/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060531.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 31, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 107 Headlines ACUITY LIGHTING: Recalls Light Fixtures with Unattached Nuts ADAMS GOLF: Discovery Proceeds in Del. Consolidated Stock Suit ADVANCEPCS: Ariz. Court Mulls Appeal on ERISA Lawsuit Dismissal AMERIGROUP CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Va. Consolidated Stock Suit ARCTIC CAT: Recalls Off-Highway UVs to Repair Rear Brake Caliper ARIZONA: Appeals Court Ruling Holds Orders on English Program BRAVO! DEVELOPMENT: Mich. Woman Sues Over Norovirus Outbreak CARDINAL HEALTH: Consolidated ERISA Suit in Ohio Partially Nixed CARDINAL HEALTH: Consolidated Stock Suit in Ohio Partially Nixed CAREMARK RX: Discovery Continues for Antitrust Lawsuit in Ill. CONMED CORP: Former CONMED Linvatec Sales Reps File Suit in N.Y. DVA RENAL: Continues to Face Labor Law Violations Suit in Calif. DVA RENAL: Court Dismisses Medicare Suit, Compels Arbitration GRILL CONCEPTS: Servers File Suit in Calif. Over "Tip-Pooling" HANOVER DIRECT: Shareholder Abandons Plan to Take Firm Private ICT GROUP: Distributes Cash Settlement of W.Va. Wage Lawsuit ICT GROUP: Settles Certain Ill., Calif. Consumer Fraud Lawsuits IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Ind. ERISA Suit's Post-Trial Briefing Ends JUNIPER NETWORKS: Considers Calif. Securities Fraud Suit Closed KPMG LLP: Declares Knowledge of Payment Offer to Lead Plaintiff LOUISIANA: FEMA Defends Self in Texas Housing Aid Lawsuit LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Calif. Sex Discrimination Suit MURPHY OIL: Wants to Share La. Oil Spill Blame with Army Corps NETFLIX INC: Reaches Settlement for Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit OPPENHEIMERFUNDS: Brokers File Overtime Lawsuit in N.Y. Court OREGON: 3 Men File Lawsuit Over Gresham Park Exclusion Ordinance PIONEER COS: Faces Lawsuit Over Mercury Emission From La. Plant RALPH LAUREN: Former Employees Allege Calif. Labor Law Breaches SALOMON SMITH: Calif. Supreme Court to Discuss Phone Taping Suit SCARBOROUGH HOSPITAL: Dialysis Patients File Negligence Lawsuit SPARK NETWORKS: Trial Extended for Business Law Breach Lawsuit STAR GAS: Awaits Conn. Court Decision in Consolidated Stock Suit TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Calif. Stock Suit Deal Gets Final Approval VALERO ENERGY: Seeks New Trial for Blue Island Refinery Case VERISIGN INC: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Suit in Calif. VERIZON MARYLAND: Court Okays $26M Settlement in Late Fees Suit VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Sued in Del. Over "Class C" Stock Plan Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases AMERICAN INT'L: Schiffrin & Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Suit ESCALA GROUP: Murray, Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. XM SATELLITE: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C. ********* ACUITY LIGHTING: Recalls Light Fixtures with Unattached Nuts ------------------------------------------------------------ The Lithonia Lighting division of Georgia-based Acuity Lighting Group Inc., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,100 units of Low Bay TG Series lighting fixtures. The company said two nuts in a mounting mechanism of these light fixtures were not attached. The fixture could detach, fall and possibly hit consumers. Acuity Lighting Group Inc. has received 10 reports of fixtures that have fallen, but no injuries have been reported. The lighting fixtures are designed for areas that require low mounting heights and are used in parking garages, stairwells, entrances or aisles. The fixtures have a heavy-duty aluminum housing with either a white or a dark bronze finish and a glass lens. Their installed width is approximately 13 inches. The TGL and TGR series fixtures are not included in this recall, as these fixtures have a different mounting mechanism. These lighting fixtures were assembled in the U.S. and are being sold in electrical and lighting supply distributors between November 2004 and February 2006 for about $190. Facility managers and business owners are being contacted by Acuity Lighting Group Inc., to schedule an inspection and repair. Please contact Acuity Lighting Group if you have not been contacted yet. Picture of recalled lighting fixture: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06552.jpg For more information, call Lithonia Lighting at (800)-745-1788 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the company's Web site at www.lithonia.com. ADAMS GOLF: Discovery Proceeds in Del. Consolidated Stock Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated securities class action against Adams Golf, Inc., which is currently pending in the U.S. District Court of the District of Delaware. Beginning June 1999, the first of seven class actions was filed against the company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the three underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO). The complaints alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the company's IPO. In particular, the complaints alleged that its prospectus, which became effective Jul. 9, 1998, was materially false and misleading in at least two areas. Plaintiffs alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that unauthorized distribution of the company's products (gray market sales) threatened the company's long-term profits. They also alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that the golf equipment industry suffered from an oversupply of inventory at the retail level, which had an adverse impact on sales. On May 17, 2000, these cases were consolidated into one amended complaint, and a lead plaintiff was appointed. The plaintiffs were seeking unspecified amounts of compensatory damages, interest and costs, including legal fees. On Dec. 10, 2001, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed the consolidated, amended complaint. Plaintiffs appealed. On Aug. 25, 2004, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims relating to oversupply of retail inventory, while reversing the dismissal of the claims relating to the impact of gray market sales and remanding those claims for further proceedings. On Sept. 1, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint, which was granted on Jan. 24, 2006. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which the District Court granted in part and denied in part on Apr. 11, 2006. Now, in addition to the gray-market sales claim, the second amended complaint alleges that the prospectus failed to disclose that the company engaged in questionable sales practices, including double shipping and unlimited rights of return, which threatened post-IPO financial results. This case is currently in the discovery phase litigation. The suit is "Shockley, et al. v. Adams Golf Inc., et al., Case No. 1:99-cv-00371-KAJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware under Judge Kent A. Jordan. Representing the plaintiffs is Carmella P. Keener of Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess, Citizens Bank Center, Suite 1401, P.O. Box 1070, Wilmington, DE 19899-1070, Phone: (302) 656-4433, E-mail: CKeener@rmgglaw.com. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Kevin G. Abrams of Abrams & Laster, LLP, Brandywine Plaza West, 1521 Concord Pike, #303, Wilmington, DE 19803, Phone: (302) 778-1000, Fax: (302) 778-1001; (2) Jeffrey L. Moyer of Richards, Layton & Finger, One Rodney Square, P.O. Box 551, Wilmington, DE 19899, Phone: (302) 651-7700, E-mail: moyer@rlf.com; and (3) John E. James of Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, 1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th Flr., P.O. Box 951, Wilmington, DE 19899-0951, Phone: (302) 984-6000, E- mail: jjames@potteranderson.com. ADVANCEPCS: Ariz. Court Mulls Appeal on ERISA Lawsuit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona of the consolidated class action filed against AdvancePCS, now doing business as CaremarkPCS. The suit alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In April 2002, the company was served with a purported class action filed by Tommie Glanton on behalf of the plaintiff's health plan and a putative class of self-funded health plans. In March 2003, the company was served with a complaint filed by Tara Mackner in which the plaintiff, a purported participant in a self-funded health plan customer of AdvancePCS, sought to bring action on behalf of that plan. Each of the lawsuits sought unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. Because the previously filed Glanton case purported to be brought as a class action on behalf of self-funded plans, the court consolidated the Mackner case and the Glanton case. In November 2003, the court dismissed and terminated both the Glanton and Mackner cases on the pleadings, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the actions under ERISA. The plaintiffs have appealed the District Court's dismissal of these cases to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The plaintiffs and AdvancePCS have filed their briefs in the appeal, and the U.S. Department of Labor has filed an amicus brief. The cases are "Glanton, et al. v. AdvancePCS Inc., Case No. 2:02-cv-00507-SRB," and "Mackner v. AdvancePCS Health LP, Case No. 2:03-cv-00607-SRB," both filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Susan R. Bolton. Representing the plaintiffs in both cases is Stephen J. Herman of Herman Mathis Casey Kitchens & Gerel, LLP, 820 O'Keefe Ave., New Orleans, LA 70113, Phone: (504) 581-4892. Representing the defendant in both cases is Peter Shawn Kozinets of Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Collier Ctr., 201 E. Washington St., Ste. 1600, Phoenix, AZ 85004-2382, Phone: 602-257-5200, Fax: 602-257-5299, E-mail: pkozinets@steptoe.com. AMERIGROUP CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Va. Consolidated Stock Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- AMERIGROUP Corp. filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action, "Illinois State Board of Investment v. AMERIGROUP Corp., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00701-HCM-FBS," filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Beginning Oct. 3, 2005, five purported class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of persons who acquired the company's common stock between Apr. 27, 2005 and Sept. 28, 2005. The actions purported to allege claims against the company and certain of the company's officers for alleged violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), 20(A) and Rule of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On Jan. 10, 2006, the court issued an order: (1) consolidating the actions; (2) setting "Illinois State Board of Investment v. AMERIGROUP Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 2:05-cv- 701," as lead case for purposes of trial and all pretrial proceedings; (3) appointing Illinois State Board of Investment (ISBI) as lead plaintiff and its choice of counsel as lead counsel; and (4) ordering that lead plaintiff file a consolidated amended complaint by Feb. 24, 2006. On Feb. 24, 2006, ISBI filed the consolidated amended complaint, which purports to allege claims on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the company's common stock from Feb. 16, 2005 through Sept. 28, 2005. The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), 20(A) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against defendants AMERIGROUP Corp., Jeffrey L. McWaters, James G. Carlson, E. Paul Dunn, Jr. and Kathleen K. Toth. Lead plaintiff alleges that defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the company's financial statements, business, and prospects. Among other things, the consolidated amended complaint seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fee and costs. On Mar. 27, 2006, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The suit is "Illinois State Board of Investment v. AMERIGROUP Corp., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00701-HCM-FBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under Judge Henry C. Morgan, Jr. with referral to Judge F. Bradford Stillman. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Edward James Powers of Vandeventer Black, LLP, 500 World Trade Ctr., Norfolk, VA 23510, Phone: (757) 446- 8600; (2) Jeffrey Arnold Breit of Breit Drescher & Imprevento, PC, 1000 Dominion Tower, 999 Waterside Dr., Norfolk, VA 23510-3320, Phone: (757) 622-6000; and (3) Michael Andrew Glasser of Glasser & Glasser, PLC, 580 E. Main St., Suite 600, Norfolk, VA 23510, Phone: (757) 625-6787. Representing the defendants is Stephen Edward Noona of Kaufman & Canoles, PC, 150 W. Main St., P.O. Box 3037, Norfolk, VA 23510, Phone: (757) 624-3000. ARCTIC CAT: Recalls Off-Highway UVs to Repair Rear Brake Caliper ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arctic Cat Inc. of Thief River Falls, Minnesota, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission, is recalling 2,120 Arctic Cat Prowler XT Off-Highway Utility Vehicles. The company said the rear brake caliper used on these units could leak brake fluid, resulting in reduced braking ability at the rear wheels. The front wheel brakes are unaffected by this condition. There have been no reported incidents of loss of braking. No injuries have been reported. The Prowler XT was produced in three colors: green, cat green and red. The vehicles have the words "Arctic Cat" printed on each side of the cargo box and the name "Prowler XT" centered on the front of the hood. The affected units are all 2006 Prowler XT vehicles with VIN range of 4UF06MPVO6T300001 through 4UF06MPV16T302369. The VIN is located on the rear upper-frame tube of the vehicle near the rear of the cargo box, and on the registration materials the consumer received at the time of purchase. Consumers need only refer to the last six digits of the VIN to determine if the vehicle is included in this recall. Model numbers included in the recall: Model Model Number Prowler XT Green U2006P2S4BUSG Prowler XT Cat Green U2006P2S4BUSZ Prowler XT Red U2006P2S4BUSR The model number is contained in the registration materials received with the vehicle at the time of purchase. Prowler XTs were manufactured in the U.S. and sold in Arctic Cat dealerships nationwide from July 2005 through May 2006 for about $9,000. Consumers are advised to stop using these vehicles immediately. Consumers with a recalled Prowler XT are advised to contact their local Arctic Cat ATV dealer to schedule a free repair. Registered owners have been notified about this recall by mail. If consumers are unsure whether their Prowler XT is affected, they should contact Arctic Cat. Picture of Arctic Cat Prowler XT: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06553.jpg For more information, contact Arctic Cat, Phone: (800) 279-6851 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, Web site at http://www.arctic-cat.com. ARIZONA: Appeals Court Ruling Holds Orders on English Program ------------------------------------------------------------- Republican legislators and the state's top education official have filed court papers reminding a federal judge his orders on improvements in programs for students learning English are on hold until an appeals court rules. The Republican leaders of the House and Senate and Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne told U.S. District Judge Raner Collins that a stay issued by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put on hold key decisions he ordered, according to Associated Press. The state was ordered to improve its offering to students learning English after Judge Collin's predecessor ruled in 2000 that the state's programs for approximately 150,000 students were inadequately funded. The deficiency effectively violated a federal law that guarantees equal opportunities in education, the ruling said. The state was fined $500,000 on Jan. 25 for missing a deadline to draft ways to improve the program. The fine was increased to $1 million in January, resulting to a $21 million in total fines. The fines were stopped when the latest version of a Republican bill seeking to revamp the English learning programs was passed into law on Mar. 2. Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano considered the bill still inadequate after vetoing three previous versions, but she allowed it to become a law for Judge Collins to decide. On Apr. 25, Judge Collins ruled that it still doesn't adequately fund English-learning programs, fails to spell out the costs of providing those programs, and doesn't explain the basis for funding that it does provide. Plaintiffs recently asked Judge Collins to urge the Legislature to revisit the English learning programs for possible improvements. They want Judge Collins to either hold a hearing to discuss the effects of the order, or clarify the order and require compliance with a 2000 ruling. In response, legislature reminded Judge Collins his orders are on hold pending the appeals court ruling. The suit is "Flores, et al. v. Arizona, State of, et al., Case No. 4:92-cv-00596-RCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Raner C. Collins. Representing the plaintiffs is Timothy Michael Hogan of Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, 202 E. McDowell Rd., Ste. 153, Phoenix, AZ 85004, Phone: 602-258-8850, Fax: 602-258-8757, E-mail: thogan@aclpi.org. Representing the defendants are Lynne Christensen Adams and Jose A. Cardenas of Lewis & Roca, LLP, 40 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004-4429, Phone: 602-262-5372 and 602-262-5790, Fax: 602-734-4015 and 602-734-3852, E-mail: ladams@lrlaw.com and jcardenas@lrlaw.com. BRAVO! DEVELOPMENT: Mich. Woman Sues Over Norovirus Outbreak ------------------------------------------------------------ The Law firm Marler Clark in Seattle filed a lawsuit against Bravo! Development, Inc., the owner of Bravo! Cucina Italiana restaurant that was the source of a large norovirus outbreak in early to mid May. The suit was filed in Ingham County Circuit Court (Case no. 06- 609-NZ) on behalf of Pattie McNiel, an academic specialist at the National Food Safety and Toxicology Center at Michigan State University, who became ill with norovirus after eating at the restaurant on May 7, 2006. Ms. McNiel is represented by Marler Clark and Michael Heilmann, a Southfield, Michigan, attorney. "Restaurants have a responsibility to their customers to serve them food that is safe to eat," said William Marler, managing partner of Marler Clark. "It is clear that Bravo management and employees did not take the appropriate measures to ensure that the food being served at the restaurant was safe." Ingham County health officials are encouraging anybody who experienced symptoms of norovirus after eating at Bravo between May 3 and May 11 to report his or her illness to the Health Department. The Health Department reported that at least 360 individuals had become ill as part of the outbreak. "We have been contacted by several other people who became ill as part of this outbreak," Mr. Marler continued. "And we plan to pursue claims on behalf of everyone who contacts our firm." The attorneys at Marler Clark have been representing victims of foodborne illness outbreaks since 1993, when William Marler represented Brianne Kiner in her $15.6 million E. coli settlement with Jack in the Box. The firm has represented thousands of victims of E. coli, Salmonella, norovirus, hepatitis A, and other foodborne illness outbreaks. For more information, contact Suzanne Schreck, Phone: (206) 346- 1879, Marler Clark on the Net: http://www.marlerclark.com/. CARDINAL HEALTH: Consolidated ERISA Suit in Ohio Partially Nixed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed certain claims in the consolidated class action against Cardinal Health, Inc. and certain of its officers, directors and employees, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Since Jul. 2, 2004, 15 purported class action complaints have been filed by purported participants in the Cardinal Health Profit Sharing, Retirement and Savings Plan, collectively referred to as the Cardinal Health ERISA actions. These cases include: -- "David McKeehan and James Syracuse v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 643," -- "Timothy Ferguson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 668," -- "James DeCarlo v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 684," -- "Margaret Johnson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 722," -- "Harry Anderson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 725," -- "Charles Heitholt v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 736," -- "Dan Salinas and Andrew Jones v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 745," -- "Daniel Kelley v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 746," -- "Vincent Palyan v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 778," -- "Saul Cohen v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 789," -- "Travis Black v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 790," -- "Wendy Erwin v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 803," -- "Susan Alston v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 815," -- "Jennifer Brister v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No. (04 CV 828)," -- "Gint Baukus v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 05 C2 101" The Cardinal Health ERISA actions purport to be brought on behalf of participants in the 401(k) Plan and the Syncor Employees' Savings and Stock Ownership Plan (the Syncor ESSOP, and together with the 401(k) Plan, the Plans), and also on behalf of the Plans themselves. The complaints allege that the defendants breached certain fiduciary duties owed under ERISA, generally asserting that the defendants failed to make full disclosure of the risks to the Plans' participants of investing in the company's stock, to the detriment of the Plans' participants and beneficiaries, and that company stock should not have been made available as an investment alternative for the Plans' participants. The misstatements alleged in the Cardinal Health ERISA actions significantly overlap with the misstatements alleged in the Cardinal Health federal securities actions. The complaints sought unspecified money damages and equitable relief against the defendants and an award of attorney's fees. On Dec. 15, 2004, the Cardinal Health ERISA actions were consolidated into one action captioned, "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISA Litigation." On Jan. 14, 2005, the court appointed lead counsel and liaison counsel for the consolidated Cardinal Health ERISA action. On Apr. 29, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended ERISA complaint naming the company, certain current and former directors, officers and employees, the company's Employee Benefits Policy Committee and Putnam Fiduciary Trust Company as defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and other unspecified relief against the defendants. On Dec. 1, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. The parties agreed to leave the motion for class certification pending while the court considered a motion to dismiss. On Mar. 31, 2006, the court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to Putnam Fiduciary Trust Company and with respect to plaintiffs' claim for equitable relief. The court denied the remainder of the motion to dismiss filed by the company and certain defendants. The suit is "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Case No. 2:04-cv-00643-ALM-NMK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Algenon L. Marbley. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) James Edward Arnold, Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott - 2, 471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400, Columbus, OH 43215, Phone: 614-469-1400, E-mail: jarnold@cpaslaw.com; and (2) George E. Barrett of Barrett Johnston & Parsley - 1, 217 Second Avenue, N. Nashville, TN 37201, Phone: 615- 244-2202, E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com. Representing the company are: (i) J. Kevin Cogan, Jones Day, 325 John H. McConnell Blvd., PO Box 165017, Columbus, OH 43216-5017, Phone: 614-469- 3939, Fax: 614-461-4198, Email: jcogan@jonesday.com; and (ii) Roger Philip Sugarman of Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter - 2, 65 E. State Street, Suite 1800, Columbus, OH 43215- 4294, Phone: 614-462-5400, Fax: 614-462-5422, E-mail: rsugarman@keglerbrown.com. CARDINAL HEALTH: Consolidated Stock Suit in Ohio Partially Nixed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed certain claims in the consolidated securities class action against Cardinal Health, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors. Since Jul. 2, 2004, purported purchasers of the company's securities have filed 10 purported class action complaints. They named the company and certain of its officers and directors, asserting claims under the federal securities laws. These cases include: -- "Gerald Burger v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 575," -- "Todd Fener v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 579," -- "E. Miles Senn v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 597," -- "David Kim v. Cardinal Health, Inc., Case No. 04 CV 598," -- "Arace Brothers v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 604," -- "John Hessian v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 635," -- "Constance Matthews Living Trust v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 636," -- "Mariss Partners, LLP v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 849," -- "The State of New Jersey v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 831," -- "First New York Securities, LLC v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 911" The Cardinal Health federal securities actions purport to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's securities during various periods beginning as early as Oct. 24, 2000 and ending as late as Jul. 26, 2004. The suits allege, among others, that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing a series of false and/or misleading statements concerning the company's financial results, prospects and condition. Certain of the complaints also allege violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, claiming material misstatements or omissions in prospectuses issued by the company in connection with its acquisition of Bindley Western Industries, Inc. in 2001 and Syncor in 2003. The alleged misstatements relate to the company's accounting for recoveries relating to antitrust litigation against vitamin manufacturers, and to classification of revenue in the company's Pharmaceutical Distribution business as either operating revenue or revenue from bulk deliveries to customer warehouses, and other accounting and business model transition issues, including reserve accounting. The alleged misstatements are claimed to have caused an artificial inflation in the company's stock price during the proposed class period. The complaints sought unspecified money damages and equitable relief against the defendants and an award of attorney's fees. On Dec. 15, 2004, the Cardinal Health federal securities actions were consolidated into one action captioned, "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Federal Securities Litigation." On Jan. 26, 2005, the court appointed the Pension Fund Group as lead plaintiff in this consolidated action. On Apr. 22, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint naming the company, certain current and former officers and employees and the company's external auditors as defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and other unspecified relief against the defendants. On Mar. 27, 2006, the court granted a motion to dismiss with respect to the company's external auditors and a former officer and denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the company and the other individual defendants. The suit is "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-575,"filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, (New York, NY), 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 800-217-1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com; (2) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP, (San Diego, CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, E-mail: support@milberg.com; and (3) John R. Climaco, Climaco Lefkowitz Peca Wilcox & Garofoli LPA - 1, 1228 Euclid Avenue, Suite 900, Cleveland, OH 44115-1891, Phone: 216-621-8484, Fax: 216-771-1632, E-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com. Representing the company are John M. Newman, Jr., Geoffrey J. Ritts of Jones, Day, Reavis, & Pogue, North Point, 901 Lakeside Ave, Cleveland, OH 44114-1190, Phone: 216-586-3939, E-mail: jmnewman@jonesday.com or gjritts@jonesday.com. CAREMARK RX: Discovery Continues for Antitrust Lawsuit in Ill. -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the class action against Caremark Rx, Inc., Caremark, Inc. and AdvancePCS (now known as CaremarkPCS) and two pharmacy benefit manager competitors in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Two independent pharmacies, North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, INC. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc., initially filed the suit on October 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The plaintiffs twice amended and restated their class action complaint, most recently asserting two claims under a single count purportedly arising under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The court granted a motion filed by Caremark Rx and Caremark to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to the terms of the pharmacy services agreements between Caremark and the plaintiffs. The court also granted a motion filed by AdvancePCS to compel arbitration of any claims between it and the plaintiffs pursuant to the pharmacy services agreements it has with the plaintiffs. In May 2005, the plaintiffs in this case filed a putative class action arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association against AdvancePCS that is nearly identical to the complaint pending in the Northern District of Illinois against Caremark. The demand purports to cover direct claims made against AdvancePCS and seeks treble damages and injunctive relief enjoining the alleged antitrust violations. The arbitration proceeding has been stayed by agreement of the parties pending developments in the court case against Caremark Rx and Caremark, which is in discovery. The plaintiffs are seeking three times actual monetary damages and injunctive relief enjoining the alleged antitrust violations. The suit is "N. Jackson Pharm Inc., et al. v. Caremark RX Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-05674,"filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Milton I. Shadur. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Andrew C. Allen, Russell J. Drake, Othni Lathram, Joe R. Whatley, Whatley, Drake, LLC, 2323 2nd Avenue North, P.O. Box 10647, Birmingham, AL 35202-0647, Phone: (205) 328-9576; (2) Christopher W. Cantrell, A. David Fawal, Archie J. Lamb, Law Offices of Archie Lamb, LLC, 2017-2nd Avenue North #200, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: (205) 324- 4644; (3) Kathleen Currie Chavez, Chavez Law Firm, 1245 Executive Place, Suite F-100, Geneva, IL 60134, Phone: (630) 232- 4480; (4) Gregory C. Cook, Balch & Bingham, Post Office Box 306, Birmingham, AL 35201-0306, Phone: (205) 251-8100; (5) Robert M. Foote, Craig S. Mielke, Foote, Meyers, Mielke, Flowers & Solano, 416 South Second Street, Geneva, IL 60134, Phone: (630) 232-6333; (6) Gail A McQuilkin, Harley S. Tropin, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton PA, 2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor, Coral Gables, FL 33134, Phone: 305-372-1800, Fax: 305-372- 3508; (7) Nicholas B Roth, Eyster Key Tubb Weaver & Roth P.O. Box 1607, Decatur, AL 35602, Phone: (256) 353- 6761; and (8) Edward K. Wood, Jr., Law Offices of Edward Kirk Wood P.O. Box 382434, Birmingham, AL 35238, Phone: (205)612- 0243. Representing the defendants are: (1) W. Michael Atchison, Victor E. Grimm, Anthony C. Harlon, Starnes & Atchison, P.O. Box 598512, Birmingham, AL, 35259-8512, Phone: (205) 868-6000; and (2) Erik F. Dyhrkopp, Michael Edward Martinez, Scott M. Mendel, Paula W. Render, Michael Sennett, Bell, Boyd & Lloyd LLC, 70 West Madison Street, Suite 3300, Chicago, IL 60602-4207, Phone: (312) 372-1121. CONMED CORP: Former CONMED Linvatec Sales Reps File Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- CONMED Corp. is defendant in a purported class action filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of New York on behalf of a class of former CONMED Linvatec sales representatives. On Apr. 7, 2006, the company received a copy of the complaint, which alleges that the former sales representatives were entitled to, but did not receive, severance in 2003 when Linvatec Corp. restructured its distribution channels. The company believes that the maximum exposure is $2.5 to $3.0 million, not including any interest, fees or costs that might be awarded if the five named plaintiffs were to prevail on their own behalf as well as on behalf of all members of the purported class. Conmed Linvatec did not generally pay severance during the 2003 restructuring because the former sales representatives were offered sales positions with Linvatec's new manufacturer's representatives. Other than three of the five named plaintiffs in the class action, nearly all of Linvatec's former sales representatives accepted such positions. Four of the named plaintiffs also recently submitted formal Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims for severance, and said claims have been forwarded to the plan administrator for review and action. Although the plan administrator has not completed her review, if the plan administrator reaches the same determination that was made in 2003, the company believes there would be no merit to the claims asserted in the complaint, although there can be no assurance that the company would prevail in the litigation. The suit is "Thompson, et al. v. Linvatec Corp., et al., Case No. 6:06-cv-00404-NPM-GJD,"filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York under Judge Neal P. McCurn with referral to Judge Gustave J. DiBianco. Representing the plaintiffs are, Thomas G. Moukawsher and Ian O'Neil Smith of Moukawsher, Walsh Law Firm, 21 Oak Street, Suite 209, Hartford, CT 06106, US, Phone: 860-278-7003 and 860-278- 7005, Fax: 860-548-1740, E-mail: tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com and ismith@mwlawgroup.com. DVA RENAL: Continues to Face Labor Law Violations Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- DVA Renal Healthcare, Inc. is defendant in a class action filed in the Superior Court of California, alleging violations of the state's labor laws. In June 2004, DVA Renal was served with a complaint filed in the Superior Court of California by one of its former employees that worked for its California acute services program. The complaint, which is styled as a class action, alleges, among other things, that DVA Renal failed to provide overtime wages, defined rest periods and meal periods, or compensation in lieu of such provisions and failed to comply with certain other California labor code requirements. DVA Renal is formerly Gambro Healthcare, Inc. It was acquired by Davita Inc. in 2005. DVA RENAL: Court Dismisses Medicare Suit, Compels Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana dismissed a purported class action against DVA Renal Healthcare, Inc., formerly known as Gambro Healthcare, Inc. On Aug. 8, 2005, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana filed a complaint against Gambro AB, DVA Renal and related entities. The plaintiff sought to bring its claims as a class action on behalf of itself and all entities that paid any of the defendants for health care goods and services from on or about January 1991 through at least December 2004. The complaint alleged, among other things, damages resulting from facts and circumstances underlying DVA Renal's December 2004 settlement agreement with the Department of Justice and certain agencies of the U.S. Government. In March 2006, the case was dismissed and the plaintiff was compelled to seek arbitration to resolve the matter. The suit is "Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Co v. Gambro A B, et al., Case No. 6:05-cv-01450-TLM-CMH,"filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana under Judge Tucker L. Melancon with referral to Judge C. Michael Hill. Representing the plaintiff is Greg Murphy of Morain & Murphy, 6555 Perkins Rd., Ste. 200, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, Phone: 225- 767-7151, Fax: 225-767-8995, E-mail: greg@mandmlawfirm.com. Representing the company is G. William Jarman of Kean Miller, et al., (Baton Rouge), P.O. Box 3513, Baton Rouge, LA 70821, Phone: 225-387-0999, Fax: 225-388-9133. GRILL CONCEPTS: Servers File Suit in Calif. Over "Tip-Pooling" -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action complaint was filed against Grill Concepts, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on Mar. 15, 2006. The plaintiff, who is a server, and his fellow workers complain that the company violated the labor code by having servers "tip out" bartenders and expeditors a percentage of their tips to these employees who provide no direct table service. The complaint labeled this act as "Tip-pooling." The company has not yet been served with this complaint. There is a hearing scheduled in June to determine where the case will be heard within the court system. HANOVER DIRECT: Shareholder Abandons Plan to Take Firm Private -------------------------------------------------------------- Hanover Direct LLC's largest investor, Chelsey Direct LLC, withdrew on May 26 an offer to buy out other public shareholders of the company, according to NorthJersey.com. The hedge fund told the company it dropped its plan to take the company private due to "worsening operations" at Hanover, the report said. Hanover lost $1.8 million in the first quarter on about $100 million in sales of home furnishings and clothing through catalogs and online. Hanover is facing a class action arising from the buyout proposal. The complaint, filed on Mar. 1, 2006 in Delaware Chancery Court, named the company, Chelsey and the company's directors as defendants. The company has also been served with a second complaint in Delaware Chancery Court, filed on Mar. 7, 2006, and a third complaint in Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, filed on Mar. 3, 2006, that were substantially similar to the first complaint. In each complaint, the plaintiffs challenge Chelsey's going private proposal and alleged, among other things, that: -- the consideration to be paid is unfair and grossly inadequate; -- the Special Committee cannot be expected to act independently; -- Chelsey has manipulated the financial statements of the company and its public statements in order to depress the stock price of the company; and -- the proposal would freeze out the purported class members and capture the true value of the company for Chelsey. Each of the plaintiffs seek class action certification, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, rescission of the transaction if the offer is consummated and unspecified damages. On Mar. 28, 2006 the Special Committee of the Board of Directors, which had been appointed to review and evaluate the proposal from Chelsey Direct to take the company private, retained the investment banking firm of Houlihan Lokey Howard and Zukin as its independent financial advisor to advise the Special Committee with respect to the fairness of the Chelsey proposal. The Special Committee directed company management to provide Houlihan Lokey with full cooperation in all aspects of its due diligence, a process, which commenced promptly after Houlihan Lokey was retained. Hanover Direct, Inc. -- http://www.hanoverdirect.com-- offers a portfolio of home fashion and apparel catalogs and Internet Web sites, including Domestications, The Company Store, Company Kids, Silhouettes, International Male and Undergear. The company also manufactures Scandia Down branded comforters. ICT GROUP: Distributes Cash Settlement of W.Va. Wage Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ ICT Group, Inc. distributed the settlement money for the class action filed against it in the Circuit Court of Berkeley County, West Virginia, alleging violations of the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act. William Shingleton filed the suit in 1998, alleging that the company and 12 current and former members of its management violated the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act for failure to pay promised signing and incentive bonuses and wage increases, failure to compensate employees for short breaks or "transition" periods, production hours worked and improper deductions for the cost of purchasing telephone headsets. On Mar. 1, 2005, the company announced a settlement with the plaintiffs to this litigation. Under the terms of the settlement, the company agreed to pay $14.75 million to the plaintiff class to settle all allegations relating to unpaid wages, bonuses and other claims, as well as payments for liquidated damages allowed by West Virginia law, plus interest. On Jun. 27, 2005, the court approved the proposed settlement agreement that was announced on Mar. 1, 2005. In September 2005, the settlement was distributed to the class. Of the $14.75 million settlement payment that the company made, $6.9 million was recovered from its insurance carriers during 2005. As of Dec. 31, 2005 and Mar. 31, 2006, there are no contingent liabilities remaining associated with this litigation. ICT GROUP: Settles Certain Ill., Calif. Consumer Fraud Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- ICT Group, Inc. has settled some of several class actions filed against it and Time Warner, Inc. or America Online, alleging violations of consumer protection laws. The company is a co-defendant in 14 putative consumer class actions filed in various state and federal courts during the period from July 2003 to December 2004. America Online is paying for the company's defense and agreed to indemnify it against any costs or damages that it may incur as a result of these lawsuits. All of these suits allege that America Online, a customer of the company, violated consumer protection laws by charging members for accounts they purportedly did not agree to create and that America Online and the company violated consumer protection laws in the handling of subscribers' calls seeking to cancel accounts and obtain refunds of amounts paid for such accounts. America Online contracted with the company to answer customer service calls from America Online subscribers in accordance with instructions provided by America Online. Nine of the lawsuits that were filed in, or removed to, federal court were centralized in the Central District of California for consolidated or coordinated pre-trial proceedings pursuant to a Feb. 27, 2005 order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Three of the lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court for St. Clair County, Illinois. The two remaining lawsuits, one of which has been settled and dismissed with prejudice, as described below, were filed in state courts. On Apr. 5, 2005 America Online and the company signed a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs' counsel in the Illinois Litigation on behalf of a putative national class of all persons and entities who were charged or billed by or through America Online or its agents, assigns, contracted customer service providers, or other designees acting on behalf of or through America Online, for services and/or goods without their consent or authorization. Consistent with America Online's agreement to indemnify the company against any costs or damages that it may incur as a result of these lawsuits, all settlement payments or services under the settlement agreement will be paid or provided by America Online. On Apr. 7, 2005, the Circuit Court for St. Clair County, Illinois certified the settlement class, which includes the putative classes alleged in all of the cases discussed above, and preliminarily approved the settlement. In October 2005, the plaintiffs in the MDL Litigation agreed to join the St. Clair County, Illinois settlement, and a revised settlement agreement was signed on Oct. 21, 2005. A final approval order for the settlement was entered on Feb. 22, 2006 with all collateral proceedings concluded on Mar. 31, 2006. Deadline to appeal was May 1, 2006. In November 2005, a putative class action filed in California Superior Court, Alameda County, was settled by agreement of the parties, and the court subsequently issued a joint motion to dismiss the matter with prejudice. Consistent with America Online's agreement to indemnify the company against any costs or damages that it may incur as a result of these lawsuits, all costs and payments associated with the settlement were paid by America Online. IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Ind. ERISA Suit's Post-Trial Briefing Ends -------------------------------------------------------------- Post-trial briefing for the purported class action filed against IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. and its officers over alleged pension laws violations ended on Apr. 20, 2006. In April 2002, the company along with other defendants was named in the class action. On May 28, 2002, an amended complaint was filed in the lawsuit. The amended complaint asserts that the company and former members of the pension committee for the Indianapolis Power & Light Company thrift plan breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs under the Employees Retirement Income Security Act by investing assets of the thrift plan in the common stock of IPALCO prior to the acquisition of IPALCO by the company. In December 2002, plaintiffs moved to certify this case as a class action. The court granted the motion for class certification on Sept. 30, 2003. On Oct. 31, 2003, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on liability. On Aug. 11, 2005, the court issued an order denying the summary judgment motions, but striking one defense asserted by defendants. A trial addressing only the allegations of breach of fiduciary duty began on Feb. 21, 2006 and concluded on Feb. 28, 2006. Post-trial briefing was completed on Apr. 20, 2006. The suit is "Nelson, et al. v. Ipalco Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-00477-DFH-TAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under Judge David Frank Hamilton. Representing the plaintiffs are Steve W. Berman, John R. Price, Nicholas Styant-Browne, Andrew M. Volk of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: (206) 623-7292, Fax: (206) 623-0594, E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com, john@johnpricelaw.com, nick@hagens- berman.com, andrew@hbsslaw.com. JUNIPER NETWORKS: Considers Calif. Securities Fraud Suit Closed --------------------------------------------------------------- Juniper Networks, Inc. reports in its Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-Q filing for the quarterly period ended Mar. 31, 2006 that the consolidated securities class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is now closed, after the deadline for plaintiffs to appeal the affirmation of the dismissal of the case to the U.S. Supreme Court expired. During the quarter ended Mar. 31, 2002, a number of essentially identical shareholder class actions were filed against the company and certain of its officers and former officers purportedly on behalf of those stockholders who purchased the company's publicly traded securities between Apr. 12, 2001 and Jun. 7, 2001. In April 2002, the court granted the defendants' motion to consolidate all of these actions. In May 2002, the court appointed the lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of lead counsel and a consolidated complaint was filed in August 2002. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements, assert claims for violations of the federal securities laws and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. In September 2002, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. In March 2003, the court granted defendants motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed their amended complaint in April 2003 and the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in May 2003. In March 2004, the court granted defendants motion to dismiss, without leave to amend, and entered final judgment against plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appealed. In December 2005, after complete briefing and oral argument, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal and final judgment. The deadline for plaintiffs to appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court expired recently. The matter is now closed. The suit is "In re Juniper Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-00749,"filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Susan Illston. Plaintiff firms named in complaint: (1) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin, (San Francisco), 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA, 94111, Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534, E- mail: info@lerachlaw.com; (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, (San Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 206.749.5544, Fax: 206.749.9978, E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com; and (3) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP, Phone: 415.288.4545 and 800.449.4900, Fax: 415.288.4534, E- mail: support@milberg.com. KPMG LLP: Declares Knowledge of Payment Offer to Lead Plaintiff --------------------------------------------------------------- KPMG LLP lawyers in a class action over tax shelters filed documents in court revealing that the lead plaintiff in the suit was offered financial incentive to serve as lead plaintiff, according to The New York Times. Lawyers for KPMG -- whose $153 million proposed settlement with investors over questionable tax shelters is brokered by Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP -- disclosed what it learned in a letter to the judge. The firm said it first knew of the comments on May 23. Milberg Weiss and two of its partners were recently indicted by a federal grand jury in Los Angeles on charges that it paid kickbacks to plaintiffs. "This matter has absolutely nothing to do with the charges filed against Milberg Weiss," said Benjamin Brafman, a lawyer for Melvyn Weiss, a co-founder of Milberg Weiss. The lawyers for KPMG, Willkie Farr & Gallagher told the judge that it was not expressing a view on the ultimate outcome of the settlement, but that "in light of the Milberg Weiss indictment," it was alerting the court on what it had recently learned. Milberg Weiss filed with the court a declaration by the lead plaintiff Claude Gerald Harris. Mr. Harris is one of dozen lead plaintiffs in the proposed settlement with KPMG. Mr. Harris said that "while these statements are largely true, they are taken out of context." In its letter, Willkie Farr said that it had no details about the offer, including its size, who made it or whether it confirmed any wrongdoing. Meanwhile, U.S. District Court Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh in Newark, New Jersey said on Friday he will soon decide whether to give final approval to the $154 million settlement. He did not indicate how or exactly when his ruling will come. 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. LOUISIANA: FEMA Defends Self in Texas Housing Aid Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) said in court filings it is protected by a principle that blocks lawsuits against government agencies in a response to a class action filed against it over housing aid in Texas, KWTX.com reports. FEMA previously planned to stop paying rent for evacuated families who were issued 12-month housing vouchers by local governments. An estimated 17,000 evacuated families are affected. Subsequently, a class action was filed against FEMA seeking to stop the agency from withdrawing the housing support. The suit was filed on behalf of evacuees by Houston law firm Caddell & Chapman in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. It alleges that FEMA failed to adjust its estimation of fair-market rent or provide clear criteria for re-qualification, whose renewal expires every three months. In recent developments, FEMA has granted extensions to 11 jurisdictions in Texas that had been facing a May 31, 2006 cutoff in receiving the financial aid from the government. The suit is "Watson v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Case No. 4:06-cv-01709," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas under Judge David Hittner. Representing the plaintiffs is Michael A. Caddell of Caddell and Chapman, 1331 Lamar Ste 1070, Houston, TX 77010-3027, Phone: 713-751-0400, Fax: 713-751-0906. LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Calif. Sex Discrimination Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Lucent Technologies, Inc. is defendant in a purported racial discrimination class action filed in the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed the suit, alleging gender discrimination in connection with the provision of service credit to a class of present and former Lucent employees who were out of work because of maternity prior to 1980. The suit seeks the restoration of lost service credit prior to Apr. 29, 1979, together with retroactive pension payment adjustments, corrections of service records, back pay and recovery of other damages and attorneys fees and costs. The suit is "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Lucent Technologies, Case No. 2:04-cv-08168-RSWL-CT,"filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Ronald S.W. Lew with referral to Judge Carolyn Turchin. Representing the EEOC are Elizabeth Esparza-Cervantes, Marcia L. Mitchell, Jonathan T. Peck and William R. Tamayo of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, San Francisco District Office, 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-625-5658. Representing the company are William J. Dritsas, Sarah N. Chomiak, William J. Dritsas and Allegra R. Rich of Seyfarth Shaw, 55 East Monroe St., Suite 4200, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: 312-269-8259, 415-397-2823 and 312-269-8924. MURPHY OIL: Wants to Share La. Oil Spill Blame with Army Corps -------------------------------------------------------------- Murphy Oil Corp. indicated in court filings it hopes to introduce evidence that a third party, the Army Corps of Engineers, should be held partly responsible for a post- Hurricane Katrina oil spill that is now subject of a class action, the Dow Jones reports. The Arkansas oil company argued that the flooding could not have occurred had the New Orleans levee system held on. It wants that jurors to ultimately assign a percentage of liability to the Army Corps, even though the agency isn't a formal party to the litigation, legal experts said. Such declaration could lower Murphy's liability should it lose the case. Judge Eldon Fallon said the court cannot yet make a conclusive ruling without evidence in record, rejecting an initial effort by plaintiffs attorneys to exclude the levee argument. It is understood the Army Corps has significant legal immunity. The lawsuits stemmed from a leak at the company's site in Meraux that dumped more than 25,000 barrels of crude oil into nearby areas, including an estimated 18,000 homes, mostly in Chalmette, Lousiana. Under the class action, other people who sustained damage caused by the oil spill may benefit from any settlement or judgment against company, even if they are not listed as parties in the 27 suits that were consolidated (Class Action Reporter, Apr. 10, 2006.) The suit is "Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv- 04206-EEF-JCW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Eldon E. Fallon with referral to Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Mickey P. Landry of Landry & Swarr, LLC, 1010 Common St., Suite 2050, New Orleans, LA 70112, Phone: 504-299- 1214, E-mail: mlandry@landryswarr.com; (2) N. Madro Bandaries of Amato & Creely, 901 Derbigny St., P.O. Box 441, Gretna, LA 70054, Phone: (504) 367-8181, E-mail: madro@att.net; and (3) Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. of Law Offices of Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., 106 W. Seventh St., P.O. Drawer H. Reserve, LA 70084, Phone: 985-536-1186, E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com. Representing the defendants are, George A. Frilot, III and Patrick J. McShane of Frilot Partridge Kohnke & Clements, Phone: 337-988-5422 and (504) 599-8000, E-mail: gfrilot@fpkc.com and pmcshane@fpkc.com. NETFLIX INC: Reaches Settlement for Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Netflix Inc. entered into a settlement for the class action, "Frank Chavez v. Netflix, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-04-434884," pending in the California Superior Court for City and County of San Francisco. On Sept. 23, 2004, Frank Chavez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a class action against the company. The complaint asserts claims of, among other, false advertising, unfair and deceptive trade practices, breach of contract as well as claims relating to the company's statements regarding DVD delivery times. The company previously reported a tentative settlement. On Mar. 8, 2006, the company entered into an amended settlement, which received court approval on Apr. 28, 2006. Under the terms of the amended settlement, Netflix subscribers who were enrolled in a paid membership before Jan. 15, 2005 and were a member on Oct. 19, 2005 are eligible to receive a free one-month upgrade in service level and Netflix subscribers who were enrolled in a paid membership before Jan. 15, 2005 and were not a member on Oct. 19, 2005 are eligible to receive a free one-month Netflix membership of either the 1, 2 or 3 DVDs at-a- time unlimited program. The company also agreed to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount not to exceed $2,528. It estimates the total cost of the settlement will be approximately $8,953 with the actual cost dependent upon many unknown factors such as the number of former Netflix subscribers who will claim the settlement benefit. The suit is "Frank Chavez v. Netflix, Inc., A Foreign Corp. et al, Case No. CGC-04-434884." Representing the plaintiffs are Adam Gutride Law Offices of Adam Gutrride, 835 Douglass Street, San Francisco, CA 94114, USA, Phone: (415) 271-6469; and Seth Safire, 6467 California, San Francisco, CA 94121, USA Phone: (415) 876-4345. Representing the company is Keith Eggleton of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, USA, Phone: (650) 493-9300. Fort more details, visit http://www.netflix.com/settlementor http://netflixsettlementsucks.com/. OPPENHEIMERFUNDS: Brokers File Overtime Lawsuit in N.Y. Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Leon Greenberg in conjunction with Mark Thierman, Blumenthal & Markham and United Employees Law Group filed a class action against OppenheimerFunds, claiming the brokerage firm is in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, by classifying its brokers as exempt from overtime. The suit, Case No. 650100/06, was filed in the Supreme Court, State of New York, New York County. Securities brokers allege that their pay is based on sales commissions and that they are not guaranteed a salary, while the brokerage house claims stock brokers are salaried employees receiving a "guaranteed draw" each month. "Stock and commodity brokers commonly work more than the required 8 hours a day," says lawyer Walter Haines, "starting as early as 6 a.m. and working well after 5 p.m., not to mention weekends." "Brokerage houses have long dodged their responsibilities to pay their broker dealers for the grueling overtime hours they put in," he added. "It's time for them to pay up." Other brokerage firms such as AG Edwards, Ameritrade, Amex Securities, Bear Stearns, E-Trade, Goldman Sachs, Legg Mason, Raymond James, and T-Rowe Price may be engaging in similar behavior, a statement regarding the suit said. For more information, call: 604-608-3435, or visit: http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/contact.html. OREGON: 3 Men File Lawsuit Over Gresham Park Exclusion Ordinance ---------------------------------------------------------------- Three homeless men filed a class action in the U.S. District Court District of Oregon against the City of Gresham, alleging the city's park exclusion ordinance is unconstitutional, the Oregon.com reports. On Feb. 7, the Gresham Police Department issued 90-day exclusion notices to Jerome Andre, Lester Mayfield and David Miller for unlawful camping after having been found sleeping in an area known as "the swamp" about 120 feet from the Springwater Trail in Gresham, Ed Johnson, an attorney with the Oregon Law Center in Portland said. According to Mr. Johnson, by kicking them out of all parks and trails, the men were deprived of due process and of their First Amendment rights to free speech and expression. Because Gresham kicked the men out of the park and off the trail, the men could not attend political rallies, free picnics, car shows and other events. By denying them access to the Springwater Trail, the ordinance deprived them of easy travel between Gresham and Portland, this according to Mr. Johnson. The suit also alleges that the officers told the men that they additionally were excluded from public libraries in Gresham, which Johnson said is Multnomah County property. In addition to getting the ordinance ruled unconstitutional, the lawsuit seeks to have the exclusions removed from the men's records and asks for compensatory and punitive damages, as well as court costs and attorney fees. The suit was filed on behalf of the three and "all others similarly situated." The suit is "Andre et al. v. City of Gresham, Case No. 3:06-cv- 00737-M", filed in the U.S. District Court District of Oregon under Judge Michael W. Mosman. Representing the plaintiffs are Edward Johnson and Spencer M. Neal both of the Oregon Law Center State Support Unit, 921 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 516, Portland, Oregon 97205, Phone: (503) 473-8310 or (503)473-8325, Fax: (503) 295-0676, E-mail: edjohnsonolc@yahoo.com and spencerneal@justice.com. PIONEER COS: Faces Lawsuit Over Mercury Emission From La. Plant --------------------------------------------------------------- Pioneer Cos., Inc. is defendant in purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana over damages caused by mercury released from the company's St. Gabriel chlor-alkali facility in 2004. The suit was filed in October 2005 by 18 named plaintiffs in a Louisiana state court under the caption, "Claude Frazier, et al. v. Pioneer Americas, LLC and State of Louisiana through the Department of Environmental Quality." Plaintiffs claim that they and a proposed class of approximately 500 people who live near the St. Gabriel facility were exposed to mercury released from the facility for a two and one-half month period as a result of the 2004 mercury vapor emissions release. The plaintiffs request compensatory damages for numerous medical conditions that are alleged to have occurred or are likely to occur as a result of the alleged mercury exposure. On Nov. 18, 2005, the suit was removed to the U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Louisiana, although the plaintiffs have appealed this action. The suit is "Frazier v. Pioneer Americas, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-01338-JJB-SCR,"filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana under Judge James J. Brady with referral to Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger. Representing the plaintiffs is Joseph Charles Possa of Tyler & Possa, APLC, 3225 Broussard, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, Phone: 225-343-8313, Fax: 344- 8353, E-mail: jpossa@tylerpossa.com. Representing the defendants are: (1) Bradley Charles Myers of Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, P.O. Box 3513, Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3513, Phone: 225-387-0999, Fax: 225-388-9133, E-mail: brad.myers@keanmiller.com; and (2) William M. Hudson, III and Patrick Bayard McIntire of Oats & Hudson - Lafayette, 100 East Vermilion, Suite 400, Lafayette, LA 70501, Phone: 337-233-1100, Fax: 337-233-1178, E-mail: pmcintire@oatshudson.com. RALPH LAUREN: Former Employees Allege Calif. Labor Law Breaches --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Patrick R. Kitchin and Daniel Feder filed a class action against Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. for alleged violations of California labor and business laws. The lawsuit was filed in San Francisco Superior Court by four former Polo employees, Ann Otsuka, Janis Keefe, Corrine Phipps and Justin Kiser, who allege their former employer used fraud to entice them to take their jobs and then subjected them to a barrage of labor violations. The former employees allege Polo promised them a reasonable wage, rest breaks and humane treatment. But, according to the 47-page complaint, Polo breached all of these promises. The four plaintiffs allege Polo required them to work many hours off the clock without pay, failed to pay them overtime, failed to permit them to take rest breaks, and kept them virtual prisoners in locked stores after hours so they could be inspected for stolen merchandise by managers. According to the plaintiffs, Polo manipulated their payroll records to record fewer hours than they had actually worked and denied them premium overtime pay. The pressure to sell was intense, so Polo managers pressured employees to forgo rest breaks so they spend more time making sales of Polo's high priced fashions. The four former employees seek unpaid wages, penalties and punitive damages. They will ask the court to certify the case as a class action so they may pursue their claims on behalf of all Polo employees in California. They are also asking the court to order Polo to stop engaging in the illegal employment practices. This is not the only employment class action pending against Polo Ralph Lauren in California. In 2002, a former San Francisco Polo employee brought a class action against Polo for requiring employees to buy Polo clothes to wear as a work uniform, an alleged violation of California labor law. Plaintiffs in that case, also represented by Patrick Kitchin and Daniel Feder, have sought approval of a $1.5 million settlement with Polo that, if approved by the United States District Court in San Francisco on June 1, 2006, will result in the payment of up to $3,000 in cash and full-value gift certificates to long term Polo employees. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. is a publicly traded company, with net revenues in 2005 of $3.3 billion. Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation designs, markets and sells apparel, home, accessories and fragrances in over 270 retail stores, as well as department stores worldwide. In California, Polo operates 7 Ralph Lauren stores and 17 Factory stores, and offers Polo products in 613 Department and Specialty stores. For more information contact Patrick R. Kitchin, Law Office of Patrick R. Kitchin, Phone: 415-677-9058, On the Net: http://www.poloclassaction.com. SALOMON SMITH: Calif. Supreme Court to Discuss Phone Taping Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The California Supreme Court will deliberate on Jun. 1, 2006 on the extent of Georgia's law regarding phone call recording in a case filed by a California customer of Salomon Smith Barney Inc., Associated Press reports. The suit, which is seeking class action status, was filed after Smith Barney played back portions of customer's phone conversations with its brokers as defense in a suit over investments. Under California law, recording of telephone calls requires the consent of both parties. Investors claim the secret recording is not only an invasion of privacy, but also an unfair business practice. But the brokers conversing with the California customer was in Georgia, where it is allowed that only one party consent to the taping. A California appeals court already said in 2004 that the recordings did not constitute illegal invasion of privacy. The plaintiffs' lawyer is Edward of Markun Zusman & Compton, LLP, 465 California Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California 94104 (San Francisco Co.), Phone: 415-438-4515, Fax: 415-434- 4505O. The company's lawyer is Bill Alderman of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, The Orrick Building, 405 Howard Street, San Francisco, California 94105 (San Francisco Co.), Phone: 415-773- 5700, Fax: 415-773-5759. SCARBOROUGH HOSPITAL: Dialysis Patients File Negligence Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been commenced against The Scarborough Hospital on behalf of dialysis patients who may have been infected with Hepatitis B and C. On May 20, 2006, The Scarborough Hospital announced that there was an outbreak of Hepatitis B and C among its dialysis patients. Approximately 400 people who received dialysis at The Scarborough Hospital were notified by Toronto Public Health that they are at risk for contracting Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C. The lawsuit alleges that The Scarborough Hospital, its staff and employees were negligent because, among other things, it failed to disinfect the equipment used in the dialysis unit, and it failed to implement adequate infection control and safety measures. On May 23, 2006 Andrew Nosworthy of Scarborough, Ontario commenced a lawsuit on behalf of all dialysis patients who attended at The Scarborough Hospital for treatment. Unfortunately, Mr. Nosworthy died on May 25, 2006. The plaintiff is represented by Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C. of Sutts, Strosberg LLP, a Windsor, Ontario law firm and Glyn Hotz of Hotz Lawyers, a Toronto, Ontario law firm. Both law firms specialize in class actions. For more information, visit http://www.hepatitisclassaction.com or contact: Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C., of Sutts, Strosberg LLP, Phone: (519) 561-6296, Fax: (519) 561-6203, Website: www.strosbergco.com; or Glyn Hotz, of Hotz Lawyers, Phone: (416) 590-7823, Fax: (416) 785-7904, Website: http://www.hotzlawyers.com. SPARK NETWORKS: Trial Extended for Business Law Breach Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The date of the bifurcated trial in the class action against Spark Networks, PLC was continued to Jun. 12, 2006 and the time for filing briefs and completing discovery has been extended. On Nov. 14, 2003, Jason Adelman filed a nationwide class action complaint against the company in the Los Angeles County Superior Court based on an alleged violation of California Civil Code section 1694 et seq., which regulates businesses that provide dating services. The complaint included allegations that the company is a dating service as defined by the applicable statutes and, as an alleged dating service, the company is required to provide language in contracts that allows: -- members to rescind their contracts within three days; -- reimbursement of a portion of the contract price if the member dies during the term of the contract and/or; and -- members to cancel their contracts in the event of disability or relocation. Causes of action include breach of applicable state and/or federal laws, fraudulent and deceptive business practices, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff is seeking remedies including declaratory relief, restitution, actual damages although not quantified, treble damages and/or punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs. The case seeks to certify a nationwide class action based on their complaints. Because it is a class action, it was assigned to the Los Angeles Superior Court Complex Litigation Program. A mediation occurred in Adelman in 2004 that did not result in a settlement. A post-mediation status conference was held on Jul. 16, 2004. At that status conference, the court suggested that the parties agree to a bifurcation of the liability issue. The purpose of the bifurcation is to allow the court to determine whether as a matter of law the California Dating Services Act applies to the company. In this way, if the Court determines that the CDS Act is inapplicable, all further expenses associated with discovery and class certification can be avoided. The court has permitted limited discovery including document requests and interrogatories, the parties will each be permitted to take one deposition without further leave of the court, the parties will be allowed to designate expert witnesses, and the court will conduct a trial on the issue of the applicability of the CDS Act to the company's business in the spring of 2006. Although some written discovery relating to the bifurcated trial has been completed, depositions have not yet been completed. A second mediation occurred in Adelman on Feb. 10, 2006. The mediation resumed on Feb. 23, 2006, but did not result in a settlement. The date of the bifurcated trial has been continued to Jun. 12, 2006 and the time for filing briefs and completing discovery has been extended. STAR GAS: Awaits Conn. Court Decision in Consolidated Stock Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Star Gas Partners, L.P. is still awaiting the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut's decision to its motion to dismiss a consolidated amended securities class action filed against it. The suit also names as defendants certain of the company's subsidiaries and officers and directors. Initially several lawsuits were filed, each styled: -- "Carter v. Star Gas Partners, L.P., et al, No 3:04-cv- 01766-IBA, et al.," -- "Feit v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1832," (filed on 10/29/2004), -- "Lila Gold v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04- 1791,"(filed on 10/22/2004), -- "Jagerman v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04- 1855,"(filed on 11/3/2004), -- "McCole, et al. v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1859,"(filed on 11/3/2004), -- "Prokop v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1785," (filed on 10/22/2004), -- "Seigle v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1803," (filed on 10/25/3004), -- "Strunk v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1815," (filed on 10/27/2004), -- "Harriette S. & Charles L. Tabas Foundation v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1857,"(filed on 11/3/2004), -- "Weiss v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1807," (filed on 10/26/2004), -- "White v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1837," (filed on 10/9/2004), -- "Wood v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1856," (filed on 11/3/2004), -- "Yopp v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1865," (filed on 11/3/2004), -- "Kiser v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1884," (filed on 11/9/2004), -- "Lederman v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04- 1873,"(filed on 11/5/2004), -- "Dinkes v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No.04-1979," (filed 11/22/04), -- "Gould v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-2133," (filed on 12/17/2004) The action plaintiffs generally allege that the Partnership violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by purportedly failing to disclose, among other things: -- problems with the restructuring of the company's dispatch system and customer attrition related thereto; -- that the company's heating oil division's business process improvement program was not generating the benefits allegedly claimed; -- that Star Gas was struggling to maintain its profit margins in its heating oil division; -- that Star Gas' second quarter 2004 profit margins were not representative of its ability to pass on heating oil price increases; and -- that Star Gas was facing an inability to pay its debts and that, as a result, its credit rating and ability to obtain future financing was in jeopardy. The class action plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages including interest against the defendants jointly and severally and an award of reasonable costs and expenses. On Feb. 23, 2005, the court consolidated the class action complaints and heard argument on motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff. On Apr. 8, 2005, the court appointed the lead plaintiff. Pursuant to the court's order, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on Jun. 20, 2005. The consolidated amended complaint named as defendant: -- Star Gas Partners, L.P.; -- Star Gas LLC; -- Irik Sevin; -- Audrey L. Sevin; -- Hanseatic Americas, Inc.; -- Paul Biddelman; -- Ami Trauber; -- A.G. Edwards & Sons Inc.; -- UBS Investment Bank; and -- RBC Dain Rauscher Inc. The consolidated amended complaint added claims arising out of two registration statements, the same transactions under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The defendants had until Aug. 19, 2005 to file an answer. On Sept. 23, 2005, defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the federal securities laws and failure to satisfy the applicable pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs filed their response to defendants' motions to dismiss on or about Nov. 23, 2005 and defendants filed their reply briefs on Dec. 20, 2005. The motion is now pending decision by the court. In the interim, discovery in the matter remains stayed pursuant to the mandatory stay provisions of the PSLRA. The suit is "In re Star Gas Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-01766-JBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Janet Bond Arterton. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Jonathan F. Andres of Green Schaaf & Jacobson, P.C., 7733 Forsyth, Suite 700, St. Louis, MO 63105, Phone: 314-862-6800, Fax: 314-862-1606, E-mail: andres@stlouislaw.com; (2) David L. Belt of Jacobs, Grudberg, Belt, Dow & Katz, P.C., 350 Orange St., P.O. Box 606, New Haven, CT 06503-0606, Phone: 203-772-3100, Fax: 203-772-1691, E- mail: dbelt@jacobslaw.com; (3) Stuart L. Berman of Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail: sberman@sbclasslaw.com; and (4) Joel H. Bernstein of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, 100 Park Ave., 12th Fl., New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-907-0869, Fax: 212-818-0477, E-mail: jbernstein@labaton.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Terence J. Gallagher, III of Day, Berry & Howard, One Canterbury Green, Stamford, CT 06901-2047, Phone: 203- 977-7300, Fax: 203-977-7301, E-mail: tjgallagher@dbh.com; and (ii) Elizabeth K. Andrews of Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn - NH, 205 Church St., P.O. Box 1936, New Haven, CT 06509- 1910, Phone: 203-784-8200, Fax: 203-777-1181, E-mail: eandrews@tylercooper.com. TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Calif. Stock Suit Deal Gets Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action against Tripath Technology, Inc. Beginning on Nov. 4, 2004, plaintiffs filed four separate complaints purporting to be class actions alleging that the company and certain of the company's present or former officers and/or directors, Dr. Adya S. Tripathi, David Eichler and Graham Wright, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs purported to represent a putative class of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Tripath securities between Jan. 29, 2004 and Oct. 22, 2004. The complaints contain varying allegations, including that the company and the individual defendants made materially false and misleading statements with respect to financial results and with respect to the company's business, prospects and operations in the company's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, press releases and other disclosures. It seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, costs and such other relief as may be awarded by the Court. On Dec. 22, 2004, the court entered a stipulation and order consolidating all of these complaints and ordering that the defendants need not respond to any of these complaints until after plaintiffs file a consolidated complaint. On Jan. 4, 2005, plaintiffs filed motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff. The court, by order dated Jan. 28, 2005, appointed Robert Poteet as the sole lead plaintiff and approved Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP as lead counsel. On Jul. 11, 2005, the company entered into a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, which was filed with the court on Jul. 12, 2005. The settlement class consists of all persons who purchased the securities of the company between Jan. 29, 2004 and Jun. 13, 2005, inclusive. Under the terms of the stipulation, the parties agreed that the issuance of 2.45 million shares of Tripath common stock, which shall be exempt from registration pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act, and a payment of $200,000 in cash would dismiss the class action. The stipulation remains subject to the satisfaction of various conditions, including without limitation final approval of the Stipulation by the court, including a finding that the 2.45 million shares of Tripath common stock to be issued are exempt from registration. On Oct. 20, 2005, the court entered a Preliminary Order for Notice and Hearing in Connection with Settlement Proceedings. Following an Apr. 11, 2006 hearing, the court entered an order and final judgment on Apr. 18, 2006, which finally approved the settlement, awarded attorneys' fees and authorized the reimbursement of expenses and entered judgment dismissing all of the complaints on the merits and with prejudice in favor of the defendants. Approximately $1.8 million has been accrued for this matter. The suit is "In re: Tripath Technology Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. C 04 4681 SBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong. Representing the plaintiffs is Robert S. Green, Green Welling LLP, 595 Market Street, Suite 2750, San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415/477-6700, Fax: 415-477- 6710, Email: RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM. Representing the defendant is Gilbert R. Serota, Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk, Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor, San Franciso, CA 94111-4065, Phone: 415-434-1600, Fax: 415-217-5910, E-mail: gserota@hrice.com. VALERO ENERGY: Seeks New Trial for Blue Island Refinery Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Valero Energy Corp. filed motions for a new trial, remittitur and judgment notwithstanding the Nov. 21, 2005 verdict in the ten-year-old class action, "Rosolowski v. Clark Refining Marketing, Inc., et al., Case No. 95-L 014703,"which was filed in the Judicial Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois. The company assumed this class action in the Premcor Inc. Acquisition. On Sept. 1, 2005, the company completed its merger with Premcor. The suit, filed Oct. 11, 1995, relates in part to a release to the atmosphere of spent catalyst containing low levels of heavy metals from the now-closed Blue Island, Illinois refinery on Oct. 7, 1994. The release resulted in the temporary evacuation of certain areas near the refinery. The case was certified as a class action in 2000 with three classes: -- persons purportedly affected by the Oct. 7, 1994 catalyst release, but with no permanent health effects; -- persons with medical expenses for dependents purportedly affected by the Oct. 7, 1994 release; and -- local residents claiming property damage or who have suffered loss of use and enjoyment of their property over a period of several years. Following three weeks of trial, on Nov. 21, 2005, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs of $80.1 million in compensatory damages and $40 million in punitive damages. In January 2006, the company filed motions for new trial, remittitur and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, citing, among other things, rampant misconduct by plaintiffs' counsel and improper class certification. VERISIGN INC: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- Sacramento law firm Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff is the lead counsel in a class action that accuses VeriSign Inc. of false and misleading advertisement of its Internet-security software. The suit was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court in February 2005 by Southeast Texas Medical Associates, LLP. It alleges that VeriSign sells two versions of its software at different prices when there is no practical difference between them. It alleges unfair competition and seeks restitution for the people or businesses that have purchased the software since January 2001. The softwares are Secure Sit Pro, which sells for $895, and Secure Site, which sells for just $349. The lawsuit is potentially worth more than $200 million, according to MSNBC. Kevin Murphy, a California Superior Court judge, recently allowed the suit to go ahead, saying the plaintiffs' allegations that the firm engaged in false and misleading advertising about Secure Site Pro merit legal proceedings (Class Action Reporter, May 23, 2006). Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff on the Net: http://www.kcrlegal.com/. VERIZON MARYLAND: Court Okays $26M Settlement in Late Fees Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- About 2 million Verizon Maryland Inc. customers will receive an average credit of $7 million on their local telephone bills under a final settlement of a class action over late fees, the Baltimore Sun.com reports. A circuit court granted final approval to a $26 million settlement in March, ending a suit filed against the former Bell Atlantic-Maryland in 1999. Under the settlement, consumers will receive $16.8 million, class action attorneys will get $6.1 million, while lawyers for the dissenting class action group will receive $3.1 million. The suit alleged the phone company's late fees exceeded the state's legal limit of 6 percent a year then. The settlement provides for Verizon Maryland to grant phone credit because it could not provide a breakdown of customers who paid late fees during the period covered by the suit, according to Kieron F. Quinn, who represents 10 plaintiffs opposed to the settlement. Eligible claimants include former and current customers who paid late fees between 1996 and 2000. Former customers who submitted a claim will also receive a payment, according to the report. The company is entitled to keep any unclaimed settlement by customers. Verizon continues to deny wrongdoing. VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Sued in Del. Over "Class C" Stock Plan -------------------------------------------------------------- Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. faces a purported class action in the Delaware Court of Chancery over its plan to create a new "Class C" common stock. On Apr. 11, 2006, a class action complaint was filed against the company and the members of its board of directors. The plaintiff asked the court to enjoin the annual meeting, to invalidate the authorization of the "Class C" common stock and the charter amendment, and to enjoin any issuance of "Class C" shares. The court declined to hold a hearing on the plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction. Instead, the court will hold a trial on the plaintiff's claims in June 2006, after the annual meeting is held. The company agreed not to implement the authorization of the "Class C" stock or the charter amendment, if approved, prior to the court's decision. On May 1, 2006, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which repeats most of the same claims. Each share of "Class C" common stock would generally have terms identical to a share of company's currently traded common stock (which would be renamed Class A common stock), except with respect to voting power. Each share of Class C common stock would have voting power equal to one-tenth of a vote when voting together with other classes of stock on matters presented to shareholders. The creation and issuance of "Class C" common stock requires amendment to the company's Certificate of Incorporation. The company is seeking authorization of the "Class C" common stock and does not have any current plans to issue the shares of "Class C" stock. Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- 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 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 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 30, 2006 INFLUENCING DAMAGE AWARDS Bridgeport CE Westin Bonaventure Hotel, LA Contact: 818-783-7156 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 ------------------------ June 1-30, 2006 HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com June 1-30, 2006 CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com June 1-30, 2006 HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com June 1-30, 2006 IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS: CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY? CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com June 1-30, 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 June 1-30, 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 June 1-30, 2006 CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.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 AMERICAN INT'L: Schiffrin & Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all those who purchased WM mutual funds from the AIG Advisor Group (Parent company is defendant American International Group, Inc. (NYSE: AIG)) from Jun. 30, 2000 through Jun. 8, 2005, inclusive. During the Class period, the AIG Advisor Group consisted of the following broker-dealers: Royal Alliance, Inc., SunAmerica Securities, Inc., FSC Securities Corp., Sentra Securities Corp., Spelman & Co., Inc., and Advantage Capital Corp. On Jun. 8, 2005, the NASD announced that it had fined AIG in connection with the receipt of directed brokerage in exchange for preferential treatment for certain mutual fund companies and certain mutual fund families (the Shelf-Space Funds). The Shelf-Space Funds included the following mutual fund families: AIG SunAmerica, AIM, AllianceBernstein, American Funds, American Skandia, Columbia, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, Hartford, John Hancock, MFS, NationsFunds, Pacific Life, Pioneer, Putnam, Oppenheimer, Scudder, Van Kampen, and WM Funds Distributor, Inc. The Complaint charges AIG and certain of its affiliated entities with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants, in clear contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had been aggressively pushing sales personnel to sell the Shelf-Space Funds that provided financial incentives and rewards to AIG and its personnel based on sales. Instead of offering fair, honest and unbiased recommendations to investors, the AIG Financial Advisors gave pre-determined recommendations, pushing clients into a pre-selected limited number of mutual funds so that the Financial Advisors could reap millions of dollars in kickbacks from the Shelf-Space Funds, with which they had struck secret, highly lucrative deals to profit at shareholders' expense. The defendants' sales practices created a material insurmountable conflict of interest between the defendants and their clients by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds, sales of which increased the defendants' overall profits, but diminished investors' returns in the process. While Shelf-Space Funds were aggressively sold to investors, the defendants failed to disclose any of these financial incentives for selling such funds. The conflict of interest created by the defendants' failure to disclose the incentives is a clear violation of federal securities laws. Interested parties may, no later than Jun. 6, 2006, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class. For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Phone: 1-888-299- 7706 or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site: http://www.sbclasslaw.com. ESCALA GROUP: Murray, Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all who purchased shares of Escala Group, Inc. (ESCL) between Sept. 5, 2003 and May 10, 2006, inclusive. The Complaint alleges violations of both the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: -- that the company's business model was based on a fraud; -- specifically, that Afinsa Bienes Tangibles, S.A. (Afinsa), Escala's majority shareholder, was overvaluing its stamp inventory in order to attract investors and paying its investors with money from newly arrived investors rather than generated revenue; -- that Afinsa's revenue was generated through fraudulent activities; -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls; and -- that, as a result of the above, the company's financial statements were materially false and misleading. On May 9, 2006, while the market was open, Escala announced that Spanish judicial authorities, as part of what appeared to be an investigation into the company's stamps-collectibles sector, collected documents from Afinsa, Escala's majority shareholder. In what the company believed was an extension of this process, Spanish authorities also collected documents at Escala offices in Madrid, during which time normal operations at these locations were suspended. The company also reported that it had been advised that certain members of the board of directors of Afinsa, including Carlos de Figueiredo, an Afinsa representative on Escala's board, were being questioned. Also on May 9, 2006, before the market closed, Spanish police announced that they had arrested nine people in an anti-fraud swoop. Spanish police stated that the people under investigation were suspected of pocketing a "substantial" amount of the money that investors put into guaranteed-return funds run by Forum Filatelico and Afinsa. On this news, shares of Escala plummeted $19.77, or 61.78 percent, to close, on May 9, 2006, at $12.23 per share, on heavy trading volume. Shares of Escala sank an additional $5.68, or 46.44 percent, the next day, to close, on May 10, 2006, at $6.55 per share, on heavy trading volume. On May 11, 2006, Spanish authorities charged 11 people for their involvement in the pyramid scheme, including 5 Afinsa executives. On this news, shares of Escala dropped $2.21, or 33.74 percent, to close, on May 11, 2006, at $4.34 per share, on heavy trading volume. Interested parties may no later than Jul. 10, 2006, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff. For more details, contact Bradley P. Dyer of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, Phone: (800) 497-8076 and (212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail: info@murrayfrank.com, Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com/CM/NewCases/NewCases.asp. XM SATELLITE: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C. --------------------------------------------------------------- Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP commenced a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or acquired securities of XM Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc. (XMSR) between Jan. 28, 2005 and Feb. 15, 2006 inclusive. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class period thereby artificially inflating the price of XM Radio securities. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class period, defendants recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose to the public that XM Radio's huge expenditures in the fourth quarter of 2005, defendants failed to disclose to the market that XM Radio's cost of subscriber acquisition would rise to extraordinary levels, leading to huge increases in XM's net losses, which was in complete reversal of the trends of declining subscriber acquisition costs and net losses defendants were reporting throughout the Class period. On Feb. 16, 2006, XM Radio announced the company's fourth quarter 2005 and year-end 2005 results, which disclosed the truth about the skyrocketing level of XM Radio's subscriber acquisition costs in the fourth quarter of 2005. The market reacted negatively to this news and on Feb. 17, 2006, XM Radio's shares fell 13 percent to close at $21.96. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired XM Radio securities during the Class period. If you purchased or otherwise acquired XM Radio securities during the Class period, and either lost money on the transaction or still hold the securities, you may wish to join in the action to serve as lead plaintiff. Interested parties may no later than Jul. 3, 2006, request the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff. For more details, Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. or Susan Lee of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, 212 East, 39th Street, New York, New York 10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700 and (800) 889-3701 or E-mail: slee@abbeyspanier.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 * * *