/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060524.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, May 24, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 102
Headlines
AT&T CORP: Prominent Chicagoans Sue Over Release of Call Records
AUSTRALIA: Eyre Peninsula Bushfire Victims Seek $20M in Damages
AVERA: Dismissal of Lawsuits Against Hospital Systems Appealed
AZTAR CORP: Faces Ariz., Nev., Del. Suits Over Pinnacle Merger
BIOMEDICAL TISSUE: Faces New York Suit Over Tissue Harvesting
BORLAND SOFTWARE: Del. Court Sets June Trial for Starbase Deal
CALIFORNIA: Palm Desert Real Estate Broker Owes Clients $135,000
CARRAMERICA REALTY: Faces D.C., Md. Suits Over Nantucket Merger
COOPER CAMERON: Initial Deal Reached in Tex. Pollution Lawsuit
DIRECTORS GUILD: Director Webb Claims "Illegal" Levy Collection
E.I. DUPONT: Facing Complaints Over Teflon in Four More States
GUAM: Litigants Argue Over Cost-of-Living Allowance Base Year
HARTFORD INSURANCE: Settlement Trial in "Beasley" Suit Set June
HCA INC: Rev. Jackson Backs Caregivers' Call for Fair Contract
HOMETOWN BUFFET: Continues to Face Managers' Wage Suit in Calif.
IKEA HOME: Recalls Outdoor Candles Posing Fire, Burn Hazards
ISRAEL TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Service Disruption Spurs NIS100M Suit
JONES APPAREL: Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit for $600,000
KPMG LLP: Enters Deal to Settle Tax Shelter Lawsuit for $154M
LEASECOMM CORP: Faces Lease Suits in Mass. State, Federal Courts
MERCK & CO: Facing Additional Lawsuit Over Osteoporosis Drug
NORTHERN STATES: Customers File Breach of Contract Suit in Minn.
ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Appeals Certification of Fla. Consumer Suit
PENNSYLVANIA: Judge Dismisses Tax Collectors' Suit Over Wage Cut
PEROT SYSTEMS: Tex. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
PRIMAL VANTAGE: Recalls Tree Stands to Repair J-Hook Attachment
SALVATION ARMY: Immigrants File Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in N.J.
SWISS-AMERICAN: Recalls Porter Cheese for Possible Health Risk
TYCO FIRE: Recalls Fire Detection Systems to Upgrade Software
TYSON FOODS: Third Circuit Denies Plaintiffs' Rehearing Petition
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Part-Time Lecturer Sues for Back Pay
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in La. for Revealing Phone Records
WASHINGTON: Judge Nixes $45.7M Deal for Priest Sex Abuse Case
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
New Securities Fraud Cases
CHINA ENERGY: Stull, Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit
ESCALA GROUP: Desmond Law Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Wechsler Harwood Files N.Y. Securities Suit
PXRE GROUP: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
SEA CONTAINERS: Finkelstein Thompson Files N.Y. Securities Suit
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Pomerantz Haudek Files Calif. Stock Suit
XM SATELLITE: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C.
*********
AT&T CORP: Prominent Chicagoans Sue Over Release of Call Records
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago, Illinois author Studs Terkel and prominent leaders in
the medical, legal, political and faith communities filed a
federal lawsuit claiming telephone giant AT&T Corp. violated
their privacy by secretly sharing the telephone records of
millions of Americans with the National Security Agency. The
secret program was revealed in a May 11, 2006 article in USA
Today.
The prominent Chicago area professionals who filed the lawsuit
note their special concerns with the government's gathering of
the phone records of innocent Americans. As a journalist, for
example, Mr. Terkel wants the capacity to keep sources secret
from government scrutiny. Lawyers, doctors and clergy members
rely upon confidentiality in order to best serve their clients,
patients and congregants. Elected officials rely on the ability
to strategize and communicate with allies and others without the
federal executive branch monitoring their activities.
In addition to Mr. Terkel, the other plaintiffs in the case
filed in federal district court in Chicago on May 22 include:
-- Barbara Flynn Currie, Majority Leader of the Illinois
House of Representatives;
-- Rabbi Gary Gerson of Oak Park Temple;
-- Professor Diane Geraghty, Director of the Civitas
ChildLaw Center at Loyola University School of Law,
Chicago;
-- James Montgomery, former Corporation Counsel for the
City of Chicago; and
-- Dr. Quinten Young, a physician and advocate for health
care reform.
"Having been blacklisted from working in television during the
McCarthy era, I know the harm of government using private
corporations to intrude into the lives of innocent Americans,"
said Terkel. "When government uses the telephone companies to
create massive databases of all our phone calls it has gone too
far."
The group of renowned plaintiffs contends that AT&T violated
their individual right to engage in telephone conversations
without government monitoring under the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act. That law, according to the
complaint, prohibits any entity providing "an electronic
communication service" from divulging the records of customers
to governmental agencies.
Without consent of customers or other lawful certification
authorized by a court order, according to published reports, the
National Security Agency sought the records of tens of millions
of telephone customers in the U.S. Indeed, when Denver-based
Qwest Communications asked the NSA for the legal authority
behind their request to that company for telephone records, the
NSA discontinued the request.
"For the individuals we represent [], the ability to act without
government oversight and intrusion is critical to the function
of their profession," said Harvey Grossman, Legal Director for
the ACLU of Illinois representing the five plaintiffs. "The NSA
program, if unchecked, interferes with the ability of lawyers to
deal with clients, doctors to treat their patients and clergy to
counsel members of their congregation."
The plaintiffs have asked the federal court to certify a class
of Illinois residents who use AT&T for telephone service and to
enjoin AT&T from divulging any further information to the NSA.
The plaintiffs will seek a prompt hearing on their request for a
preliminary injunction.
"The disclosure of the NSA program was of grave concern to me,"
added James Montgomery. "If people seeking legal advice or
representation know the government is monitoring who I am
calling or who is calling me, they may be less inclined to seek
that advice." The NSA program, then, limits a lawyer's ability
to help those in need."
The national ACLU, which filed a legal challenge in January to
the NSA's warrantless wiretapping, also is of counsel in [the]
lawsuit.
"Our corporate and political leaders should talk straight with
the American people about these secret demands for customer
phone records," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero.
"Whether the government is monitoring or intercepting the
domestic and international calls of millions of Americans
without warrants goes to the heart of our system of checks and
balances."
Chicago attorneys William Hooks of the Hooks Law Offices and
Marc Beem and Zachary Freeman of the law firm Miller, Shakman &
Beem, are assisting the ACLU of Illinois in the case.
For more information contact Edwin C. Yohnka of American Civil
Liberties Union of Illinois, Phone: 312-201-9740, ext. 305;
Pager: 312-851-2832; Mobile: 847-687-1129; E-mail: eyohnka@aclu-
il.org.
The suit is "Schwarz et al.v. AT&T Corp et al., Case No. 1:06-
cv-02680" filed in the U.S. District Court Northern District of
Illinois under Judge Matthew F. Kennelly. Representing the
plaintiffs is Steven E. Schwarz, 2461 W. Foster Avenue, #1W
Chicago, IL 60629, Phone: (773) 837-6134.
AUSTRALIA: Eyre Peninsula Bushfire Victims Seek $20M in Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parents of four children killed on the Black Tuesday bushfire in
Eyre Peninsula in 2005 could get only a maximum of $3,000 in
compensation, The Sunday Times reports.
Under the Civil Liability Act, parents of children killed by a
wrongful act, neglect or default, receive $3,000 or less from
liable parties. To get more than $3,000 parents would have to
prove in court that the death caused them mental harm. The
figure remained since the Wrongs Act Amendment Act was
implemented in 1974.
Meanwhile, members of the class action, which counts up to 60
victims, could receive considerably more than $3,000
compensation for goods or property such as a tractor lost or
damaged in the bushfire. Damages are estimated at $100 million.
Victims are seeking up to $20 million in damages.
The suit, which involves 30 farms and families so far, is filed
against the Country Fire Service. It names Motor Accident
Commission as compulsory third-party insurer of the vehicle
blamed for the Wangary fire. The suit is expected to begin next
year.
The plaintiffs' lawyer is Peter Humphries (E-mail:
phumphries@dbh.com.au)
AVERA: Dismissal of Lawsuits Against Hospital Systems Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class action attorneys will appeal to the South Dakota Supreme
Court the dismissal of their cases against the Avera Health and
Sioux Valley hospital systems, which they accuse of charging
unreasonable prices for services provided to patients without
health insurance or government assistance, AberdeenNews.com
reports.
Previously, Circuit Judge Gene Paul Kean dismissed the class
actions filed by plaintiffs, Sherry Nygaard, who claims being
charged excessively for intestinal surgery and Robert Dosch, who
sued because of charges for treatment of a broken hip.
In written arguments provided in advance of their appearances
before the high court, attorneys for Ms. Nygaard and Mr. Dosch
argue that Avera Health and Sioux Valley are not the charitable
institutions they claim to be. The ministry of the Presentation
Sisters of Aberdeen and the Benedictine Sisters of Yankton
sponsor Avera Health.
Lawyers Steven Siegel and Stan Siegel wrote that the prices
uninsured people are charged can be up to twice that charged to
patients with health insurance or covered by Medicaid or
Medicare.
Chris Madsen, lawyer for Avera said, "It is absolutely true that
certain patients are charged higher premiums for health care
than others. However, there's no provision in law which
mandates prices that must be charged to uninsured patients,
regardless of their ability to pay."
Roberto Lange, an attorney for Sioux Valley, told the Supreme
Court in writing that the hospital has done nothing wrong.
Aberdeen's Avera St. Luke's Hospital, part of the Avera Health
system, is involved in one of the cases.
For more details, contact:
(1) Roberto A. Lange of Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith,
L.L.P., 206 West 14th Street, P.O. Box 1030, Sioux
Falls, South Dakota 57101-1030, (Lincoln & Minnehaha
Cos.), Phone: 605-336-2880, Telecopier: 605-335-3639,
Web site: http://www.dehs.com;and
(2) Christopher W. Madsen of Boyce, Greenfield, Pashby &
Welk, L.L.P., 101 North Phillips Avenue, Suite 600,
P.O. Box 5015, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57117-5015,
(Lincoln & Minnehaha Cos.), Phone: 605-336-2424, Fax:
605-334-0618, Web site: http://www.bgpw.com.
AZTAR CORP: Faces Ariz., Nev., Del. Suits Over Pinnacle Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aztar Corp. is defendant in five identical purported class
actions pending in several state courts throughout the U.S. over
certain provision in its merger agreement with Pinnacle
Entertainment, Inc.
On Mar. 13, 2006, the company entered into an agreement and plan
of merger with Pinnacle and its wholly owned subsidiary, PNK
Development 1, Inc. Under the terms of the merger agreement,
Pinnacle agreed to pay $38.00 in cash for each share of the
company's common stock and $401.90 in cash for each share of the
company's Series B convertible preferred stock outstanding at
the effective time.
Between approximately Mar. 17, 2006 and Mar. 24 2006, five
substantially similar class actions were filed against the
company and the members of its board of directors.
Two of the lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the
state of Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa, one was
filed in the Nevada District Court in and for Clark County, and
two were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
in and for New Castle County.
The Arizona complaints are "Plumbers Local Union No. 519 Pension
Trust Fund v. Aztar Corp. et al., Case No. CV2006-004622;" and
"Robert Glasmann, v. Aztar Corp. et al., Case No. CV2006-
004087."
The Nevada complaint is "John Drauch v. Aztar Corp. et al., Case
No. A519833."
The Delaware complaints are "Esther Lowinger v. Aztar Corp., et
al., Civil Action No. 2045-N" and "Yolanda Heady v. Robert M.
Haddock, et al., Civil Action No. 2090-N."
Collectively, the company refers to these actions as the
Pinnacle Complaints. The Pinnacle Complaints allege, among
other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to conduct an auction or active market check
prior to entering into the merger agreement with Pinnacle and by
causing Aztar to agree to the termination fee provisions in the
Pinnacle merger agreement, which allegedly will deter other
bidders for Aztar.
The Pinnacle Complaints seek, among other things, an injunction
against the merger, rescission of the merger if it is
consummated and fees and costs.
Plaintiffs in the Glasmann and Plumbers Local Union No. 519
actions moved to consolidate those actions on Mar. 11, 2006 and
for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction
barring the company from paying to Pinnacle the termination fee
and expenses provided for in the merger agreement. On Mar. 27,
2006, the Arizona court denied the Glasmann and Plumbers Local
Union No. 519 motions in all respects.
On Mar. 20, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the Lowinger
action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted and to dismiss or stay the Lowinger action in favor of
prior filed Arizona cases and for an order staying discovery in
the Lowinger action pending the resolution of their motion to
dismiss or stay this action.
No dates for the completion of discovery or trial have been set
for any of these actions.
BIOMEDICAL TISSUE: Faces New York Suit Over Tissue Harvesting
-------------------------------------------------------------
The children of a deceased Hilton, New York woman filed a suit
against Biomedical Tissue Services Ltd., and three funeral homes
over allegations the firms may have illegally extracted tissue
from the body their mother, the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle
reports.
They say they never gave consent for the procedure on Georgia A.
Beaton, who died in a Rochester hospital in April 2005 at the
age of 59. They also claim that a tissue-donation form
authorizing the extraction bears a fraudulent signature.
Their lawsuit, filed in state Supreme Court, accuses the Burger
Funeral Home, owner Thomas E. Burger and funeral director Jason
L. Gano of allowing Biomedical personnel to conduct the illegal
tissue recovery.
Ms. Beaton's four adult children -- three daughters who live in
the Rochester area and a son living in Georgia -- constitute the
seventh local family to make similar accusations against
Biomedical and local funeral homes.
Biomedical Tissue is facing several lawsuits claiming it
conspired with funeral homes to illegally harvest body parts
from dead people without proper testing for possible diseases.
Included in these are:
-- a suit filed by New Jersey lawyer Ken Andres Jr. in
Superior Court in Atlantic County, New Jersey in
December;
-- a suit filed by plaintiff Brian Springer in Marion,
Indiana Superior Court (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 10,
2006);
-- a $210 million suit filed by Greg Monforton, President-
Elect of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, in
Windsor, Ontario, Canada (Class Action Reporter, Mar.
24, 2006);
-- "Jackson v. Biomedical Tissue Services, Ltd. et al.
(2:06-cv-01323-WJM-RJH)," filed in the U.S. District
Court of New Jersey (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 27,
2006); and
-- "Symonds v. Biomedical Tissue Services, Ltd., et al.,
Case No. 3:06-cv-03020-MWB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Iowa (Class Action
Reporter, Apr. 28, 2006).
The operator of the New Jersey firm Michael Mastromarino and
Joseph Nicelli of Biomedical Tissue, were recently charged in
State Supreme Court in Brooklyn, New York, for operating a
corrupt $4.6 million enterprise to harvest human tissue from
funeral homes and sell it for use in transplants and research.
Hospitals across North America have reported receipt of the
illegally harvested and potentially dangerous tissue.
BORLAND SOFTWARE: Del. Court Sets June Trial for Starbase Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Chancery Court of the State of Delaware will hold a final
fairness hearing on Jun. 13, 2006 for the proposed settlement in
the matter, "Dieterich v. Harrer, et al., Case No. 024-N," which
was filed against Borland Software Corp. and Starbase Corp.
On Nov. 27, 2002, a stockholder class action and derivative
lawsuit, "Dieterich v. Harrer, et al., Case No. 02CC00350," was
filed against Starbase, and five former directors of Starbase in
the Superior Court of the state of California for Orange County,
claiming that the former directors had breached fiduciary duties
owed to Starbase and stockholders of Starbase.
The company is paying the costs of defending this litigation
pursuant to indemnification obligations under the merger
agreement relating to the company's acquisition of Starbase.
Following a series of motions, the case was dismissed without
prejudice on Aug. 20, 2003.
On Oct. 28, 2003, a stockholder class action relating to the
same matter, "Dieterich v. Harrer, et al., Case No. 024-N,"
which was filed against the former directors of Starbase in
Chancery Court of the state of Delaware. It is alleging breach
of fiduciary duties by the former directors of Starbase.
The lawsuit also named as defendants the company and former
executive officers:
-- Dale Fuller,
-- Keith Gottfried,
-- Frederick Ball, and
-- Doug Barre.
Defendants moved to dismiss and in August 2004, the Chancery
Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.
Discovery commenced in the second half of 2004.
Subsequently, there were discussions with the plaintiff
concerning a possible settlement of the litigation. As a result
of these discussions, a settlement was reached.
Under the settlement the company agreed to pay $475,000 and
actual costs to administer the settlement fund up to a maximum
of $25,000, in exchange for dismissal of the action and a full
and general release of all claims relating to or concerning the
factual and legal allegations in the complaint. Excluded are
claims by former Starbase shareholders who contend they did not
receive the full consideration to which they were entitled from
the acquisition by Borland. The settlement is conditioned on:
-- certification of the plaintiff class;
-- approval by the Delaware Chancery Court; and
-- satisfaction of all other legal requirements.
The parties executed a stipulation of settlement and proposed
scheduling order that was signed by the Vice Chancellor on Mar.
30, 2006. This triggered the requirement by the company to fund
the $475,000 settlement as well as the $25,000 for
administration fees within five business days. The company
funded the settlement within the required time limit.
The court set a date of Jun. 13, 2006 for a fairness hearing at
which time the Vice Chancellor will consider any objections to
the settlement and determine, whether to approve the settlement.
CALIFORNIA: Palm Desert Real Estate Broker Owes Clients $135,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
A judge has found embattled Palm Desert realtor, Haydee Verdugo,
owing $135,000 to 18 of the victims of her real estate scam,
KESQ reports.
The plaintiffs in the case all claim she stole their real estate
down payments and had them sign invalid contracts and then
skipped town. Early this month Ms. Verdugo lost two separate
class actions by default after missing two court deadlines in
April (Class Action Reporter, May 3, 2006)
Attorney John Gallegos says his clients are happy with the
decision, but says now it's time to find Ms. Verdugo and get
their money. Ms. Verdugo hasn't responded to the lawsuits
against her.
A family member said Ms. Verdugo is still in Mexico for medical
treatment.
The Riverside County District Attorney is reviewing a report on
Ms. Verdugo submitted by the sheriff's department.
Representing plaintiffs are Palm Spring lawyers David Lynch,
Lance Archer and John Gallegos.
CARRAMERICA REALTY: Faces D.C., Md. Suits Over Nantucket Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
CarrAmerica Realty Corp. is defendant in two purported class
actions in state courts in the District of Columbia and Maryland
in relation to its merger with several Nantucket companies.
On Mar. 5, 2006, the company along with its subsidiaries:
-- CarrAmerica Realty Operating Partnership, L.P.,
-- Carr Realty Holdings, L.P., and
-- CarrAmerica Realty, L.P.,
entered into an agreement and plan of merger with:
-- Nantucket Parent LLC,
-- Nantucket Acquisition Inc.,
-- Maryland corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of the
Parent (MergerCo),
-- Nantucket CRH Acquisition L.P. (NCRH Merger
Partnership), and
-- Nantucket CAR Acquisition L.P. (NCAR Merger
Partnership).
Parent, MergerCo, NCRH Merger Partnership and NCAR Merger
Partnership (collectively, the buyer) are affiliates of The
Blackstone Group. The company's board of directors approved the
merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby
unanimously.
On Mar. 9, 2006, a purported stockholder class action related to
the Merger Agreement was filed in the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia, entitled, "Doris Staer v. CarrAmerica
Realty Corporation, et al., Case No. 06-0001918," naming the
company and each of its directors as defendants.
On Mar. 10, 2006, another purported stockholder class action was
filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, entitled,
"William Reichart v. CarrAmerica Realty Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 24-C-06-002569," naming the company and each of its
directors as defendants.
Both lawsuits allege, among other things, that the directors
violated their fiduciary duties to its stockholders in approving
the merger. Both are also seeking class action status and
injunctive relief against completion of the merger and the
related transactions.
Additionally, among other things, the District of Columbia
lawsuit seeks disgorgement of any benefits improperly received
and the Maryland lawsuit asks for unspecified monetary damages.
COOPER CAMERON: Initial Deal Reached in Tex. Pollution Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Cameron Corp. is working to resolve a state court class
action in Texas regarding contaminated underground water in a
residential area adjacent to a former manufacturing site of one
of the company's predecessors.
In "Valice v. Cooper Cameron Corporation," filed in the 80th
Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas on Jun. 21, 2002,
the plaintiffs claim that the contaminated underground water
reduced property values and threatens the health of the area
residents.
The complaint seeks an analysis of the contamination,
reclamation and recovery of actual damages for the loss of
property value.
The company is of the opinion that there is no health risk to
area residents and that the lawsuit essentially reflects
concerns over possible declines in property value.
Counsel for the company, its insurer and the Valice plaintiffs
reached general agreement on the terms and structure of a
possible settlement under which homeowners in the affected area
would be indemnified for a loss of property value, if any, due
to the contamination upon any sale within a limited timeframe.
However, there remain significant unresolved issues relating to
a settlement of this matter including the methodology of
quantifying and allocating damages, attorneys' fees for
plaintiffs' attorneys, all interested parties' agreement on the
settlement and the actual wording thereof, a fairness opinion
rendered by the court and the ability of the plaintiffs to
obtain approval of the members of the putative class.
DIRECTORS GUILD: Director Webb Claims "Illegal" Levy Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Director William Webb is suing the Directors Guild of America
for alleged unauthorized collection of foreign levies, according
to Backstage.com.
Mr. Webb, who is not a member of the guild, alleged the
association has no right to collect monies from non-member. He
filed the suit on May 18 in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf
of any person owed foreign levies by the guild.
The suit alleged the secret collection and retention of monies
date back at least 1992. It also states that the guild did not
inform non-members of the collection, nor paid out such monies.
It further accuses the association of taking an unspecified
"commission" as a fee for collecting the money, which is
generated from levies on blank media sales, cable transmissions
of free-to-air television, copying done by educational
institutions and video rentals.
Plaintiffs attorney estimate that the Directors Guild and
Writers Guild of America West, which is named in a similar suit
in the fall, have collected at least $10 million in foreign
levies since the early 1990s.
Mr. Webb's attorney, Neville Johnson, filed a suit against WGA
West in September on behalf of writer-director William Richert.
The suit is still waiting certification as class action.
For more information, contact Mr. Johnson of Johnson & Rishwain
LLP, on the Net: http://www.jrllp.com/.
E.I. DUPONT: Facing Complaints Over Teflon in Four More States
--------------------------------------------------------------
The latest consumers to join the lawsuit filed against E.I.
DuPont De Nemours & Co. are from West Virginia, New Mexico,
Arizona and Nebraska, attorney Kimberley Baer said, according to
the Associated Press Worldstream.
The suit alleges:
(1) that DuPont knew Teflon could release chemicals that
could become toxic when heated at temperatures easily
reached when a typical stovetop is set on high; and
(2) DuPont continued to tell the government and consumers
for years that Teflon was safe even though its own
studies showed otherwise.
The lawsuit seeks class-action status. Judge Bremer asked Ms.
Baer and other attorneys to file an amended complaint listing
all of the plaintiffs and update some of the document's language
by May 31.
Attorneys for the Wilmington, Delaware-based DuPont will have 30
days from the date of that filing to answer the allegations.
The company has also asked judge Bremer to delay information
gathering on the facts of the case pending certification of the
suit.
According to the report, the plaintiffs are asking DuPont to:
-- identify all the substances used to manufacture Teflon
and substances used to attach it to cookware;
-- name of any substances that may be emitted when Teflon
is heated and a what temperature each is emitted; and
-- a list of tests, studies or experiments concerning
whether Teflon does or may possibly emit any substance
when heated.
A U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation voted to
consolidate several lawsuits over the non-stick material for
pretrial proceedings, transferring litigation to a federal court
in Des Moines, Iowa where U.S. Magistrate Celeste Bremer is
considering motions (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 11, 2006)
A document filed Friday by plaintiffs argue that complaints
lodged in various states are not identical with their claims and
in some cases cite differing state law violations.
An important component of Teflon used to render some cookware
with a non-stick quality is perfluorooctanoic acid, also called
PFOA or C-8. It is claimed to release toxic particles when
heated to temperatures that can be reached during normal
cooking. It is labeled a likely cancer-causing agent in humans
by the Science Advisory Board for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
The suit is "Luett et al. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. (4:05-
cv-00422-REL-CFB)," filed in the U.S. District Court of Iowa for
the Southern District under Judge Ronald E. Longstaff, with
referral to Celeste F. Bremer.
Representing the plaintiffs is Kimberley K. Baer of Wandro &
Associates PC, 2501 Grand Ave. STE B Des Moines, IA 50312,
Phone: 515 281 1475, Fax: 515 281 1474, E-mail:
kbaer@2501grand.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(1) Robert L. Fanter of Whitfield & Eddy, PLC, 317 Sixth
Avenue Suite 1200, Des Moines, IA 50309-4110, Phone:
515 288 6041, Fax: 246 1474, E-mail:
fanter@whitfieldlaw.com
(2) Carolyn J. Frantz, Sean W. Gallagher, and Adam L.
Hoeflich of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP,
54 W Hubbard St. Suite 300, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone:
312 494 4400, Fax: 312 494 4440, E-mail:
carolyn.frantz@bartlit-beck.com,
adam.hoeflich@bartlit-beck.com,
sean.gallagher@bartlit-beck.com
(3) Gretchen Witte Kraemer of Whitfield & Eddy, PLC, 317
Sixth Avenue, Suite 1200, Des Moines, IA 50309-4110,
Phone: 515 288 6041, Fax: 246 1474, E-mail:
kraemer@whitfieldlaw.com
(4) Kaspar J. Stoffelmayr of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar
& Scott LLC, 1899 Wynkoop Street, 8th Floor, Denver, CO
80202, Phone: 303 592 3100, Fax: 303 592 3140, E-mail:
kaspar.stoffelmayr@bartlit-beck.com
GUAM: Litigants Argue Over Cost-of-Living Allowance Base Year
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for the class action over cost-of-living allowance award
to retirees are in disagreement over the base year for the
computation of payments, the Pacific Daily News reports.
The government's legal adviser, which drafted a proposed order
for the award, said it is 1990. On the other hand, the
retirees' attorney, said it should be 1988 as ordered by the
court.
Superior Court Judge Arthur Barcinas in April ordered the
government to pay more than 4,000 retirees for increases in the
cost of living on Guam between 1990 and 1995. Judge Barcinas,
in an oral ruling, determined that the formula for most of the
payout will be based on the consumer price index of 1988. The
lawsuit was filed in 1993 and based on a law that was
implemented in 1988 but repealed in 1995.
Payments to retirees are estimated at between $30 million and
$100 million, according to the report.
Representing the retirees is Mike Phillips. Representing the
government is Dooley Roberts & Fowler LLP, Suite 201, Orlean
Pacific Plaza, 865 South Marine Drive, Tamuning 96913, Guam,
Phone: 617-646-1222, Fax: 671-646-1223, Web site:
http://www.guamlawoffice.com.
HARTFORD INSURANCE: Settlement Trial in "Beasley" Suit Set June
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Miller County, State of Arkansas, will hold
a fairness hearing on Jun. 13, 2006, 9:00 a.m. central time, for
the proposed settlement in the matter, "Beasley, et al. v.
Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, et al., Case No. CV-
2005-58-1."
The settlement includes these "Hartford" homeowner insurance
companies:
-- Hartford Fire Insurance Company;
-- Hartford Casualty Insurance Company;
-- Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company;
-- Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company;
-- Twin City Fire Insurance Company; Pacific Insurance
Company, Limited;
-- Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd.;
-- Hartford Lloyd's Insurance Company;
-- Hartford Insurance Company of Illinois;
-- Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest;
-- Trumbull Insurance Company;
-- Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast;
-- Nutmeg Insurance Company;
-- Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.; and
-- Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford.
The lawsuit claimed that Hartford improperly withheld payments
of general contractor's overhead and profit, which is an amount
charged by a general contractor for supervising, scheduling,
and/or warranting work, and/or for materials supplied by a
subcontractor in the course of repairing damage to a building,
from amounts paid on claims for Structural Losses under
homeowner's policies.
The class includes everyone who is, or was insured under a
Hartford homeowner's policy that provide coverage for any
building or other structure located in the U.S. who submitted a
claim for structural loss that:
-- occurred from Jan. 1, 1999 to Mar. 30, 2006;
-- was determined to be covered by a Hartford homeowner's
policy; and
-- resulted in a payment by Hartford within the Class
Period.
The court will hold the fairness hearing at the Courthouse for
the Circuit Court of Miller County, Second Floor Court Room, 412
Laurel Street, Texarkana, Arkansas before the Honorable Joe E.
Griffin.
Deadline for submitting any objections to the settlement is on
May 30, 2006.
For more details, contact:
(1) Hartford Settlement Claims, P.O. Box 4098, Portland,
Oregon 97208-4098, Phone: 1 (877) 316-3153, Web site:
http://www.hartfordsettlement.com/;and
(2) Jason E. Roselius of Whitten, Nelson, McGuire, Terry &
Roselius, Suite 400, One Leadership Square, 211 North
Robinson, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102, (Canadian,
Cleveland, Oklahoma & Pottawatomie Cos.), Phone: 405-
239-2522, Fax: 405-239-2573, Web site:
http://www.whitten-nelson.com.
HCA INC: Rev. Jackson Backs Caregivers' Call for Fair Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reverend Jesse Jackson will meet on Mar. 23, 2006 with HCA/Good
Samaritan Hospital and HCA/Regional Medical Center caregivers to
endorse their fight for safe staffing guidelines and a fair
contract.
Some 950 healthcare workers represented by Service Employees
International Union (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers-West at
both hospitals say they are often assigned too many patients
than they can realistically attend to. Several studies that
analyze the quality of hospital care have reported high
mortality and complication rates for a variety of procedures at
both Good Samaritan Hospital and Regional Medical Center.
Caregivers on the front line link these poor patient outcomes to
short staffing.
Both Good Samaritan Hospital and Regional Medical Center are
owned by HCA, a for-profit hospital corporation based out of
Nashville. In April, HCA, which earned profits of $1.4 billion
in 2005, was sued by patients in a national class action for
allegedly understaffing in order to maximize profits.
Case Background
Mildred Spires, a widow who claims that her husband died at the
Company's Wesley Medical Center in Wichita, filed the suit in
the U.S. District Court for District of Kansas (Class Action
Reporter, Apr. 21, 2006). She claims that her husband died
because the hospital did not have enough nurses working to care
for him when he was hospitalized in 2004.
The lawsuit, filed on Mar. 10, 2006, seeks class action status
and asks the company, the country's largest for-profit hospital
chain, to repay no less than $12.5 billion to millions of
patients who have been treated at its hospitals.
The suit is "Spires v. Hospital Corporation of America, Case No.
2:06-cv-02137-JWL-JPO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas under Judge John W. Lungstrum with referral
to Judge James P. O'Hara. Representing the plaintiffs are,
Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr. and Uzo L. Ohaebosim of Shores,
Williamson & Ohaebosim, LLC, 301 N. Main, 1400 Epic Center,
Wichita, KS 67202, Phone: 316-261-5400, Fax: 316-261-
5404, E-mail: u.ohaebosim@swolawfirm.com and
l.williamson@swolawfirm.com.
HOMETOWN BUFFET: Continues to Face Managers' Wage Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
HomeTown Buffet, Inc. faces a purported class action in the
California Superior Court in San Francisco County, alleging
violations of state labor laws.
Two former restaurant managers filed the suit on November 2004
on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging that the
company violated California wage and hour laws by failing to pay
all of its California managers and assistant managers overtime,
and for making deductions from bonus compensation based on the
company's workers' compensation costs.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, penalties, restitution
of unpaid overtime and deductions; pre-judgment interest; costs
of suit; and reasonable attorneys' fees. The complaint does not
make a specific monetary demand.
IKEA HOME: Recalls Outdoor Candles Posing Fire, Burn Hazards
------------------------------------------------------------
IKEA Home Furnishings, of Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission,
is recalling about 133,000 packages of six outdoor candles.
The company said the candle's wax can catch fire causing a high
flame and posing a fire and burn hazard. IKEA has received 16
reports of incidents involving flaring of the outdoor candles,
seven of which involved minor burn injuries.
The recalled candles include the ANGAR (#200.301.24) and SAMLAS
(#100.999.58) outdoor candles. The candle's container is made
of silver-colored metal and measures about four inches wide by
two inches high. The container is filled with white wax. The
candle's wick is about 1/2 inch square and is made of brown
fiberboard. They were sold in packages of six candles. The
candle name and article number (#) is written on the
instructions for use accompanying the candles.
These candles were manufactured in Estonia and are being sold
exclusively at IKEA stores nationwide from February 2001 through
July 2005 for about $4.
Consumers are advised to stop using these candles immediately
and return them to the nearest IKEA store's "Returns and
Exchanges" department for a full refund.
Picture of the recalled candle:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06168.jpg
For more information, contact IKEA, Phone (888) 966-4532
anytime, Web site: http://www.ikea-usa.com.
ISRAEL TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Service Disruption Spurs NIS100M Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Lior Zigler filed a NIS100 million class action against
Israel Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. (Bezeq) and Hot
Telecommunications, claiming that he suffered serious harm
because of lack of service, Haaretz.com reports.
Matav-Cable Systems Media Ltd. said in a May 18 press release
that the merged operations of Matav and the other two Israeli
cable television providers operating under the HOT brand name
through Hot Telecom, is experiencing severe problems in the
provision of telephone services to its subscribers due to
transmission failures in the interconnect lines between the
companies' network caused by Bezeq, the largest telephone
services provider in Israel and a competitor of HOT.
As a result of the transmission failure, which appears to have
been caused due to labor sanctions in Bezeq, HOT's telephone
subscribers are generally not able to connect to telephone
subscribers of other telephone service providers and to receive
calls, excluding cellular and international calls.
Mr. Zigler is a subscriber of HOT, which provides telephone
services to his offices, as well as Internet and television over
the cables. He said that the services were cut off with no
warning, and without an appropriate announcement about the
problem to those who called HOT numbers, causing him serious
business and personal damage.
He estimated the damage to each HOT telephone subscriber at
NIS1,000 each.
Bezeq and HOT have yet to respond or file a defense.
JONES APPAREL: Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit for $600,000
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jones Apparel Group Inc. resolved a 2004 government class action
filed against the company and its Nine West subsidiary in a
$600,000 settlement, Bloomberg News reports.
The suit accused two company vice presidents of sexually
harassing female co-workers, and making disparaging remarks
about Latino women, which started in 2002 and occurred in White
Plains, N.Y.
Under a consent decree signed May 16 by U.S. District Court
Judge Stephen C. Robinson, Jones will be monitored by the The
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for three years in
which the company must submit regular status reports to the
agency. Employees will be required to undergo discrimination
law training.
Jones Apparel Group, Inc. -- http://www.jny.com-- is a leading
designer, marketer and wholesaler of branded apparel, footwear
and accessories. The company markets directly to consumers
through its chain of specialty retail and value-based stores,
and operate the Barneys New York chain of luxury stores. Its
nationally recognized brands include Jones New York, Evan-
Picone, Norton McNaughton, Gloria Vanderbilt, Erika, l.e.i.,
Energie, Nine West, Easy Spirit, Enzo Angiolini, Bandolino, Joan
& David, Mootsies Tootsies, Sam & Libby, Napier, Judith Jack,
Kasper, Anne Klein, Albert Nipon, Le Suit and Barneys New York.
KPMG LLP: Enters Deal to Settle Tax Shelter Lawsuit for $154M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Accounting firm KPMG LLP will pay $154 million to investors who
lost money through improper tax shelters under a revised legal
settlement, Bloomberg News reports.
The 30 law firms involved in the case would receive $24.6
million instead of $30 million offered in September, court
papers filed on May 18 in federal court show. The settlement
covers about 250 investors, attorney Melvyn Weiss, a founder of
Milberg Weiss, said in the court papers.
KPMG was forced to revise a proposed settlement last month after
more than 60 investors chose not to join. The original $195
settlement was slated to go to court for final approval on Feb.
24, 2006, but U.S. District Court Dennis Cavanaugh in Newark,
New Jersey rescheduled the hearing to give time for revisions.
The investors who opted out of the deal was down to 55 last
month, according to the Wall Street Journal (Class Action
Reporter, May 1, 2006).
Case Background
The Internal Revenue Service found the tax shelters, which
helped taxpayers who bought them elude $2.5 billion in taxes, to
be "abusive." A grand jury in New York has indicted 19 people,
including KPMG's former chief financial officers, former KPMG
tax professionals and a former lawyer at Sidley, Austin, Brown &
Wood LLP, which worked with KPMG, in connection with the shelter
sales.
The settlement would compensation to former clients of KPMG and
Sidley Austin who participated in the tax shelters known as
Blips, Flip and Opis, as well as some former clients who
participated in a shelter called Short Option Strategy.
The four shelters were the subjects of KPMG's settlement
agreement with federal prosecutors in New York in August. Under
that agreement, KPMG admitted criminal wrongdoing in creating
fraudulent tax shelters and agreed to pay $456 million in
penalties. However, under that same agreement, KPMG won't face
criminal prosecution as long as it complies with its terms.
The case before Judge Cavanaugh is among dozens of lawsuits
brought by former KPMG clients in state and federal courts
around the nation. According to KPMG's deferred-prosecution
agreement with federal prosecutors, KPMG sold the four shelters
to about 600 wealthy people from 1996 to 2002.
The suit is "Simon et al.v. KPMG LLP et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-
03189-DMC-MF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, under Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh. Representing
the plaintiffs are James E. Cecchi and Melissa E. Flax of
Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Olstein, PC, 5
Becker Farm Road, Roseland, NJ 07068, Phone: (973) 994-1700,
Fax: (973) 994-1744, E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com and
mflax@carellabyrne.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(1) Dennis J. Drasco of Lum, Danzis, Drasco & Positan, LLC,
103 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, NJ 07068-1049, Phone:
(973) 403-9000, E-mail: ddrasco@lumlaw.com; and
(2) Anthony J. Marchetta of Pitney Hardin, 200 Campus
Drive, Florham Park, NJ 07932, Phone: 973-966-8032,
E-mail: amarchetta@pitneyhardin.com.
LEASECOMM CORP: Faces Lease Suits in Mass. State, Federal Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leasecomm Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Microfinancial,
Inc., is defendant in purported class actions pending in the
Superior Court in Massachusetts and the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.
In March 2003, a purported class action was filed against
Leasecomm Corp. and one of its dealers in the Superior Court in
Massachusetts. The class, which was to be certified, is a
nationwide class, excluding certain residents of the state of
Texas, who signed identical or substantially similar lease
agreements with Leasecomm.
After the company had filed a motion to dismiss, but before the
motion to dismiss was heard by the Court, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.
The amended complaint asserted claims against the company for
declaratory relief, absence of consideration, unconscionability,
and violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Section
11. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which was allowed in March 2004.
In May 2004, a purported class action on behalf of the same
named plaintiffs and asserting the same claims was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The company has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which
was heard in August 2004, and denied by the District Court. On
Sept. 16, 2004, the company filed an answer and counterclaims to
the amended complaint denying the plaintiffs' allegations.
On Mar. 2, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
an amended complaint, which the Court allowed. The amended
complaint added a claim for usury against the company.
The company filed an Answer, Affirmative Defenses and
Counterclaims to the amended complaint denying the plaintiffs'
allegations and the parties are currently engaged in discovery.
MERCK & CO: Facing Additional Lawsuit Over Osteoporosis Drug
------------------------------------------------------------
Pensacola law firm Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Echsner &
Proctor has filed a class action against Merck & Co. Inc. over
the company's osteoporosis drug, Fosamax, which has been found
to eat away the jawbone, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Fort Myers,
will ask the court to set up medical monitoring and pay for
treatments and surgery for osteonecfrosis patients.
According to Atty. Timothy O'Brien the suit represents about 300
people nationwide. All were formerly on Fosamax and none were
cancer patients.
Boynton Beach resident Rochelle Kenig is plaintiff in the class
action.
The suit is "Secrest et al.v. Merck & Co., Inc., Case No.2:06-
cv-00191-VMC-DNF", filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, under Judge Virginia M. Hernandez
Covington, with referral to Judge Douglas N. Frazier.
The defendant represented by Michael Joseph Corso of Henderson,
Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A., P.O. Box 280 Ft. Myers, FL
33902-0280, Phone: 239/344-1170, Fax: 239/344-1200, E-mail:
michael.corso@henlaw.com.
The plaintiffs are represented by:
(1) David F. Ennis of Ennis & Ennis, PA, 110 E Broward
Blvd, Ste 1700, Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301, Phone:
954/315-3934, Fax: 954/315-3914, E-mail:
david@ennislaw.com;
(2) Timothy M. O'Brien of Levin, Papantonio, Thomas,
Mitchell, Echsner & Proctor, P.A., 316 S. Baylen, Suite
600, P.O. Box 12308, Pensacola, FL 32502, Phone:
850/435-7084, Fax: 850-435-7019, E-mail:
tobrien@levinlaw.com; and
(3) Michael J. Ryan of Krupnick, Campbell, Malone, et al.,
700 S.E. 3 Avenue, Courthouse Law Plaza, Suite 100, Ft.
Lauderdale, FL 33316, Phone: 954/763-8181, Fax:
954/763-8292, E-mail: mryan@krupnicklaw.com.
NORTHERN STATES: Customers File Breach of Contract Suit in Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northern States Power Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel
Energy Inc., is defendant in a purported consumer class action
in Minnesota state district court in Hennepin County. The suit
is "Hoffman vs. Northern States Power Company."
Filed on Mar. 15, 2006, the complaint was brought on behalf of
NSP-Minnesota's residential customers in Minnesota, North Dakota
and South Dakota for alleged breach of a contractual obligation
to maintain and inspect the points of connection between NSP-
Minnesota's wires and customers' homes within the meter box.
Plaintiffs claim NSP-Minnesota's breach results in an increased
risk of fire and that it is in violation of tariffs on file with
the Minnesota Power Utilities Commission. They thus seek
injunctive relief and damages in an amount equal to the value of
inspections plaintiffs claim NSP-Minnesota was required to
perform over the past six years.
ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Appeals Certification of Fla. Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. is appealing the certification
by the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Tampa, Florida of
the lawsuit "Butland, et al. v. Orkin Exterminating Company,
Inc., et al."
The plaintiffs filed the suit in March 1999 and are seeking
monetary damages and injunctive relief. The court ruled in
early April 2002, certifying the class action against the
company.
The company appealed that ruling to the Florida Second District
Court of Appeals, which remanded the case to the trial court for
further findings.
In December, the court issued a new ruling certifying the class
action. The company appealed this new ruling to the Florida
Second District Court of Appeals.
PENNSYLVANIA: Judge Dismisses Tax Collectors' Suit Over Wage Cut
----------------------------------------------------------------
Venango County President Judge H. William White dismissed a
purported class action filed by two elected tax collectors,
whose wages were being cut by as much as 65% this year, The
Derrick.com reports.
Court documents revealed that the case was dismissed, because
the tax collectors had no standing to bring the action. They
were aware of the new payment plan while in office, ran for re-
election before filing the lawsuit. They filed the lawsuit in
January 2006, the same month they filed the suit after being
elected tax collectors in Venango County in November.
"...The plaintiffs chose to run for the office even though they
were not happy with the compensation," the court order states.
The plaintiffs are Sugarcreek Borough tax collector William
McDaniel and his daughter Bonnie Sharrar, elected tax collector
in Sandycreek Township. They filed the lawsuit as a class
action issue on behalf of the county's 29 elected tax
collectors. Both want to void the commissioners' pay cut
action, and an order barring the change.
The compensation formula was changed from a straight 3% of all
tax monies collected to a flat $4 per tax parcel or property,
tied to a condition that full amount of taxes was collected. If
not, the amount will fall to $3. The compensation formula
agreed on Feb. 2, 2005 was to take effect in January 2006 (Class
Action Reporter, Mar. 10, 2006). The new formula would reduce
the county's annual payment to collectors from about $247,000 a
year to about $200,000.
William Cisek, a Franklin attorney and assistant county
solicitor, represented the county in the lawsuit. Oil City
attorney Michael Hadley represented the tax collectors.
For more details, contact William Cisek of Wilson & Thompson,
LLC, 1162 Elk Street, Franklin, PA 16323, Phone: (814) 437-2121,
Fax: (814) 437-1410.
PEROT SYSTEMS: Tex. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
dismissed with prejudice the consolidated securities class
action against Perot Systems Corp.
In June, July and August 2002, the company, Ross Perot and Ross
Perot, Jr., were named as defendants in eight purported class
actions that allege violations of Rule 10b-5, and, in some of
the cases, common law fraud.
These suits allege that the company's filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission contained material
misstatements or omissions of material facts with respect to the
company's activities related to the California energy market.
All of these cases were later consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas under the caption,
"Vincent Milano v. Perot Systems Corporation."
On Oct. 19, 2004, the court dismissed the case with leave for
plaintiffs to amend. In December 2004, the plaintiffs filed a
second amended consolidated complaint.
In March 2006, the district court dismissed the case with
prejudice.
The suit is "Milano v. Perot Systems Corp, et al., Case No.
3:02-cv-01269," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas under Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) John G. Emerson, Jr. of Emerson Poynter - Houston, 830
Apollo Ln, Houston, TX 77058, Phone: 281/488-8854, Fax:
281/488-8867, E-mail: john@emersonpoynter.com; and
(2) John Halebian of Wechsler Harwood, 488 Madison Avenue,
8th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212/935-7400,
Fax: 212/753-3630.
Representing the company are:
(1) Stephen G. Gleboff of Hughes & Luce, BankOne Center,
1717 Main St, Suite 2800, Dallas, TX 75201, Phone:
214/939-5500, Fax: 214/939-6100, E-mail:
steve.gleboff@hughesluce.com; and
(2) Stephen C. Rasch, Thompson & Knight, 1700 Pacific Ave,
Suite 3300, Dallas, TX 75201-4693, Phone: 214/969-1700,
Fax: 214/969-1751, E-mail: raschs@tklaw.com.
PRIMAL VANTAGE: Recalls Tree Stands to Repair J-Hook Attachment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Primal Vantage Company Inc., of Randolph, New Jersey, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission,
is recalling about 6,700 Ameristep Patriot and Outfitter hang-on
tree stands.
The company said the j-hook attachment of the tree strap can
fail, which can cause the tree stand to collapse. Primal
Vantage Company Inc. has received three reports of j-hook
failures. No injuries have been reported.
The recall involves two models of tree stands: the Ameristep
Patriot Hang-On Tree Stand has model number 7300, and the
Outfitter Hang-On Tree Stand has model number 7310. These
products are fixed-position, strap-on tree stands. The UPC
number of the model 7300 is 769524703001. The UPC number of
model 7310 is 769524703100. The model number and UPC are not
written on the tree stands, but can be found on the packaging.
These tree stands, which are distributed by Ameristep Inc., of
Clio, Michigan, were manufactured in China and are being sold in
hunting and outdoor stores nationwide and by Web retailers and
in catalogs from April 2004 through December 2005 for between
$130 and $150.
Those who have bought these tree stands should immediately
contact Ameristep Customer Service Department to receive a free
repair kit consisting of a bracket system and double hook tree
strap along with instructions for installation.
Pictures of the recalled tree stands:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06167a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06167b.jpg
For more information, contact Ameristep Customer Service
Department at (800)374-7837 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, or visit http://www.ameristep.comor
http://www.treestandcustomerservice.com.
Firm's Media Contact: Jeremy Lees, Phone: (800) 722-7345, ext.
114; Michael Loiacono, Phone: (800) 722-7345, ext. 141
SALVATION ARMY: Immigrants File Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A half-dozen illegal immigrants filed a consumer fraud suit
against the Salvation Army and two of its former officials in
state Superior Court in Union County, claiming the two local
officials took their money under false promises of serving as a
"bridge" to gain them legal status, Newsday.com reports.
The lawsuit claims the plaintiffs, five men and one woman from
Latin America, were told by Rev. Enoc Tito Sotelo they had been
"chosen by God" to be sponsored by the Salvation Army for legal
permanent residency in the U.S. if they each paid $4,000 and
gave a $500 donation to the church.
Gilberto Garcia, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, says Sotelo and
Jorge Sancho, a Salvation Army captain assigned to the Christian
organization's Bound Brook office, used the Salvation Army's
reputation to harm his clients. Mr. Garcia said the Salvation
Army should have known about the two men's activities.
Trish Pelligrini, a spokeswoman for the Salvation Army's New
Jersey chapter, declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying the
organization had yet to see the suit. She, however,
acknowledged Mr. Sotelo was fired in April and Mr. Sancho was
dismissed from his job in November, after an internal
investigation conducted by Maj. Stephen Banfield, the New Jersey
Salvation Army's divisional commander.
The investigation was initiated after complaints about the two
men appeared in the Spanish-language newspaper El Diario/La
Prensa.
SWISS-AMERICAN: Recalls Porter Cheese for Possible Health Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swiss-American, Inc. of St. Louis, Missouri is recalling cut
pieces of Cut Cahill's Farm Porter Cheese after the discovery of
Listeria monocytogenes in a sampled product.
Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although
healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as
high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain
and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women. No illnesses have been
reported to date.
Swiss-American was informed that Listeria monocytogenes was
found in the imported bulk product as part of routine testing
procedures. Swiss-American voluntarily recalled product from
stores with the above listed sell-by dates immediately as well
as ceased shipping this product to stores.
The cut items come in random weight packages of between 7 oz.
and 10 oz. with the sell-by dates of June 16, 2006, June 25,
2006, July 2, 2006, Aug. 19, 2006, Sept. 2, 2006, and Oct. 10,
2006.
Cut Cahill's Farm Porter Cheese was distributed primarily
through retail grocery stores in Missouri and Illinois. The
product was also distributed to two stores in Louisiana and
Tennessee. All products from Louisiana have been recovered.
Consumers who have purchased Cut Cahill's Farm Porter Cheese
with above sell-by dates are advised to return same to place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may call
Swiss-American, Inc. at 1-800-325-8150.
TYCO FIRE: Recalls Fire Detection Systems to Upgrade Software
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco Fire & Security, of Boca Raton, Florida, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission, is
recalling about 21,000 of its Tyco Fire & Security Fire
Detection Systems.
The company said sensors in these fire detection systems could
experience reduced sensitivity to smoke in conditions of high
humidity and high temperature. If this occurs, these sensors
could delay detecting the presence of smoke in the event of a
fire. No injuries were reported.
The smoke sensors in these fire detection systems were installed
beginning August 2004 in certain SimplexGrinnell, ADT and Ansul
fire detection systems in commercial buildings throughout the
U.S.
These sensor model numbers are included in the recall:
4098-9714 4098-9755 4098-9757CA
4098-9714C 4098-9755C 430631
4098-9714EA 4098-9755EA 430634
4098-9754 4098-9756 430654
4098-9754C 4098-9756C 430719
4098-9754EA 4098-9757 431190
These detectors were manufactured in China by Solectron (Suzhou)
Technology Co. Ltd. and are being distributed by SimplexGrinnell
LP, of Boca Raton, Florida; ADT Security Services Inc., of Boca
Raton, Florida; and Ansul Inc., of Marinette, Wisconsin.
Commercial building owners and managers with these sensors will
be contacted directly by one of the distributors to verify that
the system is included in the recall and to arrange for a free
software upgrade.
Picture of the recalled detectors:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06551.jpg
For more information, contact Tyco Fire & Security toll-free at
(866) 376-8207 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.tycofireandsecurity.com/Internet/firedetection.jsp.
TYSON FOODS: Third Circuit Denies Plaintiffs' Rehearing Petition
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied
plaintiffs petition for rehearing the court's affirmation of an
earlier district court decision in the consolidated securities
class action against Tyson Foods, Inc. and certain of its
officers.
Between Jun. 22 and Jun. 20, 2001, various plaintiffs commenced
Delaware federal actions against the company, Don Tyson, John
Tyson and Les Baledge in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages on
behalf of a purported class of those who sold IBP, inc. stock
from Mar. 29, 2001 -- when the company announced its intention
to terminate its merger agreement with IBP -- through Jun. 15,
2001, when a Delaware state court rendered its post-trial
opinion ordering the merger to proceed.
Plaintiffs in the various actions alleged the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making, causing or allowing
to be made, certain allegedly false and misleading statements in
a Mar. 29, 2001, press release issued in connection with the
company's attempted termination of the merger agreement.
The plaintiffs alleged that, as a result of the defendants'
alleged conduct purported class members were harmed by an
alleged artificial deflation in the price of IBP's stock during
the proposed class period.
The various actions were subsequently consolidated under the
caption, "In re Tyson Foods, Inc. Securities Litigation" and, on
Dec. 4, 2001, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a
consolidated class action complaint.
On Jan. 22, 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. By an Oct. 23, 2002 memorandum order,
the district court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss.
On Oct. 6, 2003, the district court certified a class consisting
of those who purchased IBP securities on or before Mar. 29,
2001, and subsequently sold such securities from Mar. 30 through
Jun. 15, 2001, inclusive, and sustained damages as a result of
such transaction. Following the conclusion of discovery in the
case, plaintiffs and defendants each filed motions for summary
judgment.
On Jun. 17, 2004, the district court rendered an opinion in
favor of defendants and against plaintiffs on all of plaintiffs'
claims, and entered an order to that effect.
On Jun. 28, 2004, defendants filed a motion requesting the
District Court to modify its order to include judgment in
defendants' favor against the class. On Jun. 30, 2004 the
district court entered such an order.
On Aug. 6, 2004, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiffs
filed their brief on the appeal on Dec. 8, 2004. Defendants
filed their response on Jan. 24, 2005. Plaintiffs filed their
reply brief on Feb. 24, 2005.
Oral arguments on the appeal were heard by the court of appeals
Sept. 13, 2005. On Nov. 9, 2005, the court of appeals affirmed
the decision of the district court.
On Nov. 23, 2005, plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing with
the court of appeals. The court of appeals denied the petition
on Dec. 21, 2005.
The suit is "Meyer, et al. v. Tyson Foods Inc., et al., Case No.
1:01-cv-00425-SLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware under Judge Sue L. Robinson. Representing
the plaintiffs is John Leonard Reed of Edwards Angell Palmer &
Dodge, LLP, 919 North Market Street, Suite 1500, Wilmington, DE
19801, Phone: (302) 777-7770, Fax: (888) 325-9165, E-mail:
jreed@EdwardsAngell.com.
Representing the defendants are Anthony W. Clark and Robert
Scott Saunders of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, One
Rodney Square, P.O. Box 636, Wilmington, DE 19899, Phone: (302)
651-3000, E-mail: tclark@skadden.com and rsaunder@skadden.com.
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Part-Time Lecturer Sues for Back Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Helf, a business lecturer at the University of Washington,
initiated a lawsuit seeking class-action status against her
employer, claiming that it failed to give part-time faculty
members merit raises five years ago, The Seattle Post
Intelligencer reports.
Filed in King County Superior Court, the suit comes two months
after the university revealed that it settled a similar case
involving full-time faculty for nearly $17.5 million. It claims
that school officials promised in January 2000 to provide
faculty members with 2 percent merit raises.
Ms. Helf's suit is seeking to force the university to compensate
part-time faculty members, such as herself, for failing to
provide the promised pay raises in 2001 and each of the
following academic years. It is also asking the court to direct
the university to provide the merit raise for the upcoming
academic year and each subsequent one.
Ms. Helf's attorney, Rick Gautschi, told The Seattle Post
Intelligencer that part-time lecturers should receive a merit
pay increase because they are included in the University
Handbook definition of "faculty."
However, university spokesman Norman Arkans countered that part-
timers aren't entitled to the back pay because they don't
receive annual merit reviews.
The earlier settlement by the university was the result of a
class action brought by engineering professor Duane Storti, who
claimed that school officials had promised 2% raises to the
faculty in its "University Handbook." The university argued
that it could withhold raises during the 2002-03 academic year
because of inadequate funding. But a Superior Court judge ruled
in October ordering the university to give out the payment due
(Class Action Reporter, Mar. 23, 2006).
The suit was brought on behalf of 3,200 faculty members who did
not receive a merit raise for the school year 2002-2003. A
lawyer for the class said the amount of money each faculty
member receives would vary, but it will average several thousand
dollars per person (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 23, 2006).
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in La. for Revealing Phone Records
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brandy Sergi of St. Tammany Parish and Tina Herron of Lafourche
Parish, both secretaries, filed a class action against Verizon
Communications Inc., BellSouth Corp., and AT&T Corp. on May 12,
over the companies' alleged participation in illegal
surveillance program by the government, the Times-Picayune
reports.
The two Louisiana women filed one of the first cases seeking
fines and punitive damages from the companies for allegedly
disclosing call records to the National Security Agency without
getting customer permission or a court order.
They want the court to let them represent all persons,
businesses and entities whose phone records have been disclosed
by Verizon, AT&T and BellSouth to the NSA.
The suit is " Herron et al.v. Verizon Global Networks, Inc. et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02491-JCZ-KWR," filed in the U.S. District
Court Eastern District Court of Louisiana under Judge Jay C.
Zainey, with referral to Judge Karen Wells Roby. Representing
the plaintiffs are:
(1) Val Patrick Exnicios of Liska, Exnicios & Nungesser
(New Orleans), One Canal Place, 365 Canal Street, Suite
2290 New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone: 504-410-9611, E-
mail: vpexnicios@exnicioslaw.com;
(2) Amy Collins Fontenot of Liska, Exnicios & Nungesser
(New Orleans), One Canal Place, 365 Canal Street, Suite
2290 New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone: 504-410-9611;
(3) Anthony D. Irpino of Irpino Law Firm, 365 Canal Street,
22nd Floor, New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone: 504-525-1500,
E-mail: irpinoanthony@hotmail.com;
(4) Joseph G. Jevic, III of St. Martin & Williams, 4084
Highway 311 P. O. Box 2017, Houma, LA 70361-2017,
Phone: 985-876-3891, E-mail: jjevic@crescent-farm.com;
(5) Melanie G. Lagarde of Jeansonne & Remondet, One Canal
Place, 365 Canal St., Suite 1700, New Orleans, LA
70130, Phone: 504-524-7333, E-mail:
melaniel@jeanrem.com; and
(6) Conrad S. P. Williams, III of St. Martin & Williams,
4084 Highway 311, P. O. Box 2017, Houma, LA 70361-2017,
Phone: 985-876-3891, E-mail: duke525@msn.com.
WASHINGTON: Judge Nixes $45.7M Deal for Priest Sex Abuse Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Patricia Williams vetoed a proposed $45.7
million settlement to compensate 75 victims of sex abuse in the
Catholic Diocese of Spokane because it would leave out many
others in the suit, Ninemsn, Australia reports.
The lawsuit against the Spokane diocese lists a total of 185
people who claim to have been sexually abused by diocese priests
in decades past, the report said.
Gayle Bush, who represents the interests of victims who might
come forward in the future said, "Basically, it did not provide
equal treatment for the remaining victims and those that could
come forward in the future, and therefore didn't pass some of
the requisite hurdles of the bankruptcy code."
The diocese sought the protection of bankruptcy court in 2004 in
the face of potential huge awards to victims in the legal
action.
Because of the inadequacy of its proposed settlement to
compensate all its potential liabilities for sex abuse of minors
by priests, Judge Williams ordered the diocese and lawyers
representing the other alleged victims to return to mediation.
A better deal would keep the case from going to trial.
An alternative plan proposed recently by Ms. Bush and lawyers
for the known claimants excluded in the proposed settlement
gives purported abuse victims the options to:
-- get a prompt payment of $61,000 as settlement for all
claims provided the claimant is able to firmly establish
sexual abuse by priests in the diocese;
-- to get payment according to a "matrix" that specified
cash amounts by abuse categories ranging from $15,000
dollars for no physical contact to $1.5 million dollars
for "penetration"; and
-- to exercise their right to jury trial.
For more details, contact Gayle E. Bush of Bush Strout &
Kornfeld, 5500 Two Union Square, 601 Union Street, Seattle,
Washington 98101-2373, (King Co.), Phone: 206-292-2110, Fax:
206-292-2104, Web site: http://www.bskd.com.
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
May 25-26, 2006
INSURANCE COVERAGE 2006: CLAIM TRENDS & LITIGATION
Practising Law Institute
New York
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu
June 5-6, 2006
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton (Arlington St.) Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 5-6, 2006
LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton (Arlington St.) Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 6, 2006
REINSURANCE LAW & PRACTICE 2006: NEW LEGAL & BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENTS IN A CHANGING GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu
June 8-9, 2006
RETAIL & HOSPITALITY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Intercontintental Buckhead, Atlanta
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 8-9, 2006
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 12-13, 2006
BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Marina del Rey
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 15-16, 2006
WATER CONTAMINATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The University of Chicago, Gleacher Center
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 15-16, 2006
LITIGATING, SETTLING AND MANAGING ASBESTOS CLAIMS
American Conference Institute
Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino , Las Vegas, NV
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
June 20-21, 2006
12TH NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY
INSURANCE
American Conference Institute
Crowne Plaza Union Square , San Francisco, CA
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
June 20-22, 2006
PREVENTING, MANAGING AND DEFENDING CLAIMS OF OBSTETRIC
MALPRACTICE
American Conference Institute
Park Hyatt, Philadelphia, PA
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
June 22-23, 2006
PACIFIC NORTHWEST CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Hotel Monaco, Seattle
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 22-23, 2006
5TH INTERNATIONAL GUIDE TO REINSURANCE CLAIMS AND COLLECTIONS
American Conference Institute
Park Central, New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 29 - 30, 2006
DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Swiss"tel Chicago , Chicago, IL
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
June 13-14, 2006
INTERACTIVE MASTER CLASS ON TRIAL ADVOCACY FOR PRODUCTS
LIABILITY
American Conference Institute
The Westin New York at Times Square, New York, NY
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
July 19-20, 2006
LITIGATION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
July 19-20, 2006
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2006: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
Chicago, IL
Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu
July 27-28, 2006
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2006: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu
September 28-30, 2006
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
October 12-13, 2006
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Wynn, Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678
November 16-17, 2006
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT
SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE
ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
November 30-December 1, 2006
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
March 2007
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Loews Hotel, Miami, Florida
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678
* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
May 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 01-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 01-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 01-30, 2006
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 01-30, 2006
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 01-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 01-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 18, 2006
ETHICS TELECONFERENCE: THE CLASSIFICATION OF CLIENT EXPENSES IN
MASS TORTS--CASE SPECIFIC VS. COMMON BENEFIT EXPENSES
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 23, 2006
EMERGING TRENDS IN BAD FAITH LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 24, 2006
REVISITING KATRINA AND INSURANCE COVERAGE ON THE EVE OF THE NEXT
HURRICANE SEASON
Practising Law Institute
Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu
May 25, 2006
NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 5, 2006
PREPARING FOR CATASTROPHES: LEGAL AND INSURANCE ISSUES TO
CONSIDER
Practising Law Institute
Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu
June 6, 2006
PREEMPTION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 13, 2006
ETHICS IN CLASS ACTIONS
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 15, 2006
ARE YOU COVERED - WHAT EVERY IN-HOUSE LAWYER NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT
INSURANCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 20, 2006
FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
July 13, 2006
TEFLON LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org
________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
New Securities Fraud Cases
CHINA ENERGY: Stull, Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against China Energy Services Technology, Inc. (CESV) and
certain officers and directors. The suit was filed on behalf of
the plaintiff and a proposed class of purchasers of securities
of China Energy between Mar. 21, 2005 through Feb. 15, 2006.
The complaint alleges that China Energy and certain officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
making false and misleading statements and omissions concerning
the company's management activities, sale of restricted stock
and other insider sales, which violated the federal securities
laws.
As a result of these alleged violations, the price of securities
of China Energy was artificially inflated during the class
period.
The complaint alleges that the company failed to disclose that
the company and individual officers and directors allowed
company insiders to self-deal in the company's January 2006
private placement; that the company failed to comply with the
SEC and NASDAQ rules and regulations regarding limitations on
sales of restricted stock; that the failure to comply with such
rules and regulations would result in trading of the company's
stock being halted by the NASDAQ; and that trading of China
Energy stock was, indeed, halted by the NASDAQ as of Feb. 15,
2006.
Interested parties may no later than Jun. 30, 2006, move the
court to serve as lead plaintiff.
For more details, contact Howard T. Longman of Stull, Stull &
Brody, Phone: 800/337-4983 or 845/371-4788, E-mail:
tsvi@aol.com.
DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of all securities purchasers of Discovery
Laboratories, Inc. from Dec. 28, 2005 through Apr. 25, 2006,
inclusive.
The complaint charges Discovery Laboratories and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
More specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed
to disclose and misrepresented these material adverse facts,
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:
-- That problems regarding the manufacturing of Surfaxin
existed; specifically, that the company failed to
disclose that manufacturing problems with Surfaxin
caused instability with the drug's active ingredient;
-- that the U.S. Food and Drug Administation's concerns
regarding Surfaxin's stability would result in a
significant delay in the drug's approval; and
-- as a result of the above, the company's statements
concerning Surfaxin were lacking in any reasonable
basis when made.
Throughout the class period, Discovery Laboratories repeatedly
asserted that it anticipated that Surfaxin would receive U.S.
regulatory approval in Apr 2006.
On 24 Apr 2006, Discovery Laboratories announced that U.S.
regulatory approval of Surfaxin was being delayed over
manufacturing problems.
Specifically, Discovery Laboratories reported that Surfaxin's
ability to be stored for extended periods of time without change
in its efficacy or chemical profile, or stability, had not been
achieved.
As a result of this failure, the U.S. regulatory process would
be significantly delayed. The company acknowledged that
stability had never been achieved for the drug. On this news,
shares of Discovery Laboratories dropped 53% to close, on 25 Apr
2006, at $2.20/share.
For more details, contact of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Phone:
1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com,
Web site: http://www.sbclasslaw.com.
ESCALA GROUP: Desmond Law Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Desmond Law Firm Professional Corporation commenced a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Escala Group, Inc. (ESCL) securities between Sept. 5, 2003 and
May 8, 2006, inclusive. No class has yet been certified.
Interested parties have no later than Jun. 10, 2006 to move the
court for appointment as a lead plaintiff. The case is pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
It is alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5)
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market throughout the class
period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating
the market price of the company's securities.
For more details, contact Leo W. Desmond, Esq. of Desmond Law
Firm Professional Corporation, Phone: (888) 337-6663 and (561)
712-8000, E-mail: Mailroom@SecuritiesAttorney.com, Web site:
http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com.
FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: Wechsler Harwood Files N.Y. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood, LLP initiated a class action
on behalf of all securities purchasers of Fairfax Financial
Holdings Ltd. (FFH) between Mar. 24, 2004 and Mar. 21, 2006,
both dates inclusive. This action is also brought on behalf of
all purchasers of Fairfax Financial 7.75% senior notes due Mar.
26, 2012 (the sub-class), pursuant to the Aug. 25, 2004 offering
registration statements and/or prospectus.
The action, "Fisher, et al. v. Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd.,
et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-03713-GBD," is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Fairfax Financial, through its subsidiaries, operates as an
underwriter of property and casualty insurance and reinsurance.
The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the company's financial performance by
improperly accounting for transactions relating to finite
contracts and treaties at its Odyssey Re Holdings subsidiary and
concealing an internal review of those matters.
As a result, the price of the company's securities was
artificially inflated during the class period, thereby harming
investors.
The complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
More specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the class
period, the company failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them:
-- it employed flawed and defective accounting practices
and internal controls;
-- it understated its reserves; and
-- it utilized aggressive off-balance sheet mechanisms.
On Mar. 21, 2006, defendants revealed details of a broadly
escalated governmental investigation into the company, following
the issuance of a subpoena in response to defendant Watsa's
statements regarding the company's internal review of improper
accounting practices at the company and at Odyssey Re.
On this news, the price of Fairfax Financial stock plummeted
from its closing price of $130.90 on Mar. 21, 2006, to close on
Mar. 22, 2006 at $113.93, for a loss of $16.97 or 12.9%, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
Interested parties may no later than Jun. 12, 2006, move the
court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.
For more details, contact Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq. of Wechsler
Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York
10022, Phone: (877) 935-7400 ext. 286, E-mail: jmn@whesq.com,
Web site: http://www.whesq.com.
PXRE GROUP: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP,
filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, against PXRE Group Ltd. (PXT) and certain
of its officers, on behalf of purchasers of the company's
securities during the period from Jun. 28, 2005 to Feb. 16,
2006, both dates inclusive. The complaint alleges violations of
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
PXRE, based in Pembroke, Bermuda, is a worldwide provider of
catastrophe reinsurance products and services. The complaint
alleges that:
-- that the company concealed from investors the full
impact on its business of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and
Wilma;
-- that, in fact, the company's cost of the three
hurricanes had doubled to an estimated $758 million to
$788 million;
-- that the magnitude of the loss would cause the company
to loose key financial-strength and credit ratings;
-- that the company concealed the losses in order to
complete a $114 million secondary offering and raise
more than $350 million from an offering of perpetual
preferred shares; and
-- that as a consequence of the foregoing, the company's
statements with respect to its loss estimates for the
2005 hurricane season lacked in all reasonable basis.
The complaint further alleges that on Feb. 16, 2006, after the
close of the market, PXRE shocked investors when it announced
that it would be increasing its estimates of the net pre-tax
impact of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma by an amount
between $281 million to $311 million for the year ended Dec. 31,
2005. By the end of the day, PXRE shares fell $7.85 per share,
or over 65%, on high trading volume, to close at $4.05 per
share.
Interested parties have until Jun. 3, 2006 to ask the Court for
appointment as lead plaintiff.
For more details, contact Teresa L. Webb or Carolyn S. Moskowitz
of the Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, Phone: 888-
476-6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com and csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com,
Web site: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com.
SEA CONTAINERS: Finkelstein Thompson Files N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran initiated a
lawsuit seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court
for Southern District of New York against Sea Containers Ltd.
(NYSE: SCR-A) and certain of its officers and directors on
behalf of purchasers of Sea Containers' note securities between
May 10, 2005 and Mar. 24, 2006, inclusive.
The lawsuit alleges that Sea Containers violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading public statements
regarding its financial results.
On Mar. 24, 2006, the company shocked the market by announcing
that:
-- it would be required to restate its financial results
for the first three quarters of 2005 because it had
improperly accounted for proceeds derived from stock
sales;
-- it would be forced to take an impairment charge of $10
million more than previously disclosed relating to the
sale of previously overvalued shipping containers;
-- it was selling its entire ferry division;
-- the aggregate results of these impairment charges would
equal approximately $500 million; and
-- investors should no longer rely on their previously
issued financial results for the first three quarters
of 2005.
The market reacted sharply to this news with Sea Containers'
class A share price dropping from a close of $12.06 on Mar. 23,
2006 to a close of $7.45 on Mar. 24, 2006, constituting a drop
of nearly 38% in a single day.
Interested parties may no later than May 30, 2006, request that
the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.
For more details, contact Benjamin J. Weir of Finkelstein,
Thompson & Loughran, Phone: (877) 337-1050, E-mail:
bjw@ftllaw.com.
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Pomerantz Haudek Files Calif. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP,
filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, against Vitesse Semiconductor
Corporation (VTSS), and certain of its officers.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of the company during the period from Oct. 23, 2003 to
Mar. 26, 2006, inclusive. The complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) the Securities Exchange Act, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Vitesse, headquartered in Camarillo, California, engages in the
design, development, manufacturing, and marketing of integrated
circuits for systems manufacturers in the communications and
storage industries.
The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants:
-- failed to properly account for credits issued to or
requested by customers;
-- failed to properly apply payments received to the
appropriate account receivable; and
-- failed to properly account for the stock options
granted to senior officers and directors.
On Mar. 18, 2006, after the trading of Vitesse common stock had
been halted, the company issued a press release announcing that
a special committee had been appointed to investigate the timing
of stock option grants.
The following day, Vitesse shares plunged more than 32% from the
prior day's close of $3.11 per share, to a closing price of
$2.48 per share.
A little over a week later, after the market closed on Mar. 26,
2006, the company announced that its reported financial
statements should not be relied upon and that it had engaged an
acting Chief Financial Officer. The following day, Vitesse
shares plunged 23.5% with a closing price of $1.83 per share.
Interested parties have until Jun. 3, 2006, to ask the Court for
appointment as lead plaintiff for the Class.
For more details, contact Teresa L. Webb or Carolyn S. Moskowitz
of the Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, Phone: 888-
476-6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com and csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com,
Web site: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com.
XM SATELLITE: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, initiated a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of XM Satellite Radio
Holdings Inc. (XMSR) between Jun. 28, 2005 and Feb. 15, 2006,
inclusive.
The complaint charges XM and the company's chief executive
officer with violations of federal securities laws. Among other
things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements
concerning XM's operations and prospects caused the company's
stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages
on investors.
XM operates as a satellite radio service, providing music, news,
information, entertainment and sports programming to vehicle,
home and portable radio receivers, primarily in the U.S.
The complaint alleges that defendants' class period statements
concerning XM were materially false and misleading because
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose
that:
-- XM was unable to attain its stated subscriber goal of 6
million subscribers at year end, without increasing its
costs to acquire new subscribers;
-- in order to achieve its subscriber goal, XM would be
making huge expenditures during fourth-quarter 2005,
thereby increasing the company's new-subscriber
acquisition costs;
-- as a result of these expenditures, the company's net
losses were substantially increased, contrary to the
declining subscriber acquisition costs and net losses
touted by defendants; and
-- as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements
concerning the company's continued ability to lower its
subscriber acquisition costs were lacking in any
reasonable basis.
On Feb. 16, 2006, defendants shocked the market when XM issued a
press release announcing the company's financial results for
fourth-quarter and full-year 2005. The disclosure of its
increased subscriber acquisition costs caused XM shares to
plummet 13 percent, to close on Feb. 17, 2006, at $21.96 per
share on unusually heavy trading volume. The next day, XM
shares continued to fall, losing an additional 10 percent, to
close on Feb. 17, 2006, at $21.57 per share.
Interested parties may move the Court no later than Jun. 3,
2006, to serve as lead plaintiff.
For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy and Michael Goldberg
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888)
773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.com.
*********
A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina Canson, and 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 * * *