (1) Greenberg Traurig, P.A, 1221 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida 33131, (Miami-Dade Co.), Phone: 305-579-0500, Fax: 305-579-0717, Web site: http://www.gtlaw.com;and (2) Melvyn I. Weiss of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, Tower One, 5200 Town Center Road, Suite 600, Boca Raton, Florida 33486, (Palm Beach Co.), Phone: 561-361- 5000, Telecopier: 561-367-8400, Web site: http://www.milbergweiss.com. Representing the defendant are: (i) Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow & Spector, P.A., 1100 Miami Center, 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131, Phone: (305) 373-1000, Fax: (305) 372- 1861; and (ii) Holland & Knight of Holland & Knight, LLP, 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000, Miami, Florida 33131, (Miami-Dade Co.), P.O. Box 015441, Florida, 33101, Phone: 305-374- 8500, Fax: 305-789-7799, Web site: http://www.hklaw.com. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Potential $5B Suit Over NSA Link -------------------------------------------------------------- Verizon Communications Inc. is facing a lawsuit filed in federal court in Manhattan alleging the phone company violated privacy laws by participating in a secret surveillance program with the National Security Agency, reports say. The suit was filed on May 12 by New Jersey attorneys Bruce Afran and Carl Mayer. It asks the court to stop the company from turning over any more records to the NSA without a warrant or consent of the subscriber, and is seeking $1,000 for each violation of the Telecommunication Act, or $5 billion once the case is certified as class action. Verizon Communications, Inc. -- http://www.verizon.com-- provides communication services worldwide in domestic telecom, domestic wireless, information services, and international segments. The company was incorporated in 1983 as Bell Atlantic Corporation and changed its name as Verizon Communications, Inc. in 2000. WAL-MART STORES: Canadian Court Rejects Unionized Workers' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Quebec Court of Appeal upheld last November's decision by the Quebec Superior Court, rejecting an effort by unionized employees at the closed Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in Saguenay, Quebec, Canada to launch a class action against the retail giant, the Canadian Press reports. The court said it was a matter best decided by the province's labor relations board. Unionized workers at a Wal-Mart store in Quebec, which closed last April 2005, argued that Superior Court Justice Beaudoin erred when he made the ruling. According to the workers' lawyer, Gilles Gareau, the conflict stems from a "violation of fundamental rights" protected by Quebec's charter of rights and freedoms (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 6, 2005). Alain Pednault, the plaintiff in the case, wants to sue on behalf of the former employees who lost their jobs when the store closed Apr. 29, 2005. Mr. Pednault claimed that the real motive for the store closure was its unionization by some employees. Court records showed that the store was closed on Apr. 29 as workers sought to form a union. Wal-Mart continues to maintain that the closure was not related to the workers actions argues that it was shut because it was not making money (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 8, 2005). The 182 workers, who are seeking CA$20,000 in damages, became the first Wal-Mart employees to unionize since a Windsor, Ontario outlet was briefly accredited in the 1990s. The Arkansas-based retailer though closed the Quebec store before the workers could obtain a collective agreement (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 28, 2005). Mr. Gareau said he will review the ruling before deciding whether to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. YAHOO INC: Facing Spyware Click Fraud Lawsuit in California ----------------------------------------------------------- Online dating service Metrodate.com filed a class action against Yahoo Inc., its Overture advertising network, and unspecified third party affiliates in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, accusing the portal of using spyware to distribute ads, TechwebNews.com reports. Metrodate's lawsuit, which seeks "actual and/or compensatory damages," restitution for click overcharges, and attorneys' expenses, accused Yahoo of knowingly serving ads from dubious sources, including spyware and adware software and sites, as well as "typosquatting" sites that typically hold down domain names a character or two off a real URL, then rake in fees from ads served to users who unintentionally type in a wrong Web address. The suit is "Draucker Development and True Communication Inc v. Yahoo! Inc et al, Case No. 2:06-cv-02737-JFW-RC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge John F. Walter with referral to Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman. Representing the plaintiffs are Patrick A. DeBlase and Paul R. Kiesel of Kiesel Boucher & Larson, 8648 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910, Phone: 310-854-4444 E-mail: deblase@kbla.com and kiesel@kbla.com To see the complaint, visit: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?88a. Yahoo is facing a similar class action in New Jersey over allegations the company engaged in "syndication fraud" against online advertisers. The advertisers pay Yahoo to display their ads on search results and on the Web pages of partner Web sites. But instead, the suit says, Yahoo displayed these ads via spyware and adware products and on so-called "typosquatter" Web sites. The suit is "Crafts by Veronica v. Yahoo, Inc., Overture Services, Inc. and John Doe Companies, Inc.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2006). New Securities Fraud Cases AMERICA SERVICE: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Next Month -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces a June 5, 2006, deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities class action filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities of America Service Group, Inc. (ASGR) between Sept. 24, 2003 and Mar. 16, 2006, inclusive. The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. 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 ASG 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 and (888) 638-4847, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com. CHINA ENERGY: Charles J. Piven Files Stock Fraud Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- 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 China Energy Savings Technology, Inc. (CESV) between Apr. 21, 2005 and Feb. 15, 2006, inclusive. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendant China Energy and one or more of its officers and/or directors. 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 June 30, 2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class. For more details, contact 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. DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Stock Suit in Pa. --------------------------------------------------------------- Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of Discovery Laboratories Inc. (DSCO) publicly traded securities between Mar. 16, 2004 and Apr. 25, 2006. The complaint charges Discovery Labs and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Discovery Labs is a biotechnology company whose lead product is Surfaxin(R) (Surfaxin), which is being developed for the prevention of Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS) in premature infants. The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, Discovery Labs issued aggressive statements and opinions concerning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) approval process of Surfaxin. However, unbeknownst to investors, these statements were materially false and misleading since, among other things: -- the company was experiencing difficulties in manufacturing Surfaxin; -- the company was unable to produce a consistent sample of Surfaxin; -- the FDA's approval of Surfaxin would, at the very least, be "significantly" delayed; and -- as a result of the foregoing, the company's future revenue streams and growth from Surfaxin would be in serious doubt. On Apr. 5, 2006, the company announced that the FDA had requested more information regarding the Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls section of the New Drug Application for the approval of Surfaxin. Specifically, the FDA requested "further tightening of active ingredient and drug product specifications and related controls." Following this announcement, shares of Discovery Labs' common stock declined $2.07 per share, or 29%, to close at $5.02 per share, on heavy trading volume. Then on Apr. 24, 2006, the company announced that the FDA had expressed its concerns regarding its analysis of the ongoing stability data on Surfaxin. The FDA indicated that "certain stability parameters have not been achieved and, therefore, additional process validation batches will likely have to be produced." As a result of the FDA's need for more information, the company admitted that it "anticipates a potentially significant delay in the U.S. regulatory approval process for Surfaxin" and that it will abandon plans to commercialize the drug and seek "entering into strategic partnerships." Moreover, the company was unsure "whether this issue will have any impact on the Surfaxin European regulatory approval process." Upon this shocking news, shares of Discovery Labs' common stock plummeted $2.49 per share, or 53%, to close at $2.20 per share, on extraordinarily heavy trading volume. Interested parties must move the Court no later than June 30, 2006 for appointment as lead plaintiff. For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/discoverylabs/. ESCALA GROUP: Ann D. White to File Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ann D. White Law Offices has been retained to commence a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Escala Group, Inc. (ESCL) between Sept. 5, 2003 and May 8, 2006 inclusive. Defendants include Escala and certain of its top officers and directors. The action alleges violations of the federal securities laws and alleges that defendants made material misstatements and omitted information regarding the true nature of Escala's business dealings with its majority shareholder, Afinsa Bienes Tangibles S.A. On May 9, 2006, it was publicly reported that Spanish police had made arrests and raided the offices of Afinsa. The raid was part of an investigation of fraud over an alleged pyramid type scheme. The raid followed an article in Barron's May 23, 2005, entitled "Sticky Situation," which reported questionable and possibly fraudulent practices. As a result of these revelations, regarding Escala and Afinsa's business operations, ESCL stock dropped from $32.00 to $12.23 per share on heavy volume. All motions for appointment as lead plaintiff must be filed with the Court by Jul. 10, 2006. Our firm's attorneys have considerable experience in securities fraud class actions. The firm will answer all questions, and provide information, at no cost or obligation to you. For more details, contact Ann White, Mandy Roth and Ronald Lopit of Ann D. White Law Offices, P.C., Phone: 1-866-389-0274, E- mail: awhite@awhitelaw.com. ESCALA GROUP: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC initiated a securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Escala Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: ESCL). No class has yet been certified in this action. The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and financial results. On May 9, 2006, it was widely reported in the press that Spanish police had arrested four people and had raided the offices of Escala's majority shareholder, Afinsa. The raid followed the publication of an article in Barron's on May 23, 2005, entitled "Sticky Situation," which detailed potential fraudulent practices at Afinsa. In reaction to the news regarding Afinsa and Escala's business operations, shares of Escala fell dramatically, falling from $32.00 per share to $12.23 per share on heavy volume. For more details, Lewis Kahn of Kahn Gauthier Swick, Phone: l- 866-467-1400, ext. 100 and 504-648-1850, E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com. ESCALA GROUP: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Escala Group, Inc. (ESCL) between Sept. 5, 2003 and May 8, 2006, inclusive. The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false statements. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose information regarding the true nature of Escala's business and sales activities. Escala is a major distributor of collectibles including postage stamps, and one of its major customers and joint venturers is its majority shareholder, Afinsa Bienes Tangibles S.A. On May 9, 2006 it was publicly reported that Spanish police had made arrests and raided the offices of Afinsa and the company's offices in Spain. The operation forms part of a joint investigation launched by the National Court, tax authorities, financial crime prosecutors and the National Police over an alleged pyramid-type scheme based on overpriced stamps and other collectibles. The prosecutor's office said in a statement that Spanish authorities are conducting more than 20 searches at company offices and private residences. On this news, given the high level of the integration between Afinsa's and Escala's business operations, ESCL stock fell more than 50% on May 9, 2006. Interested parties may, no later than Jul. 10, 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. NEWPARK RESOURCES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in La. --------------------------------------------------------------- Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of purchasers of Newpark Resources, Inc. (NR) common stock between Feb. 28, 2005 and Apr. 17, 2006. The complaint charges Newpark and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Newpark, together with its subsidiaries, "provides integrated fluids management, environmental, and oilfield services to the exploration and production industry." The complaint alleges that, during the class period, defendants caused Newpark's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's financial statements, business and prospects. As alleged in the complaint, the true facts, which were known by each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the class period, were: -- that Newpark was improperly processing and paying invoices inconsistent with and in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP); -- that Newpark had inadequate and deficient internal controls and systems; -- that, as a result of (a)-(b) above, Newpark's financial statements were grossly inflated and materially misleading; and -- that, as a result of (a)-(c) above, Newpark had no reasonable basis upon which to issue financial guidance for fiscal 2005. The complaint further alleges that on Mar. 22, 2006, without warning, Newpark reported that defendant James P. Cole had been replaced as chief executive officer by Paul L. Howes in order to allow Cole to "devote his full energies to the development of the new water treatment technology as chairman and CEO of Newpark Environmental Water Solutions, a wholly owned subsidiary of Newpark." Then, on Apr. 17, 2006, Newpark shocked the investing public when it reported that it had commenced 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." Moreover, although not specifically mentioned, defendant Cole had been placed on administrative leave. Investor reaction was quick and negative with shares of Newpark stock falling more than 17% on Apr. 17, 2006, on more than eight times normal trading volume. Interested parties must move the Court no later than June 20, 2006 for appointment as lead plaintiff. For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/newpark/. VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Kaplan Fox Files Calif. Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Vitesse Semiconductor Corp. (VTSS) and certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the common stock of Vitesse between Oct. 23, 2003 and Apr. 26, 2006, inclusive. The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and financial results, thus causing Vitesse's shares to trade at artificially inflated prices. In particular, the complaint alleges that on Apr. 18, 2006, Vitesse announced that its Board of Directors had appointed a Special Committee to conduct an internal investigation relating to past stock option grants, the timing of such grants and related accounting and documentation. At the same time, Vitesse announced that three of its top executives had been placed on administrative leave. It was subsequently announced that the administrative leaves were imposed because of such individual's involvement with issues related to the integrity of documents relating to the company's stock option grant process. It is further alleged that on Apr. 26, 2006, the company announced, among other things, that its board had determined that Vitesse's previously reported financial statements for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2005 and the three years ended Sept. 30, 2005 and possibly earlier periods should not be relied upon and that reports previously issued by the company and its auditor relating to the company's internal controls as of Sept. 30, 2005 should not be relied upon. The company further disclosed that in the course of the investigation relating to stock options, additional issues had arisen which leads the company to believe that accounts receivable and revenues may have been misstated during certain periods. It is alleged that as a result of the company's recent disclosures, the price of Vitesse stock has declined approximately 42%, from $3.11 per share on Apr. 18, 2006 to $1.82 per share on Apr. 27, 2006. Interested parties may move the court no later than Jul. 3, 2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class. For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox, Joel B. Strauss, Donald R. Hall and Jeffrey P. Campisi and Laurence D. King of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, Phone: (800) 290-1952, (212) 687- 1980 and (415) 772-4700, Fax: (212) 687-7714 and 415-772-4707, E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com, Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com. VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Yourman Alexander Files Calif. Stock Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yourman Alexander & Parekh LLP, initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Vitesse Semiconductor Corp. (VTSS) from Oct. 23, 2003 through Apr. 26, 2006, inclusive. The matter is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Among other things, the complaint alleges that defendants, which include certain officers and directors of the company, violated federal securities laws by failing to present the true financial condition of Vitesse. It is further alleged that defendants committed these violations by issuing false and misleading statements to the investing community concerning the company's current financial condition, and that by omitting to disclose the truth about Vitesse's financial performance during the class period, defendants artificially inflated the price of the company's securities for their own personal gain. For example, it is alleged that defendants made material misrepresentations and omitted information regarding the timing of certain stock option grants made to key executives. On Apr. 26, 2006, the company announced that certain financial statements should not be relied upon and that it was restating financial statements for fiscal years ending Sept. 30, 2003, Sept. 20, 2004 and Sept. 30, 2005, as well as the quarter ending Dec. 31, 2005. The complaint also alleges that as a result of these disclosures, and others, Vitesse shares dropped from $2.51 to $1.82 per share, or approximately 27.5%. The deadline to move for appointment as Lead plaintiff in the case is on Jul. 3, 2006. For more details, contact Vahn Alexander of Yourman Alexander & Parekh LLP, Phone: (800) 725-6020, 3601 Aviation Blvd., Suite 3000, Manhattan Beach, California 90266 by telephone, E-mail: valexander@yaplaw.com. XM SATELLITE: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C. --------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC initiated a securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, on behalf of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of XM Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: XMSR) between Jul. 28, 2005 and Feb. 15, 2006. No class has yet been certified in this action. The complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented XM's ability to reduce its subscriber acquisition costs, and that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that excessively large marketing expenditures would be needed through 2005 to reach XM's goal of 6 million subscribers. It was only on Feb. 16, 2006, that XM disclosed to investors the fact that XM's subscriber acquisition costs were skyrocketing. Shares of the company immediately fell 13% to close at $21.96 on Feb. 17, 2006 and have subsequently fallen further to around $17.00 per share. During the class period, several key insiders of XM made huge sales of their personal holdings in the fourth quarter of 2005, taking advantage of the artificial inflation of XM's common stock and selling almost $70 million in company stock during that time. 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, Web site: http://www.kglg.com/case/case.asp?lngCaseId=4799. ********* 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 Janice Mendoza, 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 * * *