/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060615.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, June 15, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 118
Headlines
ACTIVISION INC: Plaintiffs Drop Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ALLOY INC: Court Mulls Final Approval for IPO Suit Settlement
BIOPURE CORP: Continues to Face Consolidated Stock Suit in Mass.
BROADVISION INC: Plaintiffs Dismiss Calif. Shareholder Lawsuit
CANADA: Suit Filed Over Nuisance Caused by Caledonia Land Row
CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE: Ohio Employees File Wage-and-Hour Lawsuit
CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE: Enters Settlement in Uninsured Pricing Suit
CARREKER CORP: Tex. Stock Suit Settlement Gets Initial Approval
COOPER COS: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
COPART INC: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit in Ga. Over Storage Liens
DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Pa.
ETON CORP: Recalls Radios on Risk of Batteries Overheating
EXTREME ENGINEERING: Recalls 400 Wall Climbing Cable Assemblies
FEDEX CORP: Federal Judge Upholds ERISA Claim for All Drivers
FORD MOTOR: Seeks Transfer of Ohio Suit Over Workers Incentive
GENERAL MOTORS: Facing Lawsuit Over Defective Gasket in Canada
LG SOURCING: Recalls Foldable Hammock Stand After Injury Reports
LOUISIANA: City Housing Aid for Katrina Victims Ends Next Month
MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Md. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Deal
NORTH CAROLINA: Durham County Told to Return School Impact Fees
OHIO: Hamilton County Settles Body Organs Disposal Suit for $6M
PHONE COMPANIES: Early-Cancellation-Fee Suit Gets Class Status
POLYMEDICA CORP: April 2007 Trial Scheduled for Mass. Stock Suit
PORTAL SOFTWARE: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Deal
SOURCECORP INC: Settles Del. Suit Over Merger with Apollo Units
SUNTRIPS: Travel Agents File Chapter 7 Motion in Calif. Court
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: N.Y. Court Mulls Consolidation of Suits
TRANSACTION SYSTEMS: Discovery Starts in Nebr. Securities Suit
TRAVEL COMPANIES: Indiana Firms Accused of Cutting Tax Remits
VERITAS SOFTWARE: Del. Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Suit
New Securities Fraud Cases
DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Chimicles Tikellis Issues Update on Suit
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set July
XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Federman Sherwood Files Stock Suit in Mass.
*********
ACTIVISION INC: Plaintiffs Drop Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs dismissed the consolidated securities class action
filed against Activision, Inc. and certain of its current and
former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, according to the company's 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended March 31, 2006.
On March 5, 2004, a class action was filed against the company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors.
The complaint, which asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegations that the company's revenues and assets were
overstated during the period between Feb. 1, 2001 and Dec. 17,
2002, was filed by the Construction Industry, and Carpenters
Joint Pension Trust for Southern Nevada purporting to represent
a class of purchasers of Activision stock.
Gianni Angeloni, Christopher Hinton, Stephen Anish, the Alaska
Electrical Pension Fund, and Joseph A. Romans asserting the same
claims subsequently filed five additional purported class
actions.
Consistent with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
(PSLRA), the court appointed lead plaintiffs consolidating the
six putative securities class actions into a single case.
In an Order dated May 16, 2005, the court dismissed the
consolidated complaint because the plaintiffs failed to satisfy
the heightened pleading standards of the PSLRA.
The court did, however, give the lead plaintiffs leave to file
an amended consolidated complaint within 30 days of the order.
Rather than file a new complaint, the plaintiff agreed to
dismiss the entire case with prejudice. The order dismissing
the action with prejudice was entered on June 17, 2005.
The consolidated suit is "In Re Activision, Inc Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:04-cv-01501-PA-E," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge Percy Anderson, referred to Magistrate Judge Charles F.
Eick.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Darren J. Robbins of Lerach Coughlin Stein and Robbins,
Mail: 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101-4297
Phone: 619-231-1058 E-mail: Denisey@lcsr.com;
(2) Jason Robert Llorens, Jonathan Behar and William S.
Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia and Robbins, Mail: 355
South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170 Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-617-9007;
(3) Daniel E. Bacine, David E. Robinson, Leonard Barrack of
Barrack Rodos and Bacine, Mail: 3300 Two Commerce
Square, 2001 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-963-0600;
(4) John L. Haeussler, Marisa Livesay, Samuel L. Ward,
Stephen R. Basser of Barrack Rodos and Racine, Mail:
402 West Broadway, Suite 850 San Diego, CA 92101,
Phone: 619-230-0800;
(5) Christopher Kim and Lisa Yang of Lim Ruger & Kim, Mail:
1055 W 7TH St, Ste 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone:
213-955-9500, Email: Ckim@lrklawyers.com;
(6) Marc A. Topaz and Richard A. Maniskas of Schiffrin and
Barroway, Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400 Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-
7056;
(7) Aaron L. Brody and Jules Brody of Stull Stull and Brody
Mail: 6 East 45TH Street New York, NY 10017, Phone:
212-687-7230;
(8) Joseph H. Weiss of Weiss and Yourman, Mail: 551 Fifth
Avenue, New York, NY 10176, Phone: 212-682-3025, Fax:
212-682-3010; and
(9) Michael D. Braun of Stull Stull and Brody, Mail: 10940
Wilshire Blvd, Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA 90024,
Phone: 310-209-2468 Email: Service@secfraud.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Harriet S. Posner and Robert F. Lemoine, Mail: Skadden
Arps Slate Meagher and Flom, 300 South Grand Avenue Los
Angeles, CA 90071-3144, Phone: 213-687-5000 Fax: 213-
687-5600 E-mail: lacefax@skadden.com
(ii) James E. Lyons of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 3800 San Francisco, CA
94111, Phone: 415-984-6400 Fax: 415-984-2698
ALLOY INC: Court Mulls Final Approval for IPO Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action
against Alloy, Inc.
On or about Nov. 5, 2001, a putative class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York naming as defendants the company, specified company
officers and investment banks, including James K. Johnson, Jr.,
Matthew C. Diamond, BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Volpe Brown
Whelan and Company, Dain Rauscher Wessel and Landenburg Thalmann
& Co., Inc.
The complaint purportedly was filed on behalf of persons
purchasing the company's stock between May 14, 1999 and Dec. 6,
2000, and alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
On or about April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint against Alloy, the individual defendants and the
underwriters of the company's initial public offering.
The amended complaint asserted violations of Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and mirrored allegations asserted against
scores of other issuers sued by the plaintiffs' counsel.
Pursuant to an omnibus agreement negotiated with representatives
of the plaintiffs' counsel, Messrs. Diamond and Johnson were
dismissed from the litigation without prejudice.
In accordance with the court's case management instructions, the
company joined in a global motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which was filed by the issuers' liaison counsel.
By opinion and order dated Feb. 19, 2003, the District Court
denied in part and granted in part the global motion to dismiss.
With respect to the company, the court dismissed the Section
10(b) claim and let the plaintiffs proceed on the Section 11
claim.
The company participated in court-ordered mediation with the
other issuer defendants, the issuers' insurers and plaintiffs to
explore whether a global resolution of the claims against the
issuers could be reached.
In June 2004, as a result of the mediation, a settlement
agreement was executed on behalf of the issuers, including
Alloy, insurers and plaintiffs and submitted to the court.
Any definitive settlement, however, will require final approval
by the court after notice to all class members and a fairness
hearing. The fairness hearing was held on April 24, 2006.
For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.
BIOPURE CORP: Continues to Face Consolidated Stock Suit in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Biopure Corp. is defendant in a consolidated securities class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.
Following the announcement in December 2003 that Biopure was
being investigated by the U.S Securities and Exchange
Commission, the company, two directors (one a former director),
its former chief executive officer, former chief technology
officer and former chief financial officer were named as
defendants in a number of similar, purported class action
complaints, filed between Dec. 30, 2003 and Jan. 28, 2004 by
alleged purchasers of the company's common stock.
Those complaints have since been consolidated in a single
action, under the caption, "Biopure Corporation Securities
Litigation."
The consolidated complaint claims that the company violated the
federal securities laws based on the same allegations pursued by
the SEC. It does not specify the amount of alleged damages
plaintiffs seek to recover.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the suit so as to include
allegations made by the SEC; the motion was granted and the
company's motion to dismiss was denied. This most recent
complaint sets forth a class period of April 9, 2003 through
Dec. 24, 2003.
The suit is "In Re Biopure Corporation Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:03-cv-12628-NG," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts under Judge Nancy Gertner.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY
10017, Phone: 212-687-7230;
(2) Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, 53 State Street, Boston, MA
02108, Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail:
ted@shulaw.com; and
(3) Gilman and Pastor, LLP, Suite 500, Stonehill Corporate
Center, 999 Broadway, Saugus, MA 01906, Phone: 781-231-
7850, Fax: 781-231-7840 (fax) E-mail:
palagorio@gilmanpastor.com or dpastor@gilmanpastor.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Bingham McCutchen LLP, 150 Federal Street, Boston, MA
02110, Phone: 617-951-8717, Fax: 617-951-8736, E-mail:
robert.buhlman@bingham.com, eunice.lee@bingham.com and
raquel.webster@bingham.com; and
(ii) Mary P. Cormier of Edwards & Angell, LLP, 101 Federal
St., Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-951-2225, Fax: 617-
439-4170, E-mail: mcormier@edwardsangell.com.
BROADVISION INC: Plaintiffs Dismiss Calif. Shareholder Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated shareholder class action pending
in California Superior Court for the County of San Mateo against
BroadVision, Inc. have dismissed their case without prejudice.
On July 28, 2005, company representatives received copies of
four complaints relating to purported class actions, each filed
by an alleged holder of shares of BroadVision common stock and
filed in California Superior Court for the County of San Mateo.
The suits are:
-- "Gary Goberville, et al., vs. Pehong Chen, et al., Civ
448490";
-- "Cookie Schwartz, et al., vs. BroadVision, Inc., et
al., Civ 448516";
-- "Leon Kotovich, et al., vs. BroadVision, Inc., et al.,
Civ 448518"; and
-- "Anthony Noblett, et al., vs. BroadVision, Inc., et
al., Civ 448519."
Each claim named the company and its directors as defendants,
and each alleged that the director defendants violated their
fiduciary duties to stockholders by, among other things, failing
to maximize the company's value and ignoring, or failing to
adequately protect against, certain purported conflicts of
interest.
All sought, among other things, injunctive relief and damages in
an unspecified amount.
On Sept. 21, plaintiff Goberville filed an amended complaint
alleging that defendants caused materially misleading
information regarding a proposed merger to be disseminated to
the company's stockholders.
On Oct. 20, 2005, the court ordered consolidation of the four
pending actions pursuant to the parties' stipulation. In light
of the termination of the merger agreement with an affiliate of
Vector Capital Corp. in November 2005, the plaintiffs in the
four above entitled actions agreed to dismiss, without
prejudice, their complaints against on Dec. 9, 2005.
CANADA: Suit Filed Over Nuisance Caused by Caledonia Land Row
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two unnamed businesses in Caledonia have filed a class action
complaining of financial loss arising from road closure as a
result of the occupation by natives of the Douglas Creek Estates
construction site, the Hamilton Spectator reports.
The suit was filed on June 12 against the Corporation of
Haldimand County, the Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner
Gwen Boniface and the Cayuga Detachment Commander of the OPP.
Meanwhile, the Government of Ontario has been put on notice as
additional defendant.
The suit is based on the failure of the parties to keep roads
open and follow court injunctions issued in March to remove the
protesters from Douglas Creek Estates, said John Findlay, the
Hamilton lawyer representing the group.
The natives have been occupying the area since Feb. 28, claiming
the subdivision is being built on land that belongs to them
under a historical treaty.
Mr. Findlay's address is 66 James St. N. Hamilton, Ontario
(Regional Munic. of Hamilton).
CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE: Ohio Employees File Wage-and-Hour Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nurses and other hourly employees in 10 Ohio hospitals filed a
suit on June 12 against Catholic Healthcare Partners over
alleged unpaid wages and overtime, the San Antonio Business
Journal reports.
The suit before Lorain County Common Pleas Court seeks class-
action status for current and past employees of 10 Catholic
Healthcare Partners hospitals in the Cincinnati area, Lima,
Lorain, Springfield and Toledo.
It alleges that hospital employees were often required to work
during all or part of their half-hour lunch breaks without pay.
It also claims the workers were routinely underpaid for overtime
work. The practice affects more than 15,000 employees of CHP
statewide, including registered nurses in Lorain who are members
of the health care union SEIU District 1199, as well as
unorganized CHP employees in other parts of the state.
Cincinnati-based CHP is the largest hospital system in Ohio with
19 hospitals, including Mercy Health Partners. Mercy Health has
6,850 employees and includes hospitals in Mount Airy, Anderson
Township, Clermont County, Fairfield and Western Hills.
Representing the plaintiffs is Melvin Schwarzwald of Schwarzwald
& McNair LLP, 616 Penton Media Bldg., 1300 East Ninth Street
Cleveland, OH 44114.
CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE: Enters Settlement in Uninsured Pricing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Counsel for plaintiffs in the case, "Dancer v. Catholic
Healthcare West" said that parties have settled a class action
filed against Catholic Healthcare West regarding pricing and
collection practices for uninsured patients at its affiliate
hospitals.
The settlement, which will be considered for preliminary
approval before San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard A.
Kramer on July 12, 2006, resolves the plaintiffs' and class
members' claims against CHW and its affiliated hospitals.
As part of the settlement, class members will be entitled to
make a claim for refunds or deductions from their prior hospital
bills pursuant to discounted pricing and collections policies
benefiting uninsured patients during the class period. In
addition, CHW has agreed to maintain its uninsured pricing and
collections policies going forward for at least four years,
among other things.
The lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Adrienne Dancer and Amber T.
Howell on behalf of themselves and hundreds of thousands of
uninsured patients at CHW hospitals in California, Nevada and
Arizona, alleging that Defendant CHW charged uninsured patients
excessive and unfair prices for medical treatment and services
given at CHW-affiliated hospitals, and engaged in aggressive and
unfair collections practices. Defendant denies wrongdoing and
liability in the case.
The proposed class includes all persons who:
-- received hospital services from a Catholic Healthcare
West hospital between July 1, 2001 and the date of
preliminary settlement approval;
-- were uninsured at the time of treatment; and
-- earned less than $250,000 in gross annual household
income in the calendar year in which they received
hospital services.
"The settlement implements the goals of the lawsuit: a fair
system of pricing for CHW's uninsured patients during the class
period, along with the careful maintenance of policies and
practices designed to help ensure that this vulnerable
population is treated fairly going forward. We hope that it
serves as a model for other hospital systems to follow," said
plaintiffs' attorney Kelly M. Dermody, of Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein, LLP, in San Francisco, California.
Plaintiffs' attorney Sid Backstrom of the Scruggs Law Firm said,
"I can't say enough about the open-minded, forward thinking
approach taken by CHW in this litigation. Upon notifying them
of our claim, they immediately initiated a process to make sure
that their practices in regard to treatment of the uninsured
were on the leading edge in their industry. They should be
applauded for doing the right thing instead of wasting resources
litigating these cases."
"I am very happy that CHW is doing the right thing by its
uninsured patients," said lead plaintiff Adrienne Dancer.
Dancer added, "I hope that uninsured patients will complete
settlement claim forms because they could get refunds or debt
reduction up to 100%."
Counsel for named plaintiffs and class members are Kelly M.
Dermody of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Sid
Backstrom of the Scruggs Law Firm. More information about the
settlement can be found at http://www.lieffcabraser.com/chw.htm.
For more information, contact Kelly M. Dermody of Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Phone: 415-956-1000, Fax: 415-956-
1008; or Sidney A. Backstrom or Zach Scruggs of Scruggs Law
Firm, Phone: 662-281-1212, Fax: 662-281-1312.
CARREKER CORP: Tex. Stock Suit Settlement Gets Initial Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas gave
preliminary approval to the proposed settlement in the
consolidated securities class action against Carreker Corp.
On April 16, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas issued an order consolidating a number of
purported class actions as, "In re Carreker Corporation
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 303CV0250-M."
On Oct. 14, 2003 the plaintiffs filed their consolidated class
action complaint. The complaint was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the company's common stock between May 20, 1998
and Dec. 10, 2002, inclusive.
It alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants the
company, John D. Carreker Jr., Ronald Antinori, Terry L. Gage
and Ernst & Young, the company's auditors; violations of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants; and
violation of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act against
defendants John D. Carreker, Jr. and Ronald Antinori.
The complaint also alleges, among other things, that defendants
artificially inflated the value of Carreker stock by knowingly
or recklessly misrepresenting the Company's financial results
during the purported class period.
On March 22, 2005 the court dismissed the action without
prejudice and allowed the plaintiffs 60 days in which to file an
amended complaint. Also the court dismissed, with prejudice,
all claims by shareholders relating to periods prior to July 31,
1999.
On May 31, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock between July 30, 1999 and Dec. 10, 2002, inclusive,
which reiterates the allegations in the first complaint.
It alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants --
the company, John D. Carreker Jr., Ronald Antinori and Terry L.
Gage, except Ernst & Young LLP -- violations of Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act against the individual defendants; and
violations of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act against
defendants John D. Carreker, Jr. and Ronald Antinori.
Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified amounts of compensatory
damages, interest and costs, including legal fees.
On April 21, 2006, counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants
executed and submitted to the court a stipulation of settlement
whereby they have agreed to settle the class action litigation
for a payment of $5,250,000.
The District Court on May 5, 2006, preliminarily approved the
proposed settlement, but it remains subject to final court
approval.
The suit is "In re Carreker Corporation Securities Litigation,
Case No. 3:03-cv-00250," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division under Judge Jane
J. Boyle.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Mary L O'Connor, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld -
Dallas, 1700 Pacific Ave, Suite 4100 Dallas, TX 75201-
4618, Phone: 214/969-2800, Fax: 214/969-4343, E-mail:
moconnor@akingump.com;
(2) Barry C. Barnett, Susman Godfrey - Dallas, 901 Main St
Suite 4100 Dallas, TX 75202-3775, Phone: 214/754-1900,
Fax: 214/754-1933, E-mail: bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com;
(3) Kenneth S. Marks, Susman Godfrey - Houston, 1000
Louisiana St, Suite 5100, Houston, TX 77002-5096,
Phone: 713/651-9366, E-mail: kmarks@susmangodfrey.com;
(4) Fred T. Isquith, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz,
270 Madison Ave, Ninth Floor, New York, NY 10016,
Phone: 212/545-4600, E-mail: isquith@whafh.com
(5) Jeffrey W. Chambers, Ware Snow Fogel & Jackson, America
Tower, 2929 Allen Parkway, 42nd Floor, Houston, TX
77019, Phone: 713/659-6400, Fax: 713/659-6262,
(6) Thomas E Bilek, Hoeffner & Bilek, 1000 Louisiana St,
Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713/227-7720,
Fax: 713/227-9404, E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com
Representing the company is Roger F. Claxton of Claxton & Hill,
3131 McKinney Ave., Suite 700 LB 103, Dallas, TX 75204-2471,
Phone: 214/969-9029, Fax: 214/953-0583, E-mail:
claxtonhill@airmail.net.
COOPER COS: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Cooper Companies, Inc. is defendant in a consolidated
securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.
On Feb. 15, 2006, a putative securities class action, "Levine v.
The Cooper Cos., Inc., et al., Case No. SACV-06-169 CJC," was
filed against the company, A. Thomas Bender, its chairman of the
board, president and chief executive officer and a director;
Robert S. Weiss, its executive vice president, chief operating
officer and a director; and John D. Fruth, a director.
The complaint was filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's
securities between July 29, 2004 and Nov. 21, 2005, including
persons who received Company securities in exchange for their
shares of Ocular Sciences, Inc. in the January 2005 merger
pursuant to which the company acquired Ocular.
The complaint purports to allege violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by, among
other things, contending that:
-- the company improperly accounted for assets acquired in
the Ocular merger by misclassifying intangible assets
as tangible ones;
-- the company's earnings guidance reflected the improper
accounting for intangible assets and was inflated by,
among others, the amount of the understated
amortization expense;
-- the merger synergies touted by defendants were
unrealistic and were lacking in any reasonable basis;
-- Ocular had "stuffed the channel" with its Biomedics
products so that inventories would have to be sold off
before a material amount of new sales could reasonably
be expected, which would have a materially negative
impact on the company's revenues;
-- the company's lack of a two-week silicone hydrogel
product would prevent it from meeting its aggressive
growth targets for 2005 and beyond; and
-- CooperVision and Ocular competed in the two-week lens
market, which negatively impacted the company's ability
to realize synergies from the Ocular acquisition.
This lawsuit, which is in a very preliminary stage, seeks
unspecified damages.
Shortly after the filing of the Levine lawsuit, two similar
putative class actions were also filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Case Nos. SACV-06-
306 CJC and SACV-06-331 CJC.
On May 19, 2006, the court consolidated all three actions under
the heading "In re Cooper Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation"
and selected a lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the
provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4. The lead plaintiff is in the
process of preparing a consolidated complaint.
The first identified complaint is "Alvin L. Levine, et al. v.
The Cooper Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-169," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge Cormac J. Carney.
Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:
(1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;
(2) Charles H. Johnson & Associates, 2599 Mississippi
Street, New Brighton, MN, 55112, Phone: (651) 633-5685;
(3) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington,
DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower,
Washington, DC, 20005, Phone: 202.408.4600, Fax:
202.408.4699, E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com;
(4) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com,
(5) Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, Phone: 866.467.1400;
(6) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone:
215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net;
(7) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
pivenlaw@erols.com;
(8) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, (New York), One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
info@milbergweiss.com;
(9) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
sn06106@AOL.com; and
(10) Stull, Stull & Brody, (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com.
COPART INC: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit in Ga. Over Storage Liens
---------------------------------------------------------------
Copart, Inc. faces a class action filed in state court for the
County of Chatham, Georgia, alleging that the company claimed
unreasonable amounts for storage liens.
On Sept. 16, 2005, Richard M. Gray filed the suit seeking relief
including class certification, damages, fees, costs and
expenses. On Oct. 20, 2005, the company denied the claims and
on May 12, 2006, filed a motion for summary judgment. No trial
date has been set.
DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery Laboratories, Inc. is defendant in three purported
securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
On May 1, 2006, Hal Unschuld, filed an action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
individually and purportedly on behalf of a class of the
company's investors who purchased its publicly traded securities
between Dec. 28, 2005 and April 25, 2006.
The suit was filed against the company and the company's Chief
Executive Officer, Robert J. Capetola. This action alleges
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (Exchange Act), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with various
public statements made by the company.
Plaintiff seeks an order wherein the suit may proceed as a class
action and an award of compensatory damages in favor of the
plaintiff and the other class members in an unspecified amount,
together with interest and reimbursement of costs and expenses
of the litigation and other equitable or injunctive relief.
The company was notified that two additional class actions
seeking the same relief have since been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
although the company has not been served with a complaint in
these actions.
The first identified complaint is "Hal Unschuld, et al. v.
Discovery Laboratories, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-01820,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under Judge Stewart Dalzell.
Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:
(1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;
(2) Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, 361 West Lancaster Avenue,
Haverford, PA, 19041, Phone: 888.805.7848, Fax:
610.649.3633, E-mail: mail@chimicles.com;
(3) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com;
(4) Howard G. Smith, Attorney at Law, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847,
Fax: (215) 638-4867;
(5) Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, 1515 Locust Street,
2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215-561-
3600, Fax: 215-561-3000, E-mail:
bmgross@bernardmgross.com;
(6) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
pivenlaw@erols.com;
(7) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
(Melville), 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville,
NY, 11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173;
(8) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
sn06106@AOL.com; and
(9) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.
ETON CORP: Recalls Radios on Risk of Batteries Overheating
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Eton Corp. of Palo Alto, California, is recalling about 1,700
Eton E1XM-Model AM/FM/SW/XM-Ready Radios.
The company said the battery in this radio can overheat and
possibly rupture when using the AC adapter, posing a fire and
burn hazard to consumers. Eton has received one report of a
battery overheating. No injuries have been reported.
The E1XM-model AM/FM/SW/XM-ready radios that are included in the
recall have serial numbers from 3,067 through 5,642. The serial
number is listed underneath the flap on the back of the unit.
The Eton logo is located on the bottom left-hand corner of the
unit. The XM radio logo and "e1" are written in the upper right
corner of the radio. The unit is silver, and measures about 13-
inches wide by 7.5-inches high by 2.5-inches deep.
The radios were made in India and sold at electronic stores and
catalog, and on-line retailers from November 2004 through
February 2006 for about $500.
Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled radios
immediately, and call Eton Corp. for a refund or replacement
product.
Picture of the recalled radio:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06180.jpg
Consumer Contact: Eton Corp., Phone: 800) 872-2228 between 8
a.m. and 4:30 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, Web site:
http://www.etoncorp.com
EXTREME ENGINEERING: Recalls 400 Wall Climbing Cable Assemblies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Extreme Engineering, of Newcastle, California, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
400 cable assemblies used in wall climbing.
The company said the cable eye, or round metal tube that holds
the cable, could have a fracture, reducing the overall strength
of the cable assembly. If the cable assembly were to fail, this
would result in a free-fall hazard for the climber. The company
has received no reports of incidents of the cable failing or
injuries associated with it.
These cable assemblies are used by wall climbers in auto-belay
and auto-zip devices to prevent a climber from free-falling.
The cable assemblies are made up of a stainless steel cable eye,
and 1/4-inch galvanized wire rope. The recalled cable
assemblies have a date codes 1-06, 2-06, or 3-06 etched onto the
cable eye.
The cables were made in U.S. and sold at Extreme Engineering's
Web site and catalog from January 2006 through March 2006 for
about $200 to $400.
Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled cable
assemblies immediately and contact Extreme Engineering to
arrange for inspection details and possible replacement of the
cable assembly.
Pictures of the recalled cable assembly:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06555a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06555b.jpg
Consumer Contact: Extreme Engineering, Phone (collect): (916)
663-1560 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT, Monday through Friday,
Web site: http://www.extremeengineering.com,or E-mail:
info@extremeengineering.com
FEDEX CORP: Federal Judge Upholds ERISA Claim for All Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has rejected a request by FedEx Corp. lawyers to
dismiss a claim to Employee Retirement Income Security Act
benefits -- including those covering pension benefits -- in the
national class action brought on behalf of Federal Express
Ground/Home Delivery drivers against the corporation.
The Hon. Robert L. Miller, Jr., chief judge, U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division,
issued his Opinion and Order in the multi-jurisdiction
litigation (MDL-1700) that presently includes hundreds of
plaintiffs -- current and former FedEx Ground/Home Delivery
drivers -- from nearly 30 states.
FedEx unsuccessfully argued that the ERISA claim should be
thrown out for several reasons, including ineligibility. It has
taken the position that the drivers are independent contractors,
not employees, and as such are not entitled to pensions or any
of the other numerous benefits provided to its other employee-
drivers, such as those working for the Express Division.
The ruling, entered June 2, preserves the pension claims for all
drivers in every state, even if drivers in that state do not
have their own lawsuit. Attorneys for the drivers say they are
confident they can demonstrate at trial that there is no
question that the drivers are entitled to all the benefits --
including ERISA benefits -- provided full-time employees.
"The ERISA ruling is another significant step in seeking justice
for every former, current and future FedEx Ground/Home Delivery
driver," says Lynn Rossman Faris, Esq., a California- based
attorney who brought the first lawsuit against the company
alleging misclassification of employees as a way to shift the
burden for paying millions in overhead expenses -- including
employee retirement contributions -- from the company to the
drivers, enabling FedEx Ground/Home Delivery to boost its
profitability.
"The state courts in California have held that FedEx Ground/Home
Delivery drivers there have been misclassified and we intend to
prove the same case and have the Court reach the same conclusion
in the federal nationwide class-action."
Further information on the class action is available at:
http://www.fedexdriverslawsuit.com.
FORD MOTOR: Seeks Transfer of Ohio Suit Over Workers Incentive
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor. Co. has asked a U.S. District judge in Toledo, Ohio
to transfer to the court in Sandusky a suit filed against it
over allegedly unpaid incentives to workers who left the
company, the Toledoblade.com reports.
The suit was originally filed in Erie County Common Pleas Court
in early May by former Ford worker Wilbert Farris. It accused
the automaker of failing to make $100,000 incentive payments to
unionized workers in Ohio who resigned from the company as part
of a severance program.
Mr. Farris, who was employed at Ford's Visteon plant in
Sandusky, claims he was owing wages for two months' amount of
work after accepting the company's offer March 6. But the
company said he was already paid on May 30.
Mr. Farris' suit accuses Ford of breach of contract and making
false representations. It is seeking class action status.
The suit is "Farris v. Ford Motor Company et al., Case No. 3:06-
cv-01382-DAK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio under Judge David A. Katz.
Representing the defendants are Ellen J. Garling and Ronald G.
Linville of Baker & Hostetler, 2100 Capitol Square, 65 East
State Street, Columbus, OH 43215, Phone: 614-462-4708, Fax: 614-
462-2616, E-mail: egarling@bakerlaw.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are Charles M. Murray, Dennis E.
Murray, Sr., and Roger S. Stark of Murray & Murray, 111 East
Shoreline Drive, P.O. Box 19, Sandusky, OH 44870-0019, Phone:
419-624-3000, Fax: 419-624-0707, E-mail:
dms@murrayandmurray.com, E-mail: stark90@bex.net.
GENERAL MOTORS: Facing Lawsuit Over Defective Gasket in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Martensville resident in Saskatchewan, Canada filed a national
class action against General Motors over defects at its intake
manifold gasket, according to The StarPhoenix.
The suit was filed by Dean Brooman and Jocelyne Adam of Edmonton
in Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench on behalf of all
purchasers of vehicles made by the company between 1995 and
2003. It accuses the company of failing to warn buyers early
enough that its manifold gasket deteriorates prematurely,
causing vehicle motors to overheat. It wasn't until 2004 that
General Motors corrected the design and performance of the
gasket.
The suit alleges false and misleading representations . . . and
a breach of the Competition Act." It wants General Motors to be
"disgorged of any revenue realized" from unjust enrichment at
the expense of plaintiffs. It is demanding between CA$1.4
billion to CA$1.5 billion from the company.
Representing the plaintiffs is Evatt Merchant of the Merchant
Law Group. More information on the suit is available at:
http://wwwgmclassaction.ca
LG SOURCING: Recalls Foldable Hammock Stand After Injury Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
LG Sourcing Inc., of North Wilkesboro, North Carolina, is
recalling about 1,000 Garden Treasures Foldable Steel Hammock
Stand manufactured by Shin Crest PTE, Ltd. of China.
The company said the welds attaching the arms to the frame of
the hammock stand can fail, allowing the hammock to fall. Users
can be injured from falling to the ground, striking the hammock
stand's base, or being struck by the arms of the hammock stand.
There have been three reports of the hammock stands breaking at
the welds. Six people have reported injuries from falling,
including a head laceration requiring stitches, bruises and neck
and back pain.
The recalled hammock stand is black steel, is foldable, and has
two wheels. The item number, 226724, is printed on the box in
which the hammock stand was sold, and on the instructions that
were provided with the hammock stand.
The stands were made in China and sold at Lowe's stores
nationwide from December 2005 through March 2006 for about $100.
Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled hammock stands
immediately and return them to any Lowe's store to receive a
full refund.
Picture of the recalled hammock stand:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06188.jpg
Consumer Contact: Lowe's stores, Phone (toll-free): (866) 208-
0827 anytime, Web site: http://www.lowes.com.
LOUISIANA: City Housing Aid for Katrina Victims Ends Next Month
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hurricane Katrina evacuees under the city-administered housing
voucher program have only until next month to avail of the
benefit, according to the Houston Chronicle.
Federal officials have given evacuee households deemed
ineligible for continued aid as well as those whose eligibility
has not been determined until July 31 to receive the aid while
authorities review determinations of who is eligible for
continued assistance under a different program.
Most eligible evacuees have been moved from the city-
administered emergency program into an individual assistance
program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
according to the report.
The FEMA previously planned to stop paying rent for evacuated
families who were issued 12-month housing vouchers by local
governments.
Subsequently, a class action was filed on behalf of evacuees by
Houston law firm Caddell & Chapman in U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas. The suit sought to stop the
agency from withdrawing the housing support.
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. It sought a temporary
restraining order against the cutoff.
On May 31, U.S. District Court Judge David Hittner denied a
request for a restraining order. He ordered FEMA, at the same
time, to expedite consideration of voucher extensions for those
evacuees.
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.
MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Md. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has yet to
rule on Martek Biosciences Corp.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers on May 4, 2005.
Since May 2005, several putative class actions were filed
against the company and certain of its officers in the same
court making similar allegations.
The court entered orders consolidating these cases, appointing
lead plaintiffs and approving lead plaintiffs' counsel and
liaison counsel.
On Nov. 18, 2005, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland in "In re Martek Biosciences Corp. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. MJG 05-1224."
While the court has not made a determination of whether a
putative class can be certified, the consolidated complaint
claims to be filed on behalf of the purchasers of the company's
common stock during a purported class period beginning Dec. 9,
2004 and ending April 28, 2005.
At this time, plaintiffs have not specified the amount of
damages they are seeking in the actions. The consolidated
complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5,
promulgated thereunder, and violations of Section 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
The consolidated complaint alleges generally that the company
and the individual defendants made false or misleading public
statements and failed to disclose material facts regarding the
company's business and prospects in public statements the
company made or failed to make during the period and, in the
case of the Securities Act of 1933 claims, in the company's
January 2005 prospectus.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
on Feb. 3, 2006, and a hearing before the court on this motion
was held on May 22, 2006. The company is awaiting a decision of
the court on the motion to dismiss.
The suit is "Black v. Martek Biosciences Corporation et al.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-01224-MJG," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Marvin J. Garbis.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Christopher L. Nelson of Schiffrin and Barroway, LLP,
280 King of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone:
16108220262, Fax: 16106677056, E-mail:
cnelson@sbclasslaw.com;
(2) Charles J. Piven of Charles J. Piven, PA, The World
Trade Center, 401 E. Pratt St., Ste. 2525, Baltimore,
MD 21202, Phone: 14103320030, Fax: 14106851300, E-mail:
piven@pivenlaw.com; and
(3) Lawrence Joseph Quinn of Tydings and Rosenberg, LLP,
100 E. Pratt St., 26th Fl., Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone:
14107529700, Fax: 14107275460, E-mail:
lquinn@tydingslaw.com.
Representing the defendants is Steven F. Barley of Hogan and
Hartson, LLP, 111 S. Calvert St., Ste. 1600, Baltimore, MD
21202, Phone: 14106592700, Fax: 14105396981, E-mail:
sfbarley@hhlaw.com.
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action
against Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., according to the
company's June 8, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended April 29, 2006.
On July 31, 2001, a putative class action was filed against two
investment banks that participated in the underwriting of the
company's initial public offering on June 29, 2000.
That lawsuit, which did not name the company or any of its
officers or directors as defendants, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Plaintiffs allege that the underwriters received "excessive" and
undisclosed commissions and entered into unlawful "tie-in"
agreements with certain of their clients in violation of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Thereafter, on Sept. 5, 2001, a second putative class action was
filed in the Southern District of New York relating to the
company's IPO. In this second action, plaintiffs named three
underwriters as defendants and also named as defendants the
company and two of its officers, one of whom is also a director.
Relying on many of the same allegations contained in the initial
complaint in which the Company was not named as a defendant,
plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated various
provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
In both actions, plaintiffs seek, among other items, unspecified
damages, pre-judgment interest and reimbursement of attorneys'
and experts' fees. These two actions relating to the company's
IPO have been consolidated with hundreds of other lawsuits filed
by plaintiffs against approximately 55 underwriters and
approximately 300 issuers across the U.S.
A consolidated amended class action complaint against the
company and its two officers was filed on April 19, 2002.
Subsequently, defendants in the consolidated proceedings moved
to dismiss the actions. In February 2003, the trial court
issued its ruling on the motions, granting the motions in part,
and denying them in part.
Thus, the cases may proceed against the underwriters and the
Company as to alleged violations of section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Claims against the individual officers have been
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by agreement with
plaintiffs.
On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs announced that a settlement
among plaintiffs, the issuer defendants and their directors and
officers, and their insurers had been structured, a part of
which the insurers for all issuer defendants would guarantee up
to $1 billion to investors who are class members, depending upon
plaintiffs' success against non-settling parties.
The company's board of directors has approved the proposed
settlement, which will result in the plaintiffs' dismissing the
case against the company and granting releases that extend to
all of its officers and directors.
Definitive settlement documentation was completed in early June
2004 and first presented to the court on June 14, 2004. On Feb.
15, 2005, the court issued an opinion preliminarily approving
the proposed settlement, contingent upon certain modifications
being made to one aspect of the proposed settlement - the
proposed "bar order".
The court ruled that it had no authority to deviate from the
wording of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
and that any bar order that may issue should the proposed
settlement be finally approved must be limited to the express
wording of 15 U.S.C. section 78u-4(f)(7)(A).
On May 2, 2005 the issuer defendants and plaintiffs jointly
submitted an amendment to the settlement agreement conforming
the language of the settlement agreement with the court's Feb.
15, 2005 ruling regarding the bar order.
The court on Aug. 31, 2005 issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and setting a public hearing on its
fairness for April 24, 2006 due to difficulties in mailing the
required notice to class members.
On April 24, 2006, the court held a public hearing on the
fairness of the proposed settlement. The court took the matter
under submission and has not yet ruled.
For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.
NORTH CAROLINA: Durham County Told to Return School Impact Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina Court of Appeals judges have upheld a lower court
ruling on the legality of so-called school impact fees that the
Durham County charges developers, according to The Herald-Sun.
Judges Rick Elmore, Doug McCullough and Eric Levinson ordered
the county on June 6 to repay the more than $7.5 million it has
collected over the last 2 1/2 years, saying it was unlawful and
void. They allowed the county to continue to collect the fees
until the ruling takes effect June 26.
However, the judges reversed the lower court's order instructing
the county to pay the developers' 8 percent interest on the fees
it has collected, which now stands at more than $605,000. The
county's collection is being held in escrow pending a resolution
to the case.
Counties collect the fees from developers to offset the "impact"
of school construction costs generated by residential growth.
Durham county started collecting the fees without state
legislative approval in January 2004.
Developers sued. In January 2005, Superior Court Judge Orlando
Hudson ruled in their favor. The county appealed and was
allowed to keep collecting the fees pending the appeals court's
decision.
On appeal, the court ruled that "While a laudable goal, the
county must have statutory authority to pass the ordinance
requiring the fee."
The county's attorney is Chuck Kitchen, 600 Superior Ave. E.,
Cleveland, Ohio (Cuyahoga Co.). The developers' lawyer is
Hank Fordham of Stam, Fordham & Danchi, P.A., 510 West Williams
Street, P.O. Box 1600, Apex, North Carolina 27502 (Wake Co.),
Phone: 919-362-8873, Fax: 919-387-1171.
OHIO: Hamilton County Settles Body Organs Disposal Suit for $6M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hamilton County commissioners approved a $6 million settlement
of a federal suit accusing then-Coroner Carl L. Parrott Jr. and
his staff of illegal harvesting of body parts during autopsies,
the ChannelCINCINNATI.com reports.
The suit was filed in 2002 by Kathy Haney of Ellettsville,
Indiana, and Sharonville's Debra A. Singler. Mrs. Haney's son
and Ms. Debra's father underwent autopsies by the Hamilton
County coroner's office. Their suit alleged some of the dead
persons' body parts were removed and buried with them. The suit
was later expanded to include 960 plaintiffs. A federal court
judge granted a summary judgment last year against the county.
The decision was appealed, and parties entered into mediation.
Under the settlement, five named plaintiffs will receive about
$50,000. The balance will be divided among the rest of those
who sued and will cover attorney fees. A special master will
oversee the settlement.
The suit is "Hainey, et al. v. Parrott, et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-00733-SSB-TSB," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, under Sandra S.
Beckwith.
Representing the plaintiffs is John Henry Metz, 4400
Carew Tower, 441 Vine St., Cincinnati, OH 45202-3016, Phone:
513-241-8844, E-mail: metzlegal@aol.com.
Representing the defendants are Stephen Kinnear Shaw and David
Todd Stevenson of Hamilton County Prosecutor, Civil Unit, 230 E.
Ninth St., Suite 4000, Cincinnati, OH 45202-2151, Phone: 513-
946-3120, E-mail: sshaw@prosecutor.hamilton-co.org and
dstevens@prosecutor.hamilton-co.org.
PHONE COMPANIES: Early-Cancellation-Fee Suit Gets Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Ronald Sabraw has certified
as class action the case, "In Re: Cell phone termination fee
cases, Case No. JCCP 4332," according to the Daily Review
Online.
The law firm Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
initiated the suit on behalf of a dozen or so California cell
phone users against Verizon Wireless Inc., Sprint and Nextel.
The complaint is directed at hefty cancellation fees cellular
phone users in California had to pay for quitting a service
before a contract ends. It further contends that the
cancellation fees violate California contract law, and dampen
competition because they temporarily lock consumers into one
service.
The suit seeks to recoup the fees these consumers paid in early
cancellation fees and to enjoin the companies from charging such
fees in the future. The court denied a motion allowing current
subscribers of cellular services to join the class.
Lerach Coughlin on the Net: http://www.lerachlaw.com/.
POLYMEDICA CORP: April 2007 Trial Scheduled for Mass. Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An April 2007 trial date is slated for the consolidated
securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts against Polymedica Corp.
On Nov. 27, 2000, Richard Bowe SEP-IRA filed a purported class
action against the company and Steven J. Lee, the company's
former chief executive officer and chairman of the board, on
behalf of himself and purchasers of common stock.
The suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees
and costs and claims violations of Sections 10(b), 10b-5, and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging various
statements were misleading with respect to the company's revenue
and earnings based on an alleged scheme to produce fictitious
sales.
Several virtually identical lawsuits were subsequently filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against the company. On July 30, 2001, the court granted the
plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the complaints under the
caption, "In re: PolyMedica Corp. Securities Litigation, Civ.
Action No. 00-12426-REK."
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on Oct. 9,
2001. The consolidated amended complaint extended the class
period to Oct. 26, 1998 through Aug. 21, 2001, and named as
defendants the company, Liberty Medical Supply, Inc., and
certain former officers of Liberty.
Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
on Dec. 10, 2001. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to this
motion on Feb. 11, 2002, and defendants filed a reply memorandum
on March 11, 2002.
The court denied the motion without a hearing on May 10, 2002.
On June 20, 2002, defendants filed answers to the consolidated
amended complaint.
On Jan. 28, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification to which defendants filed an opposition on Feb.
27, 2004.
Plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum on April 12, 2004 followed
by additional briefing by the parties. The court heard oral
argument on the motion on June 2, 2004.
On Sept. 8, 2004, the court allowed the plaintiffs' motion and
certified the class. On Sept. 21, 2004, the defendants filed a
petition requesting that they be permitted to appeal the
decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
Plaintiffs filed a response to the defendants' petition on Oct.
7, 2004 opposing defendants' request to appeal the class
certification.
Also on Oct. 7, 2004, the Court stayed sending notice of the
class action pending a ruling on defendants' appeal of class
certification.
On Feb. 15, 2005, the First Circuit Court of Appeals granted
defendants' petition for leave to appeal the class certification
decision.
Defendants-appellants filed their brief on March 15, 2005, and
plaintiffs-appellees filed an opposition on April 15, 2005. On
April 25, 2005, defendants-appellants filed a reply brief. The
First Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on May 4,
2005 and took the matter under advisement.
On Dec. 13, 2005, the First Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a
decision in defendants-appellants' favor and entered an order
vacating the District Court's order certifying the class for the
period from January 2001 through August 2001 and remanding the
matter for further proceedings in the District Court consistent
with its opinion.
On Feb. 23, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion in the District
Court to re-certify the class for the period from January 2001
through August 2001, which the defendants opposed.
On March 23, 2006, the court held an evidentiary hearing
relating to class certification and on March 31, 2006 the court
heard oral argument regarding class certification. The court
took the motion under advisement.
Discovery is ongoing in the underlying suit. The case is
currently scheduled for trial in April 2007.
The suit is "Bowe et al v. Polymedica Corp., Case No. 1:00-cv-
12426-REK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge Robert E. Keeton.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan of Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP, 53
State Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939,
Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail: ted@shulaw.com; and
(2) Seth R. Klein of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., One Corporate
Center, 20 Church Street, Suite 1700, Hartford, CT
06103, US, Phone: 860-493-6292.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Michael G. Bongiorno, Jeffrey B. Rudman and Emily R.
Schulman of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP,
60 State Street, Boston, MA 02115, Phone: 617-526-6145,
617-526-6912 and 617-526-6077, Fax: 617-526-5000, E-
mail: michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com and
jeffrey.rudman@wilmerhale.com and
emily.schulman@wilmerhale.com; and
(ii) Gus P. Coldebella of Goodwin Procter, LLP, Exchange
Place, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-
570-1780, Fax: 617-523-1231.
PORTAL SOFTWARE: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action
against Portal Software, Inc., according to the company's June
9, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Jan. 28, 2005.
On July 9, 2001, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company, certain of its officers and several
underwriters of the company's initial public offering.
The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, arising from alleged
improprieties by the underwriters in connection with the
company's 1999 IPO and follow-on public offering, and claims to
be on behalf of all persons who purchased Portal shares from May
5, 1999 through Dec. 6, 2000.
Four additional nearly identical class actions were also filed
in July and August 2001 based on essentially the same facts and
allegations.
Specifically, the complaints allege the underwriters charged
certain of their customers fees in excess of those disclosed in
the prospectus and engaged in certain allegedly improper
activities in connection with the distribution of the IPO
shares.
The complaint was subsequently amended to allege similar claims
with respect to the company's secondary public offering in
September 1999.
The cases have been consolidated into a single action, and a
consolidated complaint was filed on April 19, 2002. These
actions are part of the IPO Securities Litigation against
approximately 300 issuers and nearly 55 underwriters alleging
claims virtually identical to those alleged against the company.
The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount. A motion to
dismiss addressing issues common to the companies and
individuals who have been sued in these actions has been denied.
On Oct. 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in six of the
approximately 300 other nearly identical actions and noted that
the decision is intended to provide strong guidance to all
parties regarding class certification in the remaining cases.
The underwriter defendants sought leave to appeal this decision
and the Second Circuit has accepted the appeal. Plaintiffs have
not yet moved to certify a class in the Portal case.
The company approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements, which set forth the terms of a settlement between
the company, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the
other approximately 300-issuer defendants.
Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of
the company and the individual defendants for the conduct
alleged in the action to be wrongful.
The company would agree to undertake certain responsibilities,
including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release
certain potential claims the company may have against the
underwriters.
The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of
$1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the
approximately 300 issuers.
Pursuant to those agreements the company's insurers would
participate in an undertaking to guarantee a minimum recovery by
the plaintiffs.
To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the
cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under
the issuers' settlement agreement.
To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less
than $1 billion, the issuers, including Portal, are required to
make up the difference.
On April 20, 2006, JPMorgan Chase and the plaintiffs reached a
preliminary agreement for a settlement for $425 million. The
JPMorgan Chase settlement has not yet been approved by the
Court.
However, if it is finally approved, then the maximum amount that
the issuers' insurers will be potentially liable for is $575
million. It is anticipated that any potential financial
obligation of the company to plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of
the settlement agreement and related agreements will be covered
by existing insurance.
Therefore, the company does not expect that the settlement will
involve any payment by it. Based on the amount of the company's
insurance and agreement of the insurers to cover legal expenses
after June 1, 2003, Portal does not anticipate additional
expenses or liability if the settlement is approved.
The company is currently not aware of any material limitations
on the expected recovery of any potential financial obligation
to plaintiffs from its insurance carriers.
Its carriers are solvent, and the company is not aware of any
uncertainties as to the legal sufficiency of an insurance claim
with respect to any recovery by plaintiffs.
If material limitations on the expected recovery of any
potential financial obligation to the plaintiffs from Portal's
insurance carriers should arise, Portal's maximum financial
obligation to plaintiffs pursuant to the settlement agreement
would be less than $3.4 million.
However, if the JPMorgan Chase settlement were finally approved,
Portal's maximum financial obligation to the plaintiffs pursuant
to the settlement agreement would be less than $2 million.
On Feb. 15, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion. Those modifications have been
made.
On March 20, 2006, the underwriter defendants submitted
objections to the settlement to the court. The court held a
hearing regarding these and other objections to the settlement
at a fairness hearing on April 24, 2006, but has not yet issued
a ruling. There is no assurance that the court will grant final
approval to the settlement.
For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.
SOURCECORP INC: Settles Del. Suit Over Merger with Apollo Units
---------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCECORP, Inc., certain of its officers and directors and
Apollo Management, L.P., settled a purported class action over a
proposed merger of the company with entities affiliated with
Apollo. The suit is pending in the Court of the Chancery of the
State of Delaware, County of New Castle.
On March 8, 2006, a purported class action complaint was filed
by a putative stockholder of the company in an action styled,
"Davidco Investments, et al. v. Ed H. Bowman, Jr., et al., C.A.
No. 1982-N."
The suit comes on the heels of the company's announcement that
it had entered into an agreement and plan of merger, dated March
7, 2006, among the company, CorpSource Holdings, LLC (Purchaser)
and CorpSource MergerSub, Inc. (Merger Sub). Purchaser and
Merger Sub are entities affiliated with Apollo.
The Merger Agreement contemplates that Merger Sub will be merged
with and into the company and each outstanding share of common
stock of the company will be converted into the right to receive
$25.00 per share in cash, without interest.
The Davidco Complaint alleges a claim for breach of fiduciary
duties against the Davidco Individual Defendants, alleging,
among other things, that the consideration to be paid to the
stockholders of the company in the Merger is unfair and
inadequate and was not the result of a full and fair sale
process or adequate market check.
The Davidco Complaint also asserts a claim against Apollo for
allegedly aiding and abetting such purported breaches of
fiduciary duties.
The Davidco Complaint seeks, among other relief, class
certification, an injunction preventing completion of the merger
-- or rescinding the merger if it is completed prior to the
receipt of such relief -- compensatory and/or rescissory damages
to the class, attorneys' fees and expenses, and such other
relief as the court might find just and proper.
Defendants have moved to dismiss the Davidco Complaint and the
motion is still being briefed by the parties.
On April 28, 2006, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the suit and on May 3, 2006 entered in to a memorandum
of understanding reflecting the terms of the proposed
settlement.
The proposed settlement is subject to court approval and certain
other conditions. Under the terms of the MOU, the parties have
agreed, among others:
-- to amend the merger agreement to reduce the termination
fee payable by the company to purchaser if the merger
agreement is terminated under certain circumstances
from $15,000,000 to $12,500,000,
-- to amend the merger agreement to allow the board of
directors, subject to certain conditions, to provide
information to a third party, if any, who has indicated
that such third party will make a written proposal to
acquire the Company,
-- to include certain additional disclosures in the merger
related proxy statement and
-- not to object to plaintiffs' counsel's court
application for an award of attorney fees and expenses,
provided that such application does not exceed $775,000
in fees and expenses in the aggregate.
The MOU also contemplates that some discovery will be taken to
confirm the fairness of the proposed settlement. The company
accrued approximately $0.8 million in the first quarter of 2006
related to the settlement.
SUNTRIPS: Travel Agents File Chapter 7 Motion in Calif. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer for agents of travel firm Suntrips filed a motion on
June 9 to take FS SunTours d/b/a SunTrips into Chapter 7,
according to Travel Weekly.
The travel agents claim to be owed commissions by the operator.
Their attorney, Al Anolik, said he has the support of four
creditors:
-- Community World Travel, which claims to be owed $1,325
-- Daniel B. Presser, who claims to be owed $368.70
-- All-Inclusive Vacations, which claims to be owed $4,320.67;
and
-- Mary Fowler, who alleges to be owed $43,691.56.
Mr. Anolik filed the motion in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Northern District of California in San Jose as part of a class
action aimed at retrieving unpaid commissions from SunTours or
its parent company OneTravel Holdings. The operation, excluding
SunTrip, has been sold to Crystal Hospitality.
SunTrips -- http://www.suntrips.com-- flies about 160,000
people a year to Hawaii, Mexico and other sunny spots. It was
adversely affected by the rise of online discount sites.
All its deals booked before April 5 has been cancelled.
Representing SunTours is attorney J. Thomas Cairns, Senior
Counsel of Ives, Kirwan & Dibble, Figueroa Tower, 660 S.
Figueroa Street, Suite 1990, Los Angeles, California 90017 (Los
Angeles Co.), Phone: 213-627-0113, Fax: 213-627-1545.
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: N.Y. Court Mulls Consolidation of Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.'s motion
to consolidate and appoint a lead plaintiff in the securities
class actions pending against the company.
In February and March 2006, an aggregate of four purported class
action complaints were filed against the company, its chief
executive officer, chief financial officer and former chief
global operating officer in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and one such purported class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.
The New York plaintiffs are Max Kaplan, John Fenninger, David
Andrews and David Toth and the Michigan plaintiff was The City
of Flint and Daniel J. Hall on behalf of The City of Flint
Employees' Retirement Pension Fund.
The complaints allege that the defendants violated Sections
10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (Exchange Act) by making or causing the company to make
untrue statements or failing to disclose in certain press
releases and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission periodic
reports that, among others:
-- Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas contained "hidden"
content which should have resulted in the game
receiving an Adults Only rating from the ESRB
rather than a Mature rating;
-- the defendants attempted to bolster sales of Grand
Theft Auto: San Andreas by concealing the "adult
content" from retailers who refused to carry Adults
Only material;
-- the company's management failed to keep the Board of
Directors informed of important issues or failed to do
so in a timely fashion; and
-- the company was misstating capitalized software
development costs and amortization expense and had
inadequate internal controls and procedures to ensure
accuracy in its reported financial results.
Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages and their costs.
In the Michigan Action, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
complaint without prejudice. A motion to consolidate the New
York Actions and appoint a lead plaintiff is pending.
The first identified complaint is "John Fenninger, et al. v.
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff
firms in this or similar case:
(1) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, Fax:
wfederman@aol.com;
(2) Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy, 265 Llwyds Lane, Vero
Beach La, FL 32963, Phone: 561.231.4202;
(3) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
pivenlaw@erols.com;
(4) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
(Melville) 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY
11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail:
info@lerachlaw.com;
(5) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, (New York) One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119,
Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
info@milbergweiss.com;
(6) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave., 34th
Flr., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
212.682.1892, E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com;
(7) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT
06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
sn06106@AOL.com;
(8) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com; and
(9) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York) 6 East 45th Street, New
York, NY 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax: 310.209.2087,
E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com.
TRANSACTION SYSTEMS: Discovery Starts in Nebr. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities class action
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska
against Transaction Systems Architects, Inc.
In November 2002, two class action complaints were filed against
the company and certain individuals alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
Pursuant to a court order, the two complaints were consolidated
as "Desert Orchid Partners v. Transaction Systems Architects,
Inc., et al.," with Genesee County Employees' Retirement System
designated as lead plaintiff.
A second amended consolidated class action complaint alleges
that during the purported class period, the company and the
named defendants misrepresented the company's historical
financial condition, results of operations and its future
prospects, and failed to disclose facts that could have
indicated an impending decline in the company's revenues.
The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest,
fees, costs and rescission. Class period alleged in the
consolidated complaint is Jan. 21, 1999 through Nov. 18, 2002.
The company and the individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.
In response, on Dec. 15, 2003, the court dismissed, without
prejudice, Gregory Derkacht, the company's former president and
chief executive officer, as a defendant, but denied the motion
to dismiss with respect to the remaining defendants, including
the company.
On Feb. 6, 2004, the court entered a mediation reference order
requiring the parties to mediate before a private mediator. The
parties held a mediation session on March 18, 2004, which did
not result in a settlement of the matter.
On July 1, 2004, lead plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification wherein, for the first time, lead plaintiff sought
to add an additional class representative, Roger M. Wally. On
Aug. 20, 2004, defendants filed their opposition to the motion.
On March 22, 2005, the court issued an order certifying the
class. The parties held a second mediation session on Jan. 5-6,
2006, which did not result in a settlement of the matter.
On Jan. 27, 2006, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, seeking a
dismissal of the lead plaintiff and certain other class members,
as well as a limitation on damages based upon plaintiffs'
inability to establish loss causation with respect to a large
portion of their claims.
The lead plaintiff has opposed the motion and the court has not
yet ruled. On Feb. 6, 2006, additional class representative
Roger M. Wally filed a motion to withdraw as a class
representative and class member.
On April 21, 2006, and based upon the pending motion for
judgment, a motion to intervene as a class representative was
filed by the Louisiana District Attorneys Retirement System
(LDARS). LDARS previously attempted to be named as lead
plaintiff in the case. Defendants have opposed the motion.
Discovery is continuing.
The suit is "Desert Orchid Partners v. Transaction Systems
Architects, et al., Case No. 8:02-cv-00553-JFB-TDT," filed in
the U.S. District Court in Nebraska, under Judge Joseph F.
Bataillon.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Gerald L. Friedrichsen of Fitzgerald, Schorr Law Firm,
13220 California Street, Suite 400, Omaha, NE 68154-
5228, Phone: (402) 342-1000, Fax: (402) 342-1025,
Email: gfriedrichsen@fitzlaw.com;
(2) Louis Gottlieb of Goodkind, Labaton Law Firm - New
YORK, 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)
907-0872, Fax: (212) 883-7072, Email:
lgottlieb@glrslaw.com;
(3) Marc I. Gross of Pomerantz, Haudek Law Firm, 100 Park
Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)
661-1100, Fax: (212) 661-8665, Email:
migross@pomlaw.com;
(4) David W. Rowe, Kinsey, Ridenour Law Firm, P.O. Box
85778, Lincoln, NE 68501-5778, Phone: (402) 438-1313,
Fax: (402) 438-1654, Email: drowe@krbklaw.com;
(5) Emily C. Komlossy, Goodkind, Labaton Law Firm -
FLORIDA, 2455 East Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 813, Fort
Lauderdale, FL 33304, Phone: (954) 630-1000, Fax: (954)
565-1312 Email: ekomlossy@glrslaw.com; and
(6) Jonathan M. Plasse of Goodkind, Labaton Law Firm -
FLORIDA, 2455 East Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 813, Fort
Lauderdale, FL 33304, Phone: (212) 907-0863, Fax: (212)
883-7063 Email: jplasse@glrslaw.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Elizabeth L. Yingling and Joel Held of Baker, Mckenzie
Law Firm, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2300, Dallas, TX
75201, Phone: (214) 978-3000, Fax: (214) 978-3099,
E-mail: elizabeth.l.yingling@bakernet.com or
joel.held@bakernet.com; and
(ii) Thomas J. Culhane of Erickson, Sederstrom Law Firm,
10330 Regency Parkway Drive, Suite 100, Omaha, NE
68114, Phone: (402) 397-2200, Fax: (402) 390-7137,
E-mail: tculh@eslaw.com.
TRAVEL COMPANIES: Indiana Firms Accused of Cutting Tax Remits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tourism agencies in Lake and Marshall counties are filing a case
against online travel companies alleging the firms are not
forwarding some taxes to the city, the Associated Press reports.
The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana against 18 online companies, including
Hotels.com, Expedia and Orbitz. It alleges the online firms
have paid taxes based on the wholesale rate they are charged for
hotel rooms, rather than the higher rate they charge their
customers.
The lawsuit asks the court to order the companies to make
restitution to the tourism agencies in Lake and Marshall
counties, but potentially all the tourism bureaus in Indiana if
the judge certifies the lawsuit as a class action, the report
said.
According to Art Sackler, a spokesman for the Interstate Travel
Services Association, the trade group for online travel
companies, the lawsuit and similar ones filed in other states
were filed before the companies were asked to explain their
pricing.
Similar lawsuits have been filed in other states, including
California, North Carolina and Ohio (Class Action Reporter,
April 4, 2006).
The suit is "Marshall County v. Hotels.com LP et al., Case No.
3:06-cv-00357-AS-CAN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana under Judge Allen Sharp with
referral to Judge Christopher A Nuechterlein.
Defendants in the case are:
-- Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group Inc.,
-- Cheap Tickets Inc.,
-- Expedia Inc.,
-- Hotels.com GP LLC,
-- Hotels.com LP,
-- Hotwire Inc.,
-- Internetwork Publishing Corp.,
-- Lowestfare.com Incorporated,
-- Maupintour Holding LLC,
-- Onetravel Inc.,
-- Orbitz Inc.,
-- Orbitz LLC,
-- Site 59.com LLC,
-- TravelNow.com Inc.,
-- Travelocity.com Inc.,
-- Travelocity.com LP,
-- Travelweb LLC,
-- priceline.com Incorporated,
Representing the plaintiffs is Christopher G Walter of Holmes &
Walter LLP, 111 N Main, P.O. Box 26, Nappanee, IN 46550, Phone:
574-773-7728, Fax: 574-773-7729, E-mail: cchrisw1@Earthlink.net.
VERITAS SOFTWARE: Del. Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied
VERITAS Software Corp.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it.
On July 7, 2004, a purported class action complaint entitled,
"Paul Kuck, et al. v. Veritas Software Corporation, et al." was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
The lawsuit alleges violations of federal securities laws in
connection with company's announcement on July 6, 2004 that it
expected results of operations for the fiscal quarter ended June
30, 2004 to fall below earlier estimates. The complaint
generally seeks an unspecified amount of damages.
Subsequently, additional purported class action complaints have
been filed in Delaware federal court, and, on March 3, 2005, the
court entered an order consolidating these actions and
appointing lead plaintiffs and counsel.
A consolidated amended complaint was filed on May 27, 2005,
expanding the class period from April 23, 2004 through July 6,
2004.
The consolidated amended complaint also named another officer as
a defendant and added allegations that the company and the named
officers made false or misleading statements in the company's
press releases and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
filings regarding the company's financial results, which
allegedly contained revenue recognized from contracts that were
unsigned or lacked essential terms.
Defendants to this matter filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in July 2005, which was denied by
the court in May 2006.
The suit is "Kuck v. Veritas Software, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
00831-SLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware under Judge Sue L. Robinson.
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 defendants are:
(1) Erica Niezgoda Finnegan of Cross & Simon, LLC, 913
North Market Street, 11th Floor, Suite 1001,
Wilmington, DE 19801, Phone: (302) 777-4200, (302) 777-
4224, E-mail: efinnegan@crosslaw.com; and
(2) Peter J. Walsh, Jr. of Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP,
1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th Flr., P.O. Box
951, Wilmington, DE 19899-0951, Phone: (302) 984-6037,
Fax: (302) 658-1192, E-mail: pwalsh@potteranderson.com.
New Securities Fraud Cases
DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Chimicles Tikellis Issues Update on Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has rescheduled to June 30, 2006 the deadline by which
interested parties may move as lead plaintiff in the securities
class action against Discovery Laboratories, Inc.
Plaintiffs' law firm, Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, previously
issued a release on June 1, 2006, updating investors on an order
entered by the District Court directing, among other things,
that "by July 17, 2006, any member of the purported class may
move to serve as lead plaintiff."
The court has reconsidered that order, and, on June 5, 2006
amended its scheduling order to provide that the deadline for
any member of the class to apply to serve as lead plaintiff is
June 30, 2006.
Discovery Labs is a development stage biotechnology company,
which is focused upon proprietary surfactant technology.
Surfactants are produced naturally in the lungs and are
essential for breathing. The company's technology is intended
to produce a precision-engineered surfactant that is designed to
closely mimic the essential properties of natural human lung
surfactant; this technology is intended for use as surfactant
replacement therapies for respiratory diseases.
The company's lead product, Surfaxin(R) (lucinactant) was
undergoing review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as
part of a new drug application as a potential treatment to
prevent respiratory distress syndrome in infants. Surfaxin(R)
was also under review by the European Medicines Evaluation
Agency for approval in Europe.
Chimicles & Tikellis LLP and Durant & Durant LLP represent the
plaintiff in one of the actions, "DePace v. Discovery
Laboratories, Inc., No. 2:06-cv-02045-SD."
The amended complaint in the DePace action alleges claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 against Discovery Labs, Robert J. Capetola, its
chief executive officer, and Christopher J. Schaber, its former
chief operating officer.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants issued a
series of press releases and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission filings that were false and misleading because they
falsely portrayed the company's capacity to manufacture
Surfaxin(R) in compliance with the FDA's current Good
Manufacturing Requirements, a requirement had to be met before
the FDA would grant approval to that product.
Throughout the class period, the defendants' public statements
indicated that they expected that approval of the new drug
application for Surfaxin(R) would occur in the near future.
Instead, on April 24, 2006, the company announced that it faced
the potential of a significant delay in the approval process for
Surfaxin(R) because process validation batches manufactured for
its NDA had not met required stability criteria.
Stability relates to the ability of a pharmaceutical product to
be stored without degradation. Discovery Labs' common stock
swiftly reacted, closing substantially lower on April 25, 2006
on very high volume.
Interested parties may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff
of the Class on or before June 30, 2006.
For more details, contact James R. Malone, Jr. or Joseph G.
Sauder, Phone: 1-888-805-7848, E-mail: jamesmalone@chimicles.com
and josephsauder@chimicles.com, Web site:
http://www.chimicles.com.
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set July
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, reminds investors
of Vitesse Semiconductor Corp. that July 3, 2006 is the deadline
to move the court for appointment as lead plaintiff in the class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California against Vitesse and certain of its officers.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of the Company during the period from Oct. 23, 2003 to
April 26, 2006, inclusive. The complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) the Securities Exchange Act, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Vitesse, headquartered in Camarillo, California, engages in the
design, development, manufacturing, and marketing of integrated
circuits for systems manufacturers in the communications and
storage industries.
The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants:
-- failed to properly account for credits issued to or
requested by customers;
-- failed to properly apply payments received to the
appropriate account receivable; and
-- failed to properly account for the stock options
granted to senior officers and directors.
On April 18, 2006, after the trading of Vitesse common stock had
been halted, the company issued a press release announcing that
a special committee had been appointed to investigate the timing
of stock option grants.
The following day, Vitesse shares plunged more than 32% from the
prior day's close of $3.11 per share, to a closing price of
$2.48 per share.
A little over a week later, after the market closed on April 26,
2006, the Company announced that its reported financial
statements should not be relied upon and that it had engaged an
acting Chief Financial Officer. The following day, Vitesse
shares plunged 23.5% with a closing price of $1.83 per share.
For more details, contact Teresa L. Webb or Carolyn S.
Moskowitz, Phone: 888.476.6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com and
csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com, Web site: http://www.pomlaw.com.
XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Federman Sherwood Files Stock Suit in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman Sherwood initiated a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts against Xerium
Technologies, Inc.
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from May 16, 2005 through Nov. 15, 2005.
Interested parties may move the court no later than Aug. 7,
2006, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the class.
For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102,
Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.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 * * *