/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060718.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 18, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 141 Headlines AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Ohio Court Dismisses Consolidated ERISA Suit BALLY TOTAL: Ill. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit CALIFORNIA: L.A. Officials Will No Longer Testify in Farm Suit CANADA: Cabinet Approves Compensation in Residential School Suit CONAGRA FOODS: Recalls Jumbo Franks for Undeclared Milk Content EMACHINES INC: Aug. 24 Hearing Set for M53XX Suit Settlement FEDEX EXPRESS: Settles "Foster" Wage, Hour Litigation in Calif. FINISAR CORP: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Approval FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Calif. Court Upholds Class Status Denial FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Proceedings Stayed in Calif. Trailer Suit FLORIDA: Residents Sue Citrus County Over "Excessive" Water Fees HUSQVARNA OUTDOOR: Recalls Lawn Tractors to Repair Fuel Line JACKSON HEWITT: Continues to Face Refund Anticipation Loans Suit JACKSON HEWITT: N.Y. Court Mulls Parties' Motions in RAL Lawsuit MERRILL LYNCH: Race Bias Suit Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Proceeds in Calif. Stock Suit OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: IPO Deal Yet to Receive Final Approval PATTERSON COS: Faces Consolidated Stock, ERISA, Derivative Suit PENNSYLVANIA: Resident Sues Allegheny County Over Strip Searches PHARMACEUTICAL COS: Aussie Firms Enter $23M Deal in Vit. Suit ROXANE LABORATORIES: Recalls Lot 558470A of Azathioprine Tablets SALOMON SMITH: Court Sides with State in Phone Call Taping Suit SAXON MORTGAGE: Settles Consumer Fraud Suit Over Loans in Ill. SUNTERRA CORP: Law Firms Solicit Clients to Join Fraud Lawsuit TEXAS: Judge Allows Use of FEMA Housing Aid for Bills Payment TIBCO SOFTWARE: Continues to Face Calif. Securities Fraud Suits UNITED KINGDOM: London Court Mulls Certification of Names Suit WORLDCOM INC: DSI to Accept Bids for Former Chief Exec's Assets New Securities Fraud Cases HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Aug. Deadline Set for Lead Plaintiff Filing INFOSONICS CORP: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in Calif. IONATRON INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in Ariz. NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Goldman Scarlato Files Stock Suit in Utah NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit ********* AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Ohio Court Dismisses Consolidated ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied class-action status to a consolidated lawsuit filed against American Electric Power over allegations that it violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The court subsequently dismissed the case. In its July 11, 2006 order the court denied the Motion for Class Certification filed by a plaintiff who sought to represent a putative sub-class of participants in the AEP Retirement Savings Plan. The plaintiff alleged that AEP breached its fiduciary duties to the Plan by offering AEP stock as an investment option under the plan and failing to disclose material information regarding the stock. The court found that the proposed class representative lacked standing under ERISA Section 502(a)(2). The court accordingly denied class certification and dismissed the action for lack of standing. In 2003, Kermit D. Bridges and Selena Plentl brought the suit on behalf of the participants in the AEP System Retirement Savings Plan, together with its predecessors, whose individual accounts the Plan purchased and/or held shares of the AEP Stock Fund from Dec. 9, 1998 to present. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants -- American Electric Power Co., Inc., American Electric Power Service Corp., E. Linn Draper, Jr., and Thomas V. Shockley, III -- breached their fiduciary duties as set forth under ERISA and the Department of Labor Regulations. The suit is "Bridges v. American Electric Po, et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-00067-ALM-MRA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Algenon L. Marbley with referral to Judge Mark R. Abel. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Edwin J. Mills of Stull, Stull and Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-687-7230, E- mail: ssbny@aol.com; (2) James Edward Arnold of Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott, 471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400, Columbus, OH 43215, Phone: 614-469-1400, E-mail: jarnold@cpaslaw.com; and (3) Joseph J. Braun of Strauss & Troy - 1, The Federal Reserve Building, 150 E Fourth Street, 4th Floor, Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018, Phone: 513-621-2120, E-mail: jjbraun@strausstroy.com. Representing the defendants are Michael J. Chepiga, Charlie L. Divine, Joseph M. McLaughlin, Issa Mikel and George S. Wang of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, 425 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017-3954, Phone: 212-455-2000, Fax: 212-455-2502, Web site: http://www.stblaw.com/. BALLY TOTAL: Ill. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the consolidated class action complaint filed against Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. and certain of its officers, alleging securities fraud by the company and certain of its current and former officers. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, allowing the plaintiffs until August 14, 2006 to file an amended complaint, according to a statement from the company. The court previously consolidated 10 separate actions into this consolidated class action complaint (Class Action Reporter, July 4, 2006). Case Background Between May and July 2004, 10 putative securities class actions, now consolidated and designated, "In re Bally Total Fitness Securities Litigation," were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Each of these substantially similar lawsuits alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as well as the associated Rule 10b-5, in connection with the company's proposed restatement. On March 15, 2005, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and on May 23, 2005 the court appointed lead plaintiff's counsel. By stipulation of the parties, the consolidated lawsuit was stayed pending restatement of the company's financial statements in November 2005. On Dec. 30, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased Bally stock between Aug. 3, 1999 and April 28, 2004. The various defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on Feb. 24, 2006, which motions are currently pending, according to the company's June 27, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006. The suit is "In re Bally Total Fitness Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-03530," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge John F. Grady. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Fay Clayton of Robinson, Curley & Clayton, P.C., 300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 1700, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 663-3100, E-mail: fclayton@robinsoncurley.com; and (2) Carol V. Gilden of Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Rubenstein, P.C., 191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60605-1615, Phone: (312) 521-2403, Fax: (312) 521-2100, E-mail: cgilden@muchshelist.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Janet Malloy Link of Latham & Watkins, LLP, (IL), 233 South Wacker Drive, 5800 Sears Tower, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 876-7700, E-mail: janet.link@lw.com; (ii) Gregory A. Markel of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, LLP, One World Financial Center, New York, NY 10281, Phone: (212) 504-6000; (iii) Howard Steven Suskin of Jenner & Block, LLC, One IBM Plaza, 330 North Wabash Avenue, One IBM Plaza, 40th Floor, Chicago, IL 60611, Phone: (312) 222-9350, E- mial: hsuskin@jenner.com; and (iv) Mary Ellen Hennessy of Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, 525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60661, Phone: (312) 902-5200, E-mail: maryellen.hennessy@kattenlaw.com. CALIFORNIA: L.A. Officials Will No Longer Testify in Farm Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys for both plaintiffs and defendant agreed on June 14 not to call Los Angeles officials to testify in a suit over the sale by the city of South Central Farm, according to Associated Press. The plaintiffs have subpoenaed Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and nearly a dozen members of the city council. But Superior Court Judge Helen I. Bendix said she would have to limit the type of questions the urban farmers' lawyers could ask, according to the report. Judge Bendix heard on July 12 a series of pre-trial motions in the suit (Class Action Reporter, July 14, 2006). Farmers filed a class action against the city and developer Ralph Horowitz in February 2004 asking to nullify the sale of the land in 2003 on grounds that the city did not issue a public notice prior to the deal. They said in court papers they could have raised funds to buy themselves had they known of the planned sale. They are also claiming the city sold the land to Mr. Horowitz for far less than its value, according to NBC4.TV. The city bought the land from Mr. Horowitz in the 1980s using its power of eminent domain. It loaned the land to the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank, and sold it to the Harbor Department in 1994. Mr. Horowitz sued the city over the sale, forcing it to sell him the land back for $5 million in 2003. On June 13, the farmers were evicted from the land at 41st and Alameda streets in South Los Angeles under a court order signed in May. Patrick M. Dunlevy is attorney for the farmers. CANADA: Cabinet Approves Compensation in Residential School Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The federal cabinet has approved plans for a CA$1.9 billion compensation package for residential school survivors, according to the Saskatchewan Sage. The approval finalizes the agreement-in-principle announced in November 2005. The settlement plan, which must still be approved in nine provincial courts, provides: -- at least CA$1.9 billion available for "common experience" payments to former students who lived at one of the schools. Payments will be CA$10,000 for the first school year (or part of a school year) plus CA$3,000 for each school year (or part of a school year) after that; -- a process to allow those who suffered sexual or serious physical abuses, or other abuses that caused serious psychological effects, to get between CA$5,000 and CA$275,000 each. Students could get more money if they also show a loss of income; and -- money for programs for former students and their families for healing, truth, reconciliation, and commemoration of the residential schools and the abuses suffered: CA$125 million to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, CA$60 million to research, document, and preserve the experiences of the survivors, and CA$20 million for national and community commemorative projects. The government will pay lawyers representing former students up to approximately CA$100 million in fees, plus costs and taxes. In May, the federal government has agreed to pay CA$80 million to Regina-based Merchant Law Group and a national consortium of 20 law firms. Survivors, meanwhile, are to get an average of CA$30,000. Canada and churches including the Catholic, Presbyterian, Anglican and United Church operated residential schools in Canada from 1848 until the 1970s. Their objectives included separating aboriginal children from their traditional languages and cultures and their assimilation into non-aboriginal society. The Merchant Law Group represents 9,000 survivors, which the firm's Web site says is half of all those who sought justice by means of class action (Class Action Reporter, May 17, 2006). Deadline to File Objection Deadline to file objection to the settlement is Aug. 25, 2006. Objections must be filed with the Residential Schools Settlement, Suite 3-505, 133 Weber St. North, Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3G9, Phone: 1-866-879-4913, E-mail: objections@residentialschoolsettlement.ca. Hearings Schedule Hearing Location Hearing date Time Ontario Ontario Superior Aug 29-31, 2006 10:00 a.m. Court of Justice Court House 361 University Avenue Toronto, ON M5G 1T3 Quebec Superior Court Sept 8, 2006 9:30 a.m. of Quebec Palais de justice 1 Notre-Dame Street East Montreal, QC H2Y 1B6 Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Sept 18-20, 10:00 a.m. Bench 2006 Court House 2425 Victoria Avenue Regina, SK S4P 3V7 Northwest Court House Oct 3-4, 2006 10:00 a.m. Territories 4903 - 49th Street Yellowknife, Northwest Territories X1A 2N4 Manitoba Court of Queen's Oct 5-6, 2006 10:00 a.m. Bench Law Courts Building 408 York Avenue Winnipeg, MB R3C 0P9 Nunavut Nunavut Court Oct 10-11, 2006 9:30 a.m. of Justice Arnakallak Building (Building #224) Iqaluit, Nunavut X0A 0H0 British The Supreme Court Oct 10-12, 2006 10:00 a.m. Columbia of British Columbia The Law Courts 800 Smithe Street Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2E1 Alberta Court of Queen's Oct 12-13, 2006 10:00 a.m. Bench Court House 611 - 4 St. S.W. Calgary, AB T2P 1T5 Yukon Supreme Court of Oct 16-17, 2006 10:00 a.m. the Yukon Territory 2134 Second Avenue Whitehorse, Yukon Y1A 5H6 With the exception of those who attended the Mohawk Institute in Brantford, Ontario, former students and their families are advised to attend the hearing in the Province/Territory in which they now reside. Those living in Labrador, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, or outside Canada, are affected by, and may attend, the Ontario hearing. Former Mohawk Institute students are affected by the Ontario hearing regardless of where they now live. The compensation will only be paid out to former students who were still living on May 30, 2005, and who have attended a recognized Indian residential schools. Students who are eligible can apply for an advance payment of $8,000 by filling out a form available on the Indian Residential Schools Resolution Web site (http://www.irsr-rqpi.gc.ca/)or by calling 1-800-816-7293. Applications for advance payment will be accepted until Dec. 31. For more information, contact Residential Schools Settlement Administrator, Phone: +1-888-842-1331 Ext. 247. CONAGRA FOODS: Recalls Jumbo Franks for Undeclared Milk Content --------------------------------------------------------------- ConAgra Foods of Quincy, Michigan, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service, is voluntarily recalling approximately 16,716 lbs. of jumbo franks due to an undeclared milk allergen. The product label indicates that the package contains jumbo franks made with turkey and pork; however, the package may contain cheese-smoked sausage made with pork and turkey. The cheese-smoked sausage contains milk, a known allergen, which is not declared on the label. The recalled jumbo franks are in 16-oz. vacuum packages of "Eckrich, Jumbo Franks, Made With Turkey, Pork." Each label bears the establishment number "1941" and the lot code "3F." Each package also bears the manufacturer's code "0549082306" and the sell by date, "Aug. 23, 2006." The franks were produced on May 15, 2006, and were shipped to retail stores in Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and West Virginia. The problem was discovered by the company. The FSIS has received no reports of illness due to consumption of this product. Anyone concerned about an allergic reaction is advised to contact a physician. Consumers with questions about the recall should contact the company toll-free, 24-hour information line at 1-866-344-6833. Media with questions about the recall should contact the company's Communications Director Tania Graves at (402) 595- 6258. EMACHINES INC: Aug. 24 Hearing Set for M53XX Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ The Court of Common Pleas, Lucas County, Ohio will hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 24, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. for the proposed settlement in the matter, "David Heitbrink and Robert Rattner, et al. v. eMachines, Inc., Case No. G-4801CI200501229." The case was brought on behalf of all owners of eMachines M5305, M5309, M5310, M5312 and M5313 series notebook computers (M53XX Series). The suit alleges that the M53xx Series computers were defective in design, causing them to overheat or shut down or experience a significant reduction in processing speed as a result of overheating during normal usage. It further claims that eMachines knew of and concealed the existence of these issues at the time it sold the M53xx Series. It is, thus, asserting claims for violation of state consumer protection statutes, uniform written misrepresentation, common omission, and breach of warranty. The hearing will be held before Judge Thomas Osowik, at the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, 700 Adams Street, Toledo, Ohio, in Courtroom 10. In that hearing the court will consider whether to grant final certification to the class for settlement purposes, and whether to approve the proposed settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate. In addition, the court will also consider at this hearing the request of class counsel for fees amounting to $2,250,000 and the class representative awards to the two class representatives of $2,000.00 each, which eMachines has agreed to pay as part of this settlement over and above the other remedies. Deadline for any objections or exclusions to or from the settlement is on July 25, 2006. Postmark Deadline for submitting claim form unless the effective date of the settlement is extended is on Oct. 22, 2006. For more details, contact eMachines, Class Action Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 91146, Seattle, WA 98111-9246, Phone: 1- 866-817-6513, E-mail: M53xxSeriesSettlement@gardencitygroup.com, Web site: http://www.m53xxseriessettlement.com/. FEDEX EXPRESS: Settles "Foster" Wage, Hour Litigation in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the wage-and-hour class action, "Foster v. FedEx Express Corp.," which is pending in a California state court reached a settlement in the matter. Plaintiffs in "Foster" represent a class of hourly FedEx Express employees in California from Oct. 14, 1998 to the present. They allege that hourly employees are routinely required to work "off the clock" and are not paid for this additional work. The court issued a ruling in December 2004 granting class certification on all issues. In February 2006, the parties reached a settlement that has been preliminarily approved by the court. The company continues to deny liability, but entered into the settlement to avoid the cost and uncertainty of further litigation. The amount of the proposed settlement was fully accrued at the end of the third quarter of 2006 and is not material to FedEx Corp. FINISAR CORP: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Receive Court Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 a consolidated securities class action against Finisar Corp., according to the company's July 14, 2006 Form 10- K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2006. On Nov. 30, 2001, a securities class action was filed purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock from Nov. 17, 1999 to Dec. 6, 2000. The complaint named as defendants the company, Jerry S. Rawls, its president and chief executive officer, Frank H. Levinson, its former chairman of the board and chief technical officer, Stephen K. Workman, its senior vice president and chief financial officer, and an investment banking firm that served as an underwriter for the company's initial public offering in November 1999 and a secondary offering in April 2000. The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. No specific damages are claimed. Similar allegations were made in lawsuits relating to more than 300 other initial public offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, which were consolidated for pretrial purposes. In October 2002, all claims against the individual defendants were dismissed without prejudice. On Feb. 19, 2003, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. In July 2004, the company and the individual defendants accepted a settlement proposal made to all of the issuer defendants. Under the terms of the settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against participating defendants in exchange for a contingent payment guaranty by the insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all related cases, and the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer defendants may have against the underwriters. Under the guaranty, the insurers will be required to pay the amount, if any, by which $1 billion exceeds the aggregate amount ultimately collected by the plaintiffs from the underwriter defendants in all the cases. If the plaintiffs fail to recover $1 billion and payment is required under the guaranty, the company would be responsible to pay its pro rata portion of the shortfall, up to the amount of the self-insured retention under the company's insurance policy, which may be up to $2 million. The timing and amount of payments that the company could be required to make under the proposed settlement will depend on several factors, principally the timing and amount of any payment that the insurers may be required to make pursuant to the $1 billion guaranty. The court held hearings on April 13, 2005 and Sept. 6, 2005 to determine the form, substance and program of class notice and the scheduling of a fairness hearing for final approval of the settlement. Subsequently, the court held a hearing on April 24, 2006 to consider final approval of the settlement and has yet to issue a decision. For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/. FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Calif. Court Upholds Class Status Denial --------------------------------------------------------------- The California Court of Appeal upheld the denial of class- action status to a lawsuit over alleged defects in the plastic roofing of Fleetwood Enterprises' folding trailers. Captioned, "Griffin et al. v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. et al.," the complaint claims damages arising out of certain California statutory claims with respect to alleged defects in a specific type of plastic roof installed on folding trailers produced by Fleetwood Folding Trailers, Inc. from 1995 through 2003. A California state court denied class certification in the Griffin matter on April 28, 2005, and the State of California- Court of Appeal upheld the denial in a ruling issued on May 11, 2006. FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Proceedings Stayed in Calif. Trailer Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Class certification proceedings were stayed in a class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. over a specific type of plastic roof installed on folding trailers. The suit, "Brodhead, et al. v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.," was filed on June 22, 2005. It is claiming damages arising out of certain California statutory claims with respect to alleged defects in a specific type of plastic roof installed on the company's folding trailers from 1995 through 2003. Plaintiffs have clarified that the class for which they are seeking certification extends to all owners of folding trailers produced by Fleetwood Folding Trailers, Inc. with this type of roof, as well as any former owners who may have had to pay to have this type of roof repaired. Proceedings relating to the class certification in the Brodhead matter were stayed pending the outcome of the state court certification in "Griffin et al. v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. et al." The suit is "Kenneth Brodhead et al. v. Fleetwood Enterprises Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-04560-GPS-Mc," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge George P. Schiavelli with referral to Judge James W. McMahon. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Edward M. Gergosian and Robert J. Gralewski, Jr. of Gergosian and Gralewski, 550 West C Street, Suite 1600, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-230-0104, E-mail: ed@gergosian.com; and (2) Eric H. Gibbs, Karen Lee Hindin and Jonathan K. Levine of Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo, 601 California St., Ste. 1400, San Francisco, CA 94108, Phone: 415-981- 4800, E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com; klh@girardgibbs.com and jkl@girardgibbs.com. Representing the company are: (i) Howard B. Golds of Best Best & Krieger, 3750 University Ave., Ste. 400, P.O. Box 1028, Riverside, CA 92502- 1028, Phone: 951-686-1450, E-mail: hbgolds@bbklaw.com; and (ii) Lee Ann Anand and Richard K Hines, V of Nelson Mulins Riley & Scroborough, 999 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1400, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-817-6000, E-mail: leeann.anand@nelsonmullins.com and richard.hines@nelsonmullins.com. FLORIDA: Residents Sue Citrus County Over "Excessive" Water Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Citrus County, Florida faces a purported class action filed by a group of Chassahowitzka River property owners, who are challenging the county's assessments for a new water system, The St. Petersburg Times reports. The suit was filed by Lutz attorney Gerald T. Buhr in the Citrus County Circuit Court on July 14, 2006. It alleges that assessments the commissioners approved last month to pay for a new water system in Chassahowitzka are unfair and excessive. It further claims that county officials unfairly burdened residential property owners by incorrectly calculating the assessments that owners of commercial properties must pay. It is demanding that the county, represented by Robert "Butch" Battista, should add properties north of Chassahowitzka, east of U.S. 19 along U.S. 98, to the assessment list. The government is planning to lay down more than 7,000-foot of water main in that portion of the road; however, county plans currently don't require adjoining properties to hook up. Plaintiffs in the suit are Michael D. Hartley, Clay Steinman, Matthew Corona and PSC Holdings LLC, representing Chassahowitzka residents. For more details, contact: (1) [Plaintiffs] Gerald T. Buhr of Gerald T. Buhr, P.A., Northfork Professional Center, Suite 100, 1519 Dale Mabry Highway, Lutz, Florida 33548, (Hillsborough Co.), Phone: 813-949-3681, Cell Phone: 813-610-8108, Fax: 813-949-3196; and (2) [Defendants] Robert B. Battista, County Attorney, 110 N. Apopka Ave., Inverness, Florida 34450, Phone: (352) 341-6560, Fax: (352) 341-6585. HUSQVARNA OUTDOOR: Recalls Lawn Tractors to Repair Fuel Line ------------------------------------------------------------ Husqvarna Outdoor Products Inc., of Augusta, Georgia, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 174,000 units of lawn tractors. Husqvarna is formerly Electrolux Outdoor Products Inc. The company said the fuel line on these lawn tractors can separate from the fuel tank outlet. If this occurs, fuel will spill out, posing a fire hazard. Husqvarna Outdoor Products Inc. received 886 reports of fuel lines that separated from the fuel tank outlet and 16 reports of fires related to this issue. There are three reports of minor personal injury. The lawn tractors were sold under the Husqvarna, Craftsman, Poulan Pro, Poulan, Weed Eater, Southern States and Murray brand names. The Recalled tractors' product, model and serial numbers are listed in the chart below. To determine if a tractor is included in the recall, check the lawn tractors' product, model and serial numbers, located on a label under the seat of the tractor. Brand Product Model Serial Service Center Number Number Number Range Craftsman NA 917.27662 120905-X00XXXX (800) 659-5917 917.27663 through Monday to 917.27618 061606-X00XXXX Saturday 917.27664 between 6 a.m. & 8 p.m. ET. http://www.sears.com NA 917.27535 090905-X00XXXX 917.27639 through 917.27640 062206-X00XXXX 917.27641 917.27678 Husqvarna 960430003 00 YT1942T 120905-X00XXXX (866) 721-6091 through Monday to 061606-X00XXXX Friday between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET www.husqvarna.com 960130019 00 LT16542 090905-X00XXXX through 062206-X00X`XXX Poulan 960420026 00 C20H42YT 120905-X00XXXX (866) 284-8872 through Monday through 061606-X00XXXX Friday between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET http://www.poulan.com 960120043 00 PO12538LT 090905-X00XXXX 960120044 00 PB1638LT through 960120044 01 PB1638LT 062206-X00XXXX 960120044 02 PB1638LT 960120045 00 PB1842LT 960120045 01 PB1842LT 960120053 00 PB185H42LT 960170004 00 PB18H42LT Poulan 960420020 00 PB19H42YT 120905-X00XXXX (866) 284-8872 Pro 960420008 00 PB20H42YT through Monday through 960420009 00 PK20H42YT 061606-X00XXXX Friday 960420016 00 XT19H42YT between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET http://www.poulan.com 960160013 00 HD17542 090905-X00XXXX 960160013 01 HD17542 through 960120060 00 XT185H42LT 062206-X00XXXX Southern 960420011 00 SO20H42YT 120905-X00XXXX (866) 284-8872 States through Monday through 061606-X00XXXX Friday between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET 960120054 00 SO1638LT 090905-X00XXXX 960120055 00 SO17542LT through 960120057 01 SO19H42LT 062206-X00XXXX Weed 960160014 00 HD13538 090905-X00XXXX (866) 284-8872 Eater 960160014 02 through Monday through 062206-X00XXXX Friday between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET http://www.weedeater.com Pictures of the recalled lawn tractors: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06207a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06207b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06207c.jpg The lawn tractors were manufactured in Orangeburg, South Carolina and are being sold at home centers, retailers, hardware stores and dealers nationwide from September 2005 through June 2006 for between $820 and $1,500. Consumers with recalled tractors are advised to immediately stop using the tractor and contact the applicable firm listed in below chart to schedule a free repair. For more information, call Husqvarna Outdoor Products Inc. toll- free at (866) 284-8872 or visit: http://www.husqvarna.com. Consumers with Craftsman-brand tractors should call (800) 659- 5917. Consumers with Poulan Pro, Poulan, Weed Eater, Southern States or Murray brand tractors should call toll-free at (866) 284- 8872. JACKSON HEWITT: Continues to Face Refund Anticipation Loans Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. remains a defendant in purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over Refund Anticipation Loans, according to the company's July 14, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2006. On Dec. 23, 2005, Pierre Brailsford and Kevin Gilmore brought a purported class action against the company in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County in connection with disclosures made in connection with the provision of RALs. Plaintiffs are alleging that the disclosures and related practices are fraudulent and otherwise unlawful, and seeking equitable and monetary relief. On Jan. 31, 2006, the company filed a notice removing the complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On Feb. 7, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied, and subsequently answered the complaint, denying any liability. The suit is "Brailsford, et al. v. Hewitt, et al., Case No. 4:06-cv-00700-CW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Claudia Wilken. Representing the plaintiffs is Kathryn Chris Palamountain of Chavez & Gertler, LLP, 42 Miller Avenue, Mill Valley, CA 94941, Phone: 415-381-5599, Fax: 415-381-5572, E-mail: chris@chavezgertler.com. Representing the defendants is Joren Surya Bass of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, 4 Embarcadero Center, Ste. 3800, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-984-6400, Fax: 415- 984-2698, E-mail: jbass@skadden.com. JACKSON HEWITT: N.Y. Court Mulls Parties' Motions in RAL Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, has yet to rule on both parties' motion for summary judgment in the class action against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. over Refund Anticipation Loans. On June 18, 2004, Myron Benton brought a purported class action against Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Co. and the company in connection with disclosures made in the provision of RALs, alleging that the disclosures and related practices are fraudulent and otherwise unlawful. The plaintiffs sought equitable and monetary relief. The company filed a motion to dismiss that complaint. In response, Mr. Benton withdrew his original complaint and filed an amended complaint on Jan. 3, 2005. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, both of which are currently pending, according to the company's July 14, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2006. MERRILL LYNCH: Race Bias Suit Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a race discrimination case against brokerage firm Merrill Lynch & Co. have filed an amended complaint, contending that the company systemically limited the opportunities for blacks to succeed as brokers, according to International Herald Tribune. The plaintiffs claim they were denied a fair chance to rise into management. They also allege the company retaliated against those who complained. Their complaint also includes allegations of offensive remarks and other slights directed at them. They are seeking a large monetary award and court-ordered initiatives to increase diversity in the ranks, the report said. They are seeking class-action status for the case. Glenn Capel, a black financial adviser in a busy Merrill Lynch office in Greensboro, North Carolina, is one of dozens of current and former Merrill brokers who asked to join the suit after it was filed last year. In June, Reuters reported that settlement talks in a racial class action filed against Merrill Lynch failed to reach an agreement, the company said (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2006). The suit was originally filed on behalf of financial advisor George McReynold in federal court in Chicago in November. It accuses Merrill Lynch of systematically discriminating against African-American brokers in hiring, promotion and compensation. It is asking compensatory and punitive damages. The suit is "McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-06583," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Robert W. Gettleman, with referral to Judge Michael T. Mason. Representing the plaintiffs are: Linda Debra Friedman and Mary Stowell of Stowell & Friedman, Ltd., 321 South Plymouth Court, Suite 1400, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: 312-431-0888, E-mail: lfriedman@sfltd.com, mstowell@sfltd.com. OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Proceeds in Calif. Stock Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against OmniVision Technologies, Inc. On June 10, 2004, the first of several putative class actions were filed against the company and certain of its present and former directors and officers on behalf of investors who purchased the company's common stock at various times from February 2003 to June 9, 2004. Those actions were consolidated under the caption, "In re OmniVision Technologies, Inc., No. C-04-2297-SC." It asserts claims on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock between June 11, 2003 and June 9, 2004. It is seeking unspecified damages. It generally alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly engaging in improper accounting practices that purportedly led to the company's financial restatement. On July 29, 2005, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss the complaint. The company believes that the complaint is without merit. The case is currently in discovery, according to the company's July 14, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2006. The suit is "In re OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-2297," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Samuel L. Conti with referral to Judge Joseph C. Spero. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Marc Louis Ackerman of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 94104, Phone: 610- 667-6200, Fax: 610-667-9029, E-mail: mackerman@brodsky-smith.com; (2) Peter A. Binkow of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, Fax: 310-201-9160, E-mail: pbinkow@glancylaw.com; and (3) Jeffery C. Block of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, 8th Floor, One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: (617) 542-8300, Fax: 6175421194, E-mail: jblock@bermanesq.com. Representing the defendants are Jenny L. Dixon, Cameron Powers Hoffman and Claudia N. Main of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Phone: 415-947-2000, (650) 493-9300 and 415-947-2053, Fax: 415- 947-2099, E-mail: jldixon@wsgr.com, choffman@wsgr.com and cmain@wsgr.com. OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: IPO Deal Yet to Receive Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 a consolidated securities class action against OmniVision Technologies, Inc., according to the company's July 14, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2006. On Nov. 29, 2001, a complaint captioned, "McKee v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 01CV 10775," was filed against the company, some of its directors and officers, and various underwriters for its initial public offering. Plaintiffs allege that the named defendants violated federal securities laws because the prospectus related to the company's offering failed to disclose, and contained false and misleading statements regarding, certain commissions purported to have been received by the underwriters, and other purported underwriter practices in connection with their allocation of shares in the company's offering. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock between July 14, 2000 and Dec. 6, 2000. Substantially similar actions have been filed concerning the initial public offerings for more than 300 different issuers, and the cases have been coordinated as "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92." Claims against the company's directors and officers were dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a stipulation. On Feb. 19, 2003, the court issued an order dismissing all claims against the company except for a claim brought under Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933. A stipulation of settlement for the release of claims against the issuer defendants, including the company was submitted to the court. On Feb. 15, 2005, the court preliminarily approved the settlement contingent on specified modifications. On Aug. 31, 2005, the court issued an order confirming preliminary approval of the settlement. On April 24, 2006, the court held a fairness hearing in connection with the motion for final approval of the settlement. The court did not issue a ruling on the motion for final approval at the fairness hearing. For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/. PATTERSON COS: Faces Consolidated Stock, ERISA, Derivative Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Patterson Cos., Inc. is a defendant in a consolidated class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Initially, five purported class actions were filed against the company and certain officers and directors, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. On Aug. 31, 2005, the court entered an order consolidating the cases as "In re Patterson Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation, File No. 05cv1757 DSD/NMJ." On Sept. 16, 2005, a derivative lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota captioned, "Vance Cadd, Derivatively On Behalf of Patterson Companies, Inc. vs. James W. Wiltz, et al., docketed as 05-cv-02155 RHK/AJB." The suit names certain officers and directors of the company as defendants. It alleges breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. On Oct. 11, 2005, a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota captioned, "Tamara Dolliver, et al., v. Patterson Companies, Inc., et al, Case No. 05-cv- 02383 JNE/SRN." The class action was brought on behalf of the participants in the company's Employee Stock Ownership Plan against the company and certain officers and directors. It alleges violations of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Cadd and Dolliver cases are predicated on essentially the same factual allegations alleged in, and are related cases to, the class actions consolidated as, "In Re Patterson Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation." The consolidated suit is now "In Re Patterson Companies, Inc. Securities, Derivative & ERISA Litigation, Case No. 0:05-cv- 01757-DSD-JJG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Missouri under Judge David S. Doty with referral to Judge Jeanne J. Graham. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. of Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, 332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250, St. Paul, MN 55101, Phone: 651-287-2100, E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com; (2) Andrew J. Brown of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP - SD, 655 W. Broadway, Ste. 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-338-3801, E-mail: andrewb@lerachlaw.com; (3) Karl L. Cambronne and Jack L. Chestnut of Chestnut & Cambronne, 222 S. 9th St., Ste. 3700, Mpls, MN 55402, Phone: 612-339-7300, Fax: 612-336-2940 (fax), E-mail: kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com and jchestnut@chestnutcambronne.com. Representing the company are Jeffrey A. Abrahamson, Jessica R. Rosenberg, Frank A. Taylor and Margaret A. Goetze of Briggs & Morgan, PA, Phone: 651-808-6600, 651-808-6633 and (612) 977- 8663, Fax: 651-808-6450 and 612-977-8650, E-mail: jabrahamson@briggs.com, ftaylor@briggs.com, mgoetze@briggs.com and jrosenberg@briggs.com. PENNSYLVANIA: Resident Sues Allegheny County Over Strip Searches ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allegheny County and several of its officials face a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania over allegations of civil rights violation in relation to its strip search policy, The Pittsburgh Tribune- Review reports. Michael Rey of Mt. Washington filed the suit on July 13, 2006, seeking class action status on behalf of everyone who was or will be strip-searched in county jail after being arrested for petty crimes. Mr. Rey, according to court documents, was strip- searched after being arrested for not paying child support Represented by attorney Rob Peirce, the 44-year-old man, claims that hundreds of people arrested for misdemeanors and other violations are placed in the Allegheny County jail each month and that at least 5,000 were strip-searched illegally. Some, according to his suit, had their civil rights violated on multiple occasions. Despite the allegations, Warden Ramon Rustin, who is named in the lawsuit along with four deputy wardens defended the county jail's policy, pointing out that they only strip-search people arrested for drug-related or violent crimes. The suit states that Mr. Rey was arrested on Feb. 13 on a non- felony charge of failing to pay child support. On Feb. 14, he was transferred from a holding cell at the County Courthouse to the jail. There, a guard ordered him to remove his clothes in a shower room and performed a visual body cavity search, accoridng to the suit. The suit is "Rey V. The County Of Allegheny, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00927-TFM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under Judge Terrence F. McVerry. Representing the plaintiffs are D. Aaron Rihn and Rob Peirce of Peirce Law Offices, 707 Grant Street, 2500 Gulf Tower, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, U.S.A, Phone: (412) 281-7229, Fax: (412) 281-4229, E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com. PHARMACEUTICAL COS: Aussie Firms Enter $23M Deal in Vit. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- A $23 million (AU$30.5 million) settlement was reached in a class action filed on behalf of about a dozen Australian businesses claiming several international companies colluded to operate as a cartel by illegally fixing vitamin prices, the Malaysia Star reports. In 2003, Melbourne-based law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman commenced the class action against the Australian, Asian and European divisions of international conglomerates such as Roche, Aventis and BASF, contending these firms and others colluded to illegally fix vitamin prices in the 1990s (Class Action Reporter, July 21, 2003). The companies allegedly colluded to fix prices across the world market for vitamins A, C, E, B2, B5 and beta-carotene in everything from drinks and foodstuffs to pharmaceutical products, cosmetics and animal feed. The Australian class action was initiated after a worldwide conspiracy to raise and fix prices of vitamins was uncovered, with companies receiving record penalties, according to a report from the Associated Press. Terms of the settlement, which is still subject to the approval of a federal judge until August 31, will be outlined in the local dailies over the next week, according to Kim Parker, principal of Maurice Blackburn. ROXANE LABORATORIES: Recalls Lot 558470A of Azathioprine Tablets ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roxane Laboratories, Inc., in cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drugs Administration, is conducting a nationwide voluntary recall of a single manufacturing lot of Azathioprine tablets, USP 50 mg., (NDC 00054-4084-25, Lot 558470A, Exp Mar 2009). Azathioprine is used to help prevent rejection in kidney transplant patients, and can also be used to manage severe rheumatoid arthritis. It was discovered that a single bottle of Azathioprine tablets from lot 558470A contained Methotrexate tablets USP 2.5 mg. The company believes this issue may be limited to this single bottle, which was not dispensed to a patient, but it decided to recall the whole manufacturing lot 558470A in order to preclude any possibility of another such bottle being dispensed or used. Due to the potentially serious or life-threatening health affects that could occur if patients ingest the incorrect medication, Roxane Laboratories is voluntarily recalling the single manufacturing lot of Azathioprine tablets. If Methotrexate 2.5 mg. tablets are taken in place of Azathioprine 50 mg. tablets in accordance with dosing instructions that may be prescribed for Azathioprine, serious toxic effects may occur. Effects may include decreased resistance to infection, mouth ulcers, reduced blood counts, vomiting, diarrhea, liver, kidney or lung injury. There have also been reports of death at high doses of Methotrexate, such as might result from a substitution of Methotrexate 2.5 mg. tablets for Azathioprine 50 mg. tablets. Information has been sent to Pharmacists alerting them of the details pertaining to this recall. As described in these recall communications, pharmacists who may have dispensed Azathioprine tablets to patients from manufacturing lot 558470A are instructed to contact those patients to assure they did not inadvertently receive Methotrexate tablets. Purchasers of Azathioprine are requested to immediately return purchased medication to pharmacist. Consumers are advised to verify they have not received Methotrexate tablets in their Azathioprine prescription by visually inspecting Azathioprine tablets, not taking Azathioprine tablets marked with number 54 323. Those who bought Azathioprine tablets marked with number 54 323 are advised to immediately contact their pharmacist or physician. To request additional information from Roxane Laboratories Technical Product Information, call 800-962-8364. Pharmacists and wholesalers that have any bottles of Azathioprine manufacturing lot 558470A have been instructed to discontinue distribution and use of this lot immediately and contact Capital Returns at 800-950-5479 (menu option 1) for any questions regarding the recall returns. Requests for additional information should be referred to Roxane Laboratories Technical Product Information at 800-962-8364. SALOMON SMITH: Court Sides with State in Phone Call Taping Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- California's Supreme Court has ruled that it is unlawful for callers outside the state to secretly tape phone conversations without the Californian party's consent even if such act is legal in the state where the other party resides, according to The Recorder. The suit, which is seeking class-action status, was filed in 2002 by residents Kelly Kearney and Mark Levy against Salomon Smith Barney, now known as Citigroup Global Markets Inc. It was initiated after Smith Barney played back portions of customer's phone conversations with its brokers as defense in a suit over investments. Investors claim the secret recording violates the state's Invasion of Privacy Act and is an unfair business practice. Salomon Smith filed a demurrer to the complaint, maintaining that no relief is warranted, because the conduct of its Atlanta- based employees was and is permissible in Georgia, where the other party to the conversation resides. San Francisco Superior Court Judge A. James Robertson II dismissed the suit in 2003. San Francisco's 1st District Court of Appeal affirmed a year later. However, on July 13, Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for a unanimous court that allowing one-sided taping "would significantly impair the privacy policy guaranteed by California law." "California clearly has an interest -- in protecting the privacy of telephone conversations of California residents while they are in California -- sufficient to permit this state, as a constitutional matter, to exercise legislative jurisdiction over such activity," the ruling stated. The suit is seeking to obtain injunctive relief against Salomon Smith's Atlanta-based branch's continuing practice of recording telephone conversations, resulting from calls made to and from California, without knowledge or consent of the California clients. It is also seeking to recover damages and/or restitution based upon recording that occurred in the past. The ruling is Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 06 C.D.O.S. A copy of the ruling is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?dd9 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. SAXON MORTGAGE: Settles Consumer Fraud Suit Over Loans in Ill. -------------------------------------------------------------- Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. settled the class action, "Margarita Barbosa, et al. v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., et al.," pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, according to the company's July 14, 2006 Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2005. Plaintiffs alleged that the company collected prepayment penalties on loans that had been accelerated, constituting violations of the Illinois Interest Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, similar laws, if any, in other states, and a breach of contract. The claims of one of the named plaintiffs have been settled, and the claims of the remaining named plaintiff against the company have been dismissed without prejudice. The remaining named plaintiff re-filed the action in State Court. On the company's motion, the action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The parties agreed to a settlement that would require the company to pay approximately $0.2 million to a group of 27 former Illinois borrowers and their attorneys in exchange for a dismissal. The court has entered an order approving the settlement. Each of the 27 former borrowers may choose to opt out of the settlement and may pursue individual actions against the company. The settlement would not preclude former borrowers in other states from bringing similar claims, or attempting to assert similar claims as a class action. During the three months ended June 30, 2005, the company made the final payment of $17,800 owed pursuant to the settlement agreement, and consequently fully performed its obligations under the settlement agreement. The suit is "Margarita Barbosa, et al. v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. (f/k/a Meritech Mortgage Services, Inc.), et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-06323," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Blanche M. Manning. Representing the plaintiffs is Daniel A. Edelman of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, 120 South LaSalle Street, 18th Floor, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312) 739-4200, E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com. Representing the defendants is Linda Beth Dubnow of McGuireWoods, LLP, 77 West Wacker Drive, #4100, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 849-8100, E-mail: ldubnow@mcguirewoods.com. SUNTERRA CORP: Law Firms Solicit Clients to Join Fraud Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Two law firms, Federman and Sherwood and Brower Piven issued press releases claiming to offer "information" about joining a class action filed by The Rosen Law Firm against Sunterra Corp. These firms have not filed a complaint, rather, the press releases appear to be advertisements designed to solicit clients so that the firm can participate in the case, according to The Rosen Law Firm, which filed the complaint against Sunterra in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. On July 12, The Rosen Law Firm filed a complaint against the company and certain of its officers, on behalf of all investors who purchased the company's common stock during the period from April 15, 2003 through June 22, 2006. The complaint alleges that Sunterra issued a series of false and misleading financial statements as a result of improper accounting practices in violation of the federal securities laws and follows an investigation by the Rosen Law Firm. A copy of the complaint filed by The Rosen Law Firm is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?dc7. Interested parties may move the court for lead plaintiff appointment no later than 60 days from July 12, 2006. For more information, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. and Phillip Kim, Esq., both of The Rosen Law Firm P.A., 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508, New York, New York 10118, Phone: (212) 686-1060 or (917) 797-4425 (weekends) or Toll Free: 1-866--767-3653, Fax: (212) 202-3827, E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com, Website: http://www.rosenlegal.com. TEXAS: Judge Allows Use of FEMA Housing Aid for Bills Payment ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David Hittner of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas ordered the Federal Emergency Management Agency to allow Hurricane Katrina evacuees under the city- administered housing voucher program to spend unused portions of their rental assistance on utility bills, the Associated Press reports. According to Hurricane Katrina refugees' lawyer, John Scofield, the ruling would help victims pay utility costs when the amount of rental assistance they're eligible for exceeds their actual rent. However, families whose rent meets or exceeds what FEMA provides won't receive any additional money to help cover utilities. The difference in most cities is typically around $100, Mr. Scofield said. FEMA previously planned to stop paying rent for approximately 17,000 evacuated families who were issued 12-month housing vouchers by local governments (Class Action Report, May 24, 2006). 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 (Class Action Reporter, May 31, 2006). 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, as Judge Hittner denied the restraining order, he ordered FEMA to expedite consideration of voucher extensions for those evacuees (Class Action Reporter, June 6, 2006). 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 and John Blue Scofield, Jr. of Caddell and Chapman, 1331 Lamar Ste 1070, Houston, TX 77010-3027, Phone: 713-751-0400, Fax: 713-751-0906 or (713) 752-4221. TIBCO SOFTWARE: Continues to Face Calif. Securities Fraud Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- TIBCO Software, Inc. and several of its officers remain as defendants in three purported securities class actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the company's July 14, 2006 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 4, 2006. The suits are: -- "Guzzetti v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-02373-SBA," filed on June 10, 2006; -- "Bernheim v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-02205-SBA," filed on May 31, 2005; and -- "Siegall v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No. 4:05- cv-02146-SBA," filed on May 25, 2005. Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of purchasers of the company's common stock from Sept. 21, 2004 through March 1, 2005. The complaints generally allege that the company made false or misleading statements concerning its operating results, its business and internal controls, and the integration of Staffware and seek unspecified monetary damages. It charges the company and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The first identified complaint is "Lance Siegall, et al. v. Tibco Software, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-02146," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com; (2) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO, 80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E- mail: info@dyershuman.com; (3) 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; (4) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com; and (5) Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail: info@whhf.com. UNITED KINGDOM: London Court Mulls Certification of Names Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- London's High Court is contemplating deciding whether the class suit filed on behalf of 1,100 investors in Lloyd's of London against the government and the Treasury can go ahead, BestWire reports. The court will also have to consider whether too much time has elapsed for the plaintiffs to claim for compensation since the Treasury allegedly failed to regulate the insurer properly. Earlier, lawyer Chris Stockwell initiated a lawsuit on behalf of 1,100 investors in Lloyd's of London against the government and the Treasury, alleging the Treasury failed to regulate the insurer properly (Class Action Reporter, July 7, 2006). The investors, known as Names, claim they made heavy losses at Lloyd's because the market's watchdog, failed to implement key European Union directives. The E.U. directives include a measure that dictates how much insurers should hold in reserves when writing certain types of business. The Treasury promised to defend the suit, which seeks over GBP1 billion in compensation. Lloyd's is not commenting on the suit, pointing out that it isn't involved in the action, which is likely to end in October, according to the report. WORLDCOM INC: DSI to Accept Bids for Former Chief Exec's Assets --------------------------------------------------------------- Development Specialists, Inc. says in a notice published in the Wall Street Journal that it is accepting offers to purchase the assets of Angelina Properties, LLC, Angelina Grain Elevator of Concordia Parish, LLC, and Angelina Flying Services, LLC. DSI acts as the trustee in a trust created under a settlement agreement in In re: WorldCom, Inc., Securities Litigation 02- Civ.-3288 (S.D.N.Y.), pursuant to which it is handling the sale of the assets of former WorldCom Inc. Chief Executive Officer Bernard Ebbers. A class action filed against Mr. Ebbers by investors who lost money when WorldCom collapsed in 2002 calls for him to place his assets in a trust that is expected to be sold for $25,000,000 to $40,000,000. The proceeds from the sale of Mr. Ebber's property are to be deposited in a fiduciary fund for disbursement to the plaintiffs. The Angelina facilities are located in East Central Louisiana, 25 miles southwest of Natchez, Mississippi. They are generally used to cultivate corn, soybeans and rice and span 23,000 tillable acres of land, 8,434 acres of which are irrigated. Assets include two grain elevators with a total capacity of 2,500,000 bushels, a seed plant, a crop-dusting flying service with four airplanes and related runways, aircraft and equipment. The facilities also contain relevant offices, buildings, hangars and farming equipment. Parties interested in receiving a bid package, conducting due diligence or touring the facilities should contact DSI's representatives or counsel: Development Specialists, Inc. 70 W. Madison Street Suite 2300 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Attn: Brian C. Weepie Phone: (312) 263-4141 Facsimile: (312) 263-1180 E-mail: bweepie@dsi.biz Development Specialists, Inc. 200 S. Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1818 Miami, Florida 33131 Attn: Joseph J. Luzinski Phone: (305) 374-2717 Facsimile: (305) 374-2718 E-mail: jluzinski@dsi.biz Burr & Foreman LLP 401 E. Capitol Street Suite 100 Jackson, Mississippi 39201 Attn: Edward R. Christian Phone: (205) 458-5155 Facsimile: (205) 244-5620 E-mail: echristi@burr.com The litigation --http://www.worldcomlitigation.com/-- is a consolidated, certified class action pending in the Southern District of New York before District Court Judge Denise L. Cote. It is being prosecuted on behalf of a court-certified class of all individuals or entities who purchased or acquired publicly traded securities of WorldCom, Inc. from April 29, 1999 through and including June 25, 2002, and who were injured thereby. Lead Plaintiff On Aug. 15, 2002, Judge Cote appointed the Comptroller of the State of New York, the sole Trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund, which is the nation's second-largest public pension fund, to serve as lead plaintiff in the WorldCom Securities Litigation and approved lead plaintiff's selection of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as co-lead counsel for the class. Fresno County Employees Retirement Association, the County of Fresno, California and HGK Asset Management are additional named plaintiffs and class representatives. The consolidated complaint of the lead plaintiff was filed in the fall of 2002, and updated in August 2003 and in December 2003. On Nov. 7, 2002, Judge Cote ordered the parties to participate in settlement negotiations under the supervision of Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger. In the fall of 2003, the court invited the Honorable Robert W. Sweet, U.S. District Court Judge, to assist in oversight of the settlement discussions. Judge Cote certified the lawsuit as a class action on Oct. 24, 2003. Defendants The director defendants were: Bernard J. Ebbers, former president, CEO; Scott D. Sullivan, former CFO; James C. Allen, former member of the audit committee; Judith Areen, former member of the audit committee; Carl J. Aycock; Max E. Bobbitt, former chairman of the audit committee; Francesco Galesi, former member of the audit committee; Clifford L. Alexander, Jr.; Stiles A. Kellett, Jr., former chairman of compensation committee; Gordon S. Macklin; John A. Porter; Bert C. Roberts, Jr., former chairman; John W. Sidgmore, former vice chairman; and Lawrence C. Tucker, Other individual defendants were: David F. Myers, controller and senior vice president; Buford Yates, Jr., director of General Accounting; and Arthur Andersen LLP. Underwriter defendants were: Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., Salomon Brothers International Limited; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.; J.P. Morgan Securities, Ltd.; Banc of America Securities LLC; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (n/k/a Deutsche Bank Alex Brown Inc.; Chase Securities Inc. (n/k/a J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.; Lehman Brothers Inc.; Blaylock & Partners, L.P.; Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; UBS Warburg LLC; ABN/AMRO Inc.; Utendahl Capital; Tokyo- Mitsubishi International plc; Westdeutsche Landesbank; Girozentrale (n/k/a WestLB AG); BNP Paribas Securities Corp.; Caboto Holding SIM S.p.A.; Fleet Securities, Inc.; Mizuho International plc. The Salomon defendants were: Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., as employer of Jack Grubman; Salomon Brothers International Limited; Jack B. Grubman, former telecommunications analyst at Salomon; Citigroup, Inc., corporate parent of Salomon. WorldCom, Inc. -- http://www.worldcom.com/-- was not a defendant because on July 21, 2002, it filed for bankruptcy protection. The bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York confirmed WorldCom's Plan on Oct. 31, 2003, and on Apr. 20, 2004, the company formally emerged from U.S. Chapter 11 protection as MCI, Inc. Settlements * Former WorldCom executives $6.136 billion Scott Sullivan, David Myers, and Buford Yates (taken with the anticipated proceeds from the Sullivan settlement) * Arthur Andersen LLP $65 million (funds have already been transferred to an escrow account) * Former Chairman Bert Roberts $4.5 million * 11 Other former director defendants $20.25 million * Insurance companies that had written $36 million directors and officers liability coverage ($1 million to settle the claims against Mr. Roberts and an additional $35 million to settle the claims against the other former directors) * Bank of America $460.5 million * Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, $100.3 million Credit Suisse First Boston, and UBS Warburg * ABN AMRO, Mitsubishi Securities $428.4 million International, BNP Paribas Securities Corp. and Mizuho Int'l. * WestLB and Cabato Holding $112.5 million * Deutsche Bank $325 million * Blaylock & Partners, L.P. $572,840 * Utendahl Capital Partners, L.P. $234,000 * J. P. Morgan Securities and certain of affiliates $2 billion * Citigroup Defendants $2.575 billion (including Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. as employer of Jack Grubman; Salomon Brothers International Ltd.; Jack B. Grubman, former telecommunications analyst at Salomon; Citigroup, Inc.) The sale of assets covered by the June 30, 2005 settlement with Mr. Ebbers is expected to recover $18 million to $28 million. New Securities Fraud Cases HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Aug. Deadline Set for Lead Plaintiff Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith scheduled an Aug. 14, 2006 deadline to move to be lead plaintiff in the securities class action filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities of Herley Industries, Inc. between Oct. 1, 2001 and June 14, 2006. The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the class period concerning the company's operations and financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact Howard G. Smith, Esq., of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847 and (888) 638-4847, E- mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com. INFOSONICS CORP: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, commenced a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of Infosonics Corp. common stock from May 8, 2006 to June 9, 2006. The complaint charges Infosonics and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The action charges that during the class period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and financial results. As a result of defendants' false statements, Infosonics' stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the class period. On June 12, 2006, before the market opened, the company announced that it had restated certain portions of the financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2006. By restating, the company admitted that the previously-issued financial results were materially inaccurate. On this news, Infosonics' stock fell from $24.22 to $17.05, a drop of $7.17 or nearly 30%. Interested parties must move the court no later than Aug. 14, 2006 for appointment as lead plaintiff. For more details, contact Ira M. Press, Esq. and Elaine Mui of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, Phone: 888-529-4787 and (212) 317-2300, E-mail: ipress@kmslaw.com and emui@kmslaw.com, Web site: http://www.kmslaw.com. IONATRON INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in Ariz. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against Ionatron, Inc. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. 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 June 27, 2005 to May 10, 2006. Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 11, 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. NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Goldman Scarlato Files Stock Suit in Utah -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. initiated a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. between Aug. 10, 2005 and May 2, 2006, inclusive. The lawsuit was filed against NPS and certain officers and directors. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false statements concerning the potential success of PREOS, the company's full-length human parathyroid hormone, a drug candidate treatment for osteoporosis. Specifically, the defendants allegedly concealed: -- the results of the PaTH study that show PEROS was not different from Fosamax in both bone density and fracture results; -- that there was a very small market for this type of drug; -- that a major study concluded that more studies would be needed to determine efficacy; and, -- that PREOS could not be prescribed for broader fracture uses. Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 11, 2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class. For more details, contact Mark S. Goldman, Esq. of The Law Firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-753-2796, E-mail: info@gsk-law.com. NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit seeking class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. between Aug. 10, 2005 and May 2, 2006, inclusive. The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false statements concerning the potential for success of PREOS, its full-length human parathyroid hormone (PTH) drug candidate for the treatment of osteoporosis. Specifically, defendants allegedly concealed: -- results of the PaTH study evidenced that PREOS was no different from Fosamax in bone density and fracture results; -- there was a very narrow market for PTH drugs; -- a major study had concluded that further studies were necessary to determine the efficiency of PREOS, if any; -- unlike other bone density drugs/products which can be used for hip fracture risk reduction, PREOS could not be prescribed for this use; -- that the Center of Medicare Services of Health and Human Services had ruled that injectable drugs for osteoporosis would be reimbursable only for patients who had suffered a fracture, which indicated that the market for a drug like PREOS was limited to a small subgroup of osteoporosis patients who had suffered a fracture while on an existing oral drug; and -- defendants knew PREOS would only be used in the rarest cases, since the Physician Desk Reference recommended Forteo (and hence, injectable parathormone drugs like PREOS) for second line use in osteoporosis after failure of oral drugs like Fosamax and for a maximum of 24 months. Interested parties may no later than Sept. 11, 2006, request that the court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class. For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton and Nancy A. Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net. ********* 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 * * *