/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060816.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 16, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 162 Headlines ACCREDO HEALTH: Continues to Face Securities Suit in Tenn. BARCLAYS PLC: Judge Harmon Clears Barclays in Newby Litigation CALIFORNIA: Los Angeles Wins Favorable Ruling in Landlords' Suit CANADA: Hamilton Transit Workers' Suit Gets Class Certification CANADA: Distributes Compensation for Woodlands School Victims DIOCESE OF CHARLESTON: Enters $12M Settlement in Sex Abuse Suit DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Court Dismisses Consolidated Stock Suit DRESDNER KLEINWORT: Class Certification Sought for Sex Bias Suit DUN & BRADSTREET: "Finley" Transferred to N.J. Federal Court DUN & BRADSTREET: Second Circuit Hears Appeal on Conn. Lawsuit EN POINTE: Sept. Fairness Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal FLORIDA: County Suspends Plan for New Water System After Suit GNC CORP: Seeks Andro Products Suits' Removal to Federal Courts GNC CORP: Settles Fraud Suits Concerning Third-Party Products LEIMEN-SCHLISSEL: Sued Over Kosher Labeling of Tic-Tac Candies MEDICAL STAFFING: Fla. Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit MONTANA: Billings Firefighters' Labor Lawsuit Under Mediation PARMALAT SPA: Court Lets Investors File 3rd Amended Complaint PIPER JAFFRAY: Denial of Class Status in N.Y. Lawsuit Appealed PIPER JAFFRAY: Denial of Class Status in Antitrust Suit Appealed PLAINS MEAT: Recalls Ground Beef for E. Coli Contamination RENT-A-CENTER: Proposed Burdusis Suit Settlement to Cost $4.95M SHURGARD STORAGE: Enters MOU to Settle Suit Over Planned Merger SOUTH DAKOTA: County Gets Favorable Ruling in Strip Search Suit STRATEGIC ENERGY: Plaintiffs Amend Suit Over Power Supply Deal VONAGE HOLDINGS: Faces Several Securities Suits in N.J. Over IPO VONAGE HOLDINGS: Faces Suit in N.J. Over Initial Public Offering WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Trial of WilTel Investors' Suit Set Today XEROX CORP: Court Hears Appeal on N.Y. Apartheid Suit Dismissal XEROX CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Conn. Securities Fraud Lawsuit XEROX CORP: Discovery Continues in "Carlson" Securities Lawsuit XEROX CORP: Mediation Results in N.Y. Title VII Suit Settlement ZHONE TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Reached in N.J. Tellium Lawsuit ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Faces Orthopedic Products Antitrust Lawsuits Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases BROADCOM CORP: Kahn Gauthier Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit JOS A BANK: Kirby McInerney Announces Securities Suit Filing SCOTTISH RE: Wolf Haldenstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit ********* ACCREDO HEALTH: Continues to Face Securities Suit in Tenn. ---------------------------------------------------------- Accredo Health, Inc. remains a defendant in a consolidated securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The suit was filed against it, and two former company officers, one of whom is now a director at Medco Health Solutions. The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The putative class representatives seek to represent a class of individuals and entities that purchased company's stock from June 16, 2002 to April 7, 2003 and who supposedly suffered damages from the alleged violations of the securities laws. The suit is "Ferrari, et al. v. Accredo Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-02216-BBD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee under Judge Bernice B. Donald. Representing the plaintiffs is Tor Gronborg and Trig R. Smith, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 401 B St. Ste. 1700, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058. Representing the company are: (1) Douglas F. Halijan and Jef Feibelman, Burch Porter & Johnson, 130 N. Court Avenue, Memphis, TN 38103, Phone: 901-524-5000, Fax: 524-5024; and (2) John H. Goselin, Oni A. Holley, and Peter Q. Bassett, Alston & Bird, One Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree St., Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: 404-881-7000. BARCLAYS PLC: Judge Harmon Clears Barclays in Newby Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Melinda Harmon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas acquitted Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, and Barclays Capital, Inc., in a class action over its role in Enron Corp.'s bankruptcy (Enron Bankruptcy News Issue Number 177). Enron's investors, with the University of California as lead plaintiff, filed the class action, known as the Newby litigation, against Enron's former lenders for allegedly aiding Enron in concealing its financial misdeeds that led to the company's collapse and bankruptcy filing in 2001. Judge Harmon ruled that the claims against Barclays amount to aiding and abetting and do not constitute primary violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Because the Section 10(b) and derivative Section 20(a) claims are the only ones asserted against Barclays, the District Court dismisses Barclays from the Newby litigation. The Plaintiffs alleged that Barclays had an extensive and close relationship with Enron, provided commercial banking and investment banking services to Enron, interacted constantly with Enron's top executives regarding Enron's business during the class period, and participated in the fraudulent scheme and furthered Enron's fraudulent course of conduct and business by participating in over $3,000,000,000 of loans during the Class Period and helping Enron to raise almost $2,000,000,000 from investors in the sale of new securities. The plaintiffs claimed that, in return for enormous profits, including interest fees, syndication fees, and investment banking fees, Barclays helped Enron to structure and finance certain illicit special purpose entities (SPEs) and partnerships and to participate in illicit transactions that allowed Enron to falsify its reported financial results. Judge Harmon notes that the only one alleged in detail involving Barclays in the Plaintiffs' suit is Chewco Investments. Barclays sought partial summary judgment against the plaintiffs' complaint, asking the District Court to dismiss with prejudice the plaintiffs' first claims for relief against Barclays for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5. Judge Harmon's Opinion and Conclusion When the previous 3% independent equity owner withdrew from Chewco, according to the complaint, Barclays provided $240,000,000 in financing for the SPE at Enron's request, with a secret guarantee of repayment by Enron. Barclays also knowingly provided $11,400,000 to two straw parties without credit standing and controlled by Enron, to set them up to be sham 3% equity investors, but protecting itself by requiring the cash accounts. The fraud occurred not in funding an entity that did not qualify as an SPE for non-consolidation on Enron's balance sheet, it occurred in the improper accounting by Enron and others that did not consolidate, Judge Harmon says. The plaintiffs alleged that Barclays understood that Enron would use Chewco to circumvent the legal requirements under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards to qualify as an independent equity investor and improperly avoid consolidation of the SPE into Enron's own financial statements, with a purpose of concealing debt and preventing an unwinding of profits previously reported by Enron, as well as for future improper transactions and thereby mislead investors in Enron securities. However, Judge Harmon notes that it was Enron, its accountants and its other officers, not Barclays, which purportedly used or employed the deceptive accounting practices and created the false appearance of a financially strong Enron, while concealing the risks that it would be unable to service its debt and consequently suffer financial collapse. Regarding the issue of loss causation in scheme liability, Judge Harmon agrees that the plaintiffs must allege the elements of a primary violation by each defendant that is allegedly part of the fraudulent scheme at Enron. Judge Harmon notes that a disclosure of the wrongful conducts in an alleged securities fraud scheme with the same purpose, which is overstating revenue and concealing debt, committed by some defendants in the alleged securities fraud scheme that is a substantial cause of plaintiffs' loss is sufficient to plead loss causation. But the identity of a particular participant or defendant's primary need does not have to be revealed if the same type of primary violations by other defendants with the same purpose, which is creating a picture of financial success when the reality was the opposite to defraud investors, is leaked or disclosed to the market and causes a steep decline in the price of Enron's stock and injuring plaintiff investors, Judge Harmon states. Judge Harmon holds that disclosure of the roles of some primary violators in a multi-defendant scheme to defraud investors by creating the appearance of assets or revenue that did not exist and concealing debt and increasing risks of financial collapse, reflected in "cooking the books," should be viewed as sufficient to show loss causation for later-disclosed actions constituting primary violations of Section 10(b) of other defendants substantially contributing to that fabrication of Enron assets and that hiding of debt in the same scheme. Even if the complaint had stated a primary violation of Section 10(b) against Barclays based on its role in Chewco, the Court agrees with Barclays that the claim would be time-barred. CALIFORNIA: Los Angeles Wins Favorable Ruling in Landlords' Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The First District Court of Appeal affirmed a San Francisco Superior Court ruling in favor of the city of Los Angeles in a class action, "Small Property Owners of San Francisco v. City and County of San Francisco, A108924." The Appeals Court found that Judge Richard Kramer was right when he ruled that the amended San Francisco ordinance requiring landlords to pay 5 percent interest on security deposits held for more than one year did not cause not an unconstitutional taking of property. The landlords had claimed violations of state and federal constitutional requirements for compensation when property is taken for public purposes. They said that once money market interest rates dipped below 5 percent, they were "damaged by having to pay [the] difference from their own funds." The ordinance has since been amended to require that interest be paid at the Federal Reserve discount rate instead of a fixed rate. Alameda Superior Court Judge Thomas Reardon, sitting on assignment in the Court of Appeal, said the ordinance did not create a regulatory taking because there was no "inexorable" loss to the landlords. "[L]andlords would not necessarily have to pay out more interest than they earned on the security deposits, because the Ordinance did not compel them to invest the deposits in accounts paying less than 5 percent interest," he said. CANADA: Hamilton Transit Workers' Suit Gets Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified a suit against the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Board and the city over pension membership by Hamilton transit workers, The Hamilton Spectator reports. The suit was filed on behalf of two Hamilton Street Railway employees. It claims that the city failed to enroll transit staff in the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, according to attorney Ari Kaplan. Transit workers are covered by their own Hamilton Street Railway Company Pension plan, but "OMERS pension is more generous on the whole," Mr. Kaplan said. The exclusion of the transit workers from the OMERS contradicts the city's previous argument that transit workers are city employees when it comes to union bargaining, according to him. The suit covers about 1,000 employees and could mean costs of about $25 to $30 million, the report said. CANADA: Distributes Compensation for Woodlands School Victims ------------------------------------------------------------- CA$510 in compensation is being distributed to each victim of abuse at the Woodlands School in New Westminster, reports say. The distribution runs from July 31 and Aug. 31. Almost 400 former residents are eligible for the payout from the CA$2 million BC Institutional Legacy Trust Fund established by the government for the victims in 2003. In March 2005, Madam Justice Nancy Morrison of the British Columbia Supreme Court certified a class action brought against the Government of British Columbia on behalf of an estimated 1,500 former residents of Woodlands School, most of whom are severely handicapped (Class Action Reporter, March 22, 2005). Poyner Baxter filed the class action in 2002. Subsequently, the province's Public Guardian and Trustee commenced a similar suit, seeking to represent all victims in the class. The court eventually awarded "carriage" to Poyner Baxter, designating this firm to represent all members of the class. The Supreme Court defined the class as follows: "All persons resident in British Columbia, who were confined to the provincial institution more recently known as Woodlands School and who, while so confined, suffered physical, sexual, emotional and/or psychological abuse and have suffered injury, loss or damage as a result thereof." Representing the plaintiffs is lawyer Jim Poyner at Poyner Baxter, LLP, #408 - 145 Chadwick Court, North Vancouver, B.C. V7M 3K1, Phone: (604) 988-6321, Fax: (604) 988-3632, E-mail: poyner.baxter@telus.net. On the Net: http://www.poynerbaxter.com. DIOCESE OF CHARLESTON: Enters $12M Settlement in Sex Abuse Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Catholic Diocese of Charleston reached a $12 million settlement in a case filed by four men alleging sexual molestation by priests, WISTV reports. The suit was settled before a mediator. Under it, the diocese is to set up a $12 million fund. It includes a $5 million amount by a Letter of Credit and an additional $7 million if the credit amount is drawn down to $1 million, the report said. The Diocese also agreed to pay a total of $460,000 to the four plaintiffs. One of the plaintiffs, Midlands-man John Morris Morris, who joined the other plaintiffs two years ago, received $160,000. The suit was filed as a class action. Mr. Morris is represented by former Circuit Judge Larry Richter. DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Court Dismisses Consolidated Stock Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed with prejudice the consolidated class action against DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. Between June 1 and Aug. 1, 2005, eight purported shareholder class actions alleging violations of federal securities laws were filed against the company and several of its officers and directors. Seven of those lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The eighth lawsuit, which was originally filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, has been removed to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for consolidated proceedings. After one of the actions was voluntarily dismissed, a lead plaintiff was appointed and a consolidated class action complaint was filed in the remaining actions. The consolidated class action complaint asserted that the company and certain of its officers and directors made alleged material misstatements and omissions in certain press releases, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings and other public statements, including in connection with the company's initial public offering in October 2004. It sought to recover damages on behalf of purchasers of the company's securities during the purported class period (Oct. 28, 2004 to July 11, 2005). The company, along with certain of its officers and directors, moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint, and in April 2006, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss on all claims. The court dismissed the claims relating to alleged material misstatements and omissions in connection with the company's initial public offering with prejudice, and dismissed the remaining claims without prejudice. On June 12, 2006, plaintiffs voluntarily served notice indicating that they intended to forego filing an amended complaint on the claims that the court had dismissed without prejudice. On June 27, 2006, the court entered a stipulated order dismissing the consolidated actions with prejudice. The suit is "Beverly Pfeffer v. Dreamworks Animation SKG Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-03966-MRP-VBK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Mariana R. Pfaelzer with referral to Judge Victor B. Kenton. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Peter A. Binkow of Glancy Binkow and Goldberg, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com; and (2) Nadeem Faruqi of Faruqi and Faruqi, 320 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-983-9330. Representing the defendants are: (i) Francis P. Barron of Cravath Swaine and Moore, 825 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10019, US, Phone: 212-474- 1506; and (ii) Matthew N. Falley of Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman Machtinger & Kinsella, 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 21st Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90067-4590, Phone: 310-553-3610. DRESDNER KLEINWORT: Class Certification Sought for Sex Bias Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas Wigdor, of the New York law firm Thompson Wigdor & Gully, plans to seek class certification for a $1.4 billion lawsuit filed against Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein Securities, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Telegraph.co.uk reports. In January, current and former female employees of the bank initiated the lawsuit in the U.S. claiming that the company discriminated against women, preventing advancement and fair treatment (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 11, 2006). The suit offered a number of statistics to back up their claims, noting for instance that only four of 258 women in the company's Capital Markets Division are managing directors, positions held by 15 percent of men. The six named plaintiffs in the suit are seeking for an end to the alleged unlawful denial of promotions, as well as compensation equal to male employees and equality in other conditions of employment. They alleged in their suit that women couldn't advance to senior levels at the company. The women also claims that in addition to barriers to advancement to the highest executive level, managing director, there also were barriers at the lower levels. Their claim included references to after-work trips to strip clubs and allegations of sexual banter in the office. Judge Deborah Batts of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently denied Dresdner's motion to dismiss the sex discrimination suit. In her decision, the judge noted that the case was about unequal pay rather than sex discrimination but allowed the women to retain allegations of colleagues' behavior in the claim, the report said. The judge also allowed plaintiff Katherine Smith, who is American but now works in Dresdner's London office, to continue to be part of the case but limited her involvement to claims relating to work she did in New York. Dresdner Kleinwort's attempt to exclude what it called "scandalous and impertinent" allegations from the discrimination claim brought against the bank by six senior women employees has also been denied. Among the details the bank attempted to strike from the claim included an allegation that a male managing director of the bank brought prostitutes into the office during lunch hour. But the bank failed to have both claims dismissed as "incidents of perceived sexism may be admissible to demonstrate a defendant's discriminatory intent," according to the judge. A copy of Judge Deborah Batts' Ruling is available free at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?f7c Mr. Wigdor, who is representing the women, said "retaliation claims", would also be added to the case on the grounds that Dresdner has allegedly transferred some of his clients to less favorable roles since the case was filed. The suit is "Hart et al. v. Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein Securities LLC et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00134-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Deborah A. Batts. Representing the plaintiffs are Scott Browning Gilly, Kenneth P. Thompson and Douglas Holden Wigdor all of Thompson Wigdor and Gilly, 350 Fifth Avenue, NY, NY 10118, Phone: (212)-239-9292, Fax: (212)-239-9001, E-mail: sgilly@twglawyers.com or kthompson@twglawyers.com or dwigdor@twglawyers.com. Representing the defendants is Kenneth John Kelly of Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C. (New York), 250 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10177, Phone: 212 351 4606, Fax: 212 878 8606, E-mail: kkelly@ebglaw.com. DUN & BRADSTREET: "Finley" Transferred to N.J. Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois transferred the purported class action, "Finley v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-05134," to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status, was filed in Sept. 7, 2005 on behalf of a current employee raising complaints against the company's retirement plans. The complaint seeks certification of these putative classes: -- current or former Dun & Bradstreet employees (other than employees who on December 31, 2001, were at least age 50 with 10 years of vesting service); -- had attained an age which, when added to his or her years of vesting service, was equal to or greater than 70; or -- had attained age 65, who participated in The Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan before January 1, 2002 and who have participated in The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account at any time since January 1, 2002. The complaint estimates that the proposed class covers over 1,000 individuals. There are five counts in the complaint. Count 1 claims that the company violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by reducing the rate of an employee's benefit accrual on the basis of age. Count 2 claims a violation of ERISA's non-forfeitability requirement, because the plan allegedly conditions receipt of cash balance benefits on foregoing the early retirement benefits plaintiff earned prior to the adoption of the cash balance amendment. Count 3 claims that the cash balance plan violates ERISA's "anti-backloading" rule. Count 4 claims that Dun & Bradstreet failed to supply advance notice of a significant benefit decrease. Count 5 claims that Dun & Bradstreet failed to provide an adequate Summary Plan Description. In the complaint, the plaintiff seeks: -- a declaration that Dun & Bradstreet's cash balance plan is ineffective and that the Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan is still in force and effect, and plaintiff's benefit accrual under the cash balance plan must be unconditional and not reduced because of age; -- an injunction prohibiting the application of the cash balance plan's reduction in the rate of benefit accruals because of age and its conditions of benefits due under the plan, and ordering appropriate equitable relief to determine plan participant losses caused by D & B's payment of benefits under the cash balance plan's terms and requiring the payment of additional benefits as appropriate; -- attorneys' fees and costs; -- interest; and -- such other relief as the court may deem just. A Motion to Transfer Venue to the U.S. District of New Jersey was filed on Jan. 27, 2006 and was granted on March 31, 2006. The action was transferred to the District of New Jersey, and, on June 5, 2006, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which omitted the claim for violation of ERISA's non-forfeitability requirement and added a claim for breach of fiduciary duty based on allegedly misleading plan communications. On July 5, 2006, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Section 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules on Civil Procedures, on the grounds that: -- the complaint is barred by the statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches; -- the cash balance plan does not discriminate on the basis of age; -- the cash balance plan does not violate ERISA's anti- backloading rule; -- D&B complied with Section 204(h) of ERISA by providing sufficient advance notice of the plan amendment; -- D&B's Summary Plan Description fully complies with the requirements of ERISA; and -- plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The suit is "Finley v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-05134," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Paul E. Plunkett. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Paul William Mollica, Johanna J. Raimond and Thomas R. Meites of Meites, Mulder, Burger & Mollica, Phone: (312) 263-0272, Fax: (312) 263-2942, E-mail: pwmollica@mmbmlaw.com, jraimond@mmbmlaw.com and tmeites@mmbmlaw.com; and (2) Thomas G. Moukawsher of Moukawasher & Walsh, 21 Oak Street, Suite 209, Hartford, CT 06106, Phone: (860) 278-7000, E-mail: tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Michael P. Roche of Winston & Strawn, 35 West Wacker Drive, 41st Floor, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 558- 5600, E-mail: mroche@winston.com; and (ii) Patrick W. Shea of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, 1055 Washington Boulevard, 9th Floor, Stamford, CT 06901, Phone: (203) 961-7400, E-mail: patrickshea@paulhastings.com. DUN & BRADSTREET: Second Circuit Hears Appeal on Conn. Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has yet to rule on plaintiff's appeal of a ruling in the case "McCarthy, et al. v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., et al., Case No. 3:03-cv-00431-SRU." The appeal is against the U.S. District Court of the District of Connecticut's ruling that granted motion to dismiss, motion for summary judgment, and denial of leave to amend the amended complaint in the case. In March 2003, a lawsuit seeking class-action status was filed against the company on behalf of 46 specified former employees in relation to the company's retirement plans. During the fourth quarter of 2004, most of the counts in the complaint were dismissed. The complaint, as amended in July 2003, sets forth these putative classes: -- current Dun & Bradstreet employees who are participants in The Dun & Bradstreet Corp. Retirement Account and were previously participants in its predecessor plan, The Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan; -- current employees of Receivable Management Services Corporation (RMSC) who are participants in The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account and were Previously participants in its predecessor plan, The Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan; -- former employees of Dun & Bradstreet or Dun & Bradstreet's Receivable Management Services (RMS) operations who received a deferred vested retirement benefit under either The Dun & Bradstreet Corp. Retirement Account or The Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan; and -- former employees of Dun & Bradstreet's RMS operations whose employment with Dun & Bradstreet was terminated after the sale of the RMS operations but who are not employees of RMSC and who, during their employment with Dun & Bradstreet, were Eligible Employees for purposes of The Dun & Bradstreet Career Transition Plan. The Amended Complaint estimates that the proposed class covers over 5,000 individuals. There are four counts in the Amended Complaint. Count 1 claims that the company violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by not paying severance benefits to plaintiffs under its Career Transition Plan. Count 2 claims a violation of ERISA in that the firm's sale of the RMS business to RMSC and the resulting termination of employees constituted a prohibited discharge of the plaintiffs and/or discrimination against the plaintiffs for the intentional purpose of interfering with their employment and/or attainment of employee benefit rights, which they might otherwise have attained. Count 3 claims that the plaintiffs were materially harmed by the company's alleged violation of ERISA's requirements that a summary plan description reasonably apprise participants and beneficiaries of their rights and obligations under the plans and that, therefore, undisclosed plan provisions -- in this case, the actuarial deduction beneficiaries incur when they leave Dun & Bradstreet before age 55 and elect to retire early - - cannot be enforced against them. Count 4 claims that the 6.60% interest rate (the rate is actually 6.75%) used to actuarially reduce early retirement benefits is unreasonable and, therefore, results in a prohibited forfeiture of benefits under ERISA. In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs sought: -- payment of severance benefits; -- equitable relief in the form of either reinstatement of employment with Dun & Bradstreet or restoration of employee benefits, including stock options; -- invalidation of the actuarial reductions applied to deferred vested early retirement benefits, including invalidation of the plan rate of 6.60% -- the actual rate is 6.75% -- used to actuarially reduce former employees' early retirement benefits; -- attorneys' fees and such other relief as the court may deem just. The company denies all allegations of wrongdoing. In September 2003, the firm filed a motion to dismiss Counts 1, 3 and 4 of the Amended Complaint on the ground that plaintiffs cannot prevail on those claims under any set of facts, and in February 2004, the court heard oral argument on the motion. With respect to Count 4, the court requested that the parties conduct limited expert discovery and submit further briefing. In November 2004, after completion of expert discovery on Count 4, the company moved for summary judgment on Count 4 on the ground that an interest rate of 6.75% is reasonable as a matter of law. On Nov. 30, 2004, the court issued a ruling granting the motion to dismiss Counts 1 and 3. Shortly after that ruling, plaintiffs' counsel stipulated to dismiss with prejudice Count 2, which challenged the sale of the RMS business as an intentional interference with employee benefit rights, but which the motion to dismiss did not address. Plaintiffs' counsel also stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice of Count 1, the severance pay claim, agreeing to forego any appeal of the Court's dismissal of that claim. Plaintiffs' counsel did file a motion to join party plaintiffs and to amend the Amended Complaint to add a new count challenging the adequacy of the retirement plan's mortality tables. The court granted the motion and the company filed its objections. On June 6, 2005, the court granted Dun & Bradstreet's motion for summary judgment as to Count 4 -- the interest rate issue -- and also denied the plaintiffs' motion to further amend the Amended Complaint to add a new claim challenging the mortality tables. On July 8, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal; they are appealing the ruling granting the motion to dismiss, the ruling granting summary judgment, and the denial of leave to amend their Amended Complaint. Oral Argument before the Second Circuit took place on Feb. 15, 2006. The company is still awaiting a decision, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ended June 30, 2006. The suit is "McCarthy, et al. v. Dun & Bradstreet, et al., Case No. 3:03-cv-00431-SRU," filed in the U.S District Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Stefan R. Underhill. Representing the plaintiffs are Thomas G. Moukawsher and Ian O. Smith of Moukawsher & Walsh - Htfd., Capitol Place, 21 Oak St., Suite 209, Hartford, CT 06106, Phone: 860-278-7000, Fax: 860- 548-1740, E-mail: ismith@mwlawgroup.com and tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com. Representing the defendants are Sandra K. Lalli, Patrick W. Shea and Carla R. Walworth of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker - CT, 1055 Washington Blvd., 9Th Floor, Stamford, CT 06901, Phone: 203-961-7400 and 203-961-7465, Fax: 203-359-3031, E-mail: sandralalli@paulhastings.com, patrickshea@paulhastings.com and carlawalworth@paulhastings.com. EN POINTE: Sept. Fairness Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 29, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. for the proposed $1.8 million settlement in: "In Re En Pointe Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation Master Case No.: 01-CV- 0205 BEN (AJB)." The suit was bought on behalf of all persons who bought or otherwise acquired shares of the common stock of En Pointe Technologies from Dec. 7, 1999 to April 13, 2000, inclusive; and all purchasers of En Pointe stock contemporaneously with the insider sales on Feb. 28 and March 13, 2000 (Subclass). The hearing will be at Courtroom A, United State Courthouse, 940 Front St., San Diego, California 92101-8900. Proofs of claim are due Oct. 30, 2006. Filing for individual hearing is until Sept. 15, 2006. In February 2001, En Pointe Technologies and five of its directors, one current officer, and certain former officers along with seven unrelated parties were named in a stockholder class action complaint. The complaint alleges that the defendants made misrepresentations regarding the company and that the individual defendants improperly benefited from the sales of shares of the company's common stock and seeking a recovery by the company's stockholders of the damages sustained as a result of such activities. In an amended complaint, plaintiffs limited their claims to the company and its chief executive officer. In response to a motion to dismiss, the court further limited plaintiffs' claims to allegations of market manipulation and insider trading. Counsel for the parties agreed to resolve the case for $1.8 million. The company's insurance carrier will make the payment. Fore more information, contact: In re En Pointe Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 8040, San Rafael, CA 94912-8040. Plaintiff firms involved in this litigation are: (1) Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, 1050 30th Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20007, Phone: 202.337.8000, Fax: 202.337.8090, E-mail: contact@ftllaw.com; (2) Krause & Kalfayan, 1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1750, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 619.232.0331, Fax: 619.232.4019; (3) 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; (4) Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail: info@whhf.com; and (5) 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. FLORIDA: County Suspends Plan for New Water System After Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Citrus County commissioners voted unanimously to reconsider their assessment program for new water and sewer lines to evaluate its effect on ratepayers, according to the St. Petersburg Times. The decision follows a purported class action filed by a group of Chassahowitzka River property owners challenging the county's assessments (Class Action Reporter, July 18, 2006). 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 County Attorney Robert "Butch" Battista, add properties north of Chassahowitzka, east of U.S. 19 along U.S. 98, to the assessment list. With the recent decision by county commissioners, Chassahowitzka residents won't have to pay for new water and sewer lines until at least 2007, according to the report. 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. The project stands to cost residents at least $6,361.88 for the water project, in addition to a 6 percent interest rate and possible administrative fees according to estimates by county staffers. That amount was slated to be included on this year's tax bills. The amount for new sewer lines has not yet been determined. 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. GNC CORP: Seeks Andro Products Suits' Removal to Federal Courts --------------------------------------------------------------- GNC Corp. is seeking to remove certain class actions relating to the sale of certain nutritional products alleged to contain the ingredients commonly known as Androstenedione, Androstenediol, Norandrostenedione, and Norandrostenediol that were filed against it in state courts to their respective federal courts. In each case, plaintiffs seek to certify a class and obtain damages on behalf of the class representatives and all those similarly-situated who purchased certain nutritional supplements from the company alleged to contain Andro Products. The original state court proceedings include: -- "Harry Rodriguez v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc.," (previously pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, New York, Index No. 02/126277). Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on or about July 25, 2002. The Second Amended Complaint, filed thereafter on or about Dec. 6, 2002, alleged claims for unjust enrichment, violation of General Business Law Section 349 -- misleading and deceptive trade practices -- and violation of General Business Law Section 350 -- false advertising. On July 2, 2003, the Court granted part of the company's motion to dismiss and dismissed the unjust enrichment cause of action. On Jan. 4, 2006, the court conducted a hearing on the company's motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs' motion for class certification, both of which remain pending. -- "Everett Abrams v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc.," (previously pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, New Jersey, Docket No. L-3789- 02). Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on or about July 25, 2002. The Second Amended Complaint filed thereafter on or about Dec. 20, 2002, alleged claims for false and deceptive marketing and omissions and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. On Nov. 18, 2003, the court signed an order dismissing plaintiff's claims for affirmative misrepresentation and sponsorship with prejudice. The claim for knowing omissions remains pending. -- "Shawn Brown, Ozan Cirak, Thomas Hannon, and Luke Smith v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc." (previously pending in the 15th Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Florida, Index. No. CA-02-14221AB). Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on or about July 25, 2002. The Second Amended Complaint, filed thereafter on or about Nov. 27, 2002, alleged claims for violations of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, unjust enrichment, and violation of Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act. These claims remain pending. -- "Abrams, et al. v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc., et al.," (previously pending in the Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia County, Philadelphia, Class Action No. 02-703886). Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on or about July 25, 2002. The Amended Complaint, filed thereafter on or about April 8, 2003, alleged claims for violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and unjust enrichment. The court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and that order has been affirmed on appeal. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a petition in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court asking that the court consider an appeal of the order denying class certification. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the petition. -- "David Pio and Ty Stephens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc.," (previously pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, Case No. 02-CH-14122). Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on or about July 25, 2002. The Amended Complaint, filed thereafter on or about April 4, 2004, alleged claims for violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and unjust enrichment. The motion for class certification was stricken, but the court afforded leave to the Plaintiffs to file another motion. Plaintiffs have not yet filed another motion. -- "Santiago Guzman, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc.," (previously pending on the California Judicial Counsel Coordination Proceeding No. 4363, Los Angeles County Superior Court). Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on or about Feb. 17, 2004. The Amended Complaint, filed on or about May 26, 2005, alleged claims for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, violation of the Unfair Competition Act, and unjust enrichment. These claims remain pending. On April 17 and 18, 2006, the company filed pleadings seeking to remove each of the actions to the respective federal district courts for the districts in which they are pending. Simultaneously, the company filed motions seeking to transfer each of the suits to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York so that they may be consolidated with the recently-commenced bankruptcy case of MuscleTech Research and Development, Inc. and certain of its affiliates, which is currently pending in the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Canada under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, as amended, Case No. 06-CL-6241, with a related proceeding, "In re MuscleTech Research and Development, Inc., et al., Case No. 06 Civ 538 (JSR)" and pending in district court in the Southern District of New York pursuant to chapter 15 of title 11 of the U.S. Code. The company believes that the pending the suits are related to MuscleTech's bankruptcy case since MuscleTech is contractually obligated to indemnify the company for certain liabilities arising from the standard product indemnity stated in the company's purchase order terms and conditions or otherwise under state law. The company's requests to remove, transfer and consolidate the suits to federal court are pending before the respective federal district courts. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based GNC Corp. -- http://www.gnc.com/ -- is a specialty retailer of health and wellness products, including vitamins, minerals, herbal, and specialty supplements (VMHS), sports nutrition products and diet products. The company sells its products through a worldwide network of more than 5,800 locations operating under the GNC brand name and operates in three business segments: retail, franchise and manufacturing/wholesale. GNC CORP: Settles Fraud Suits Concerning Third-Party Products ------------------------------------------------------------- GNC Corp. settled several class actions that were filed in state courts of Alabama, California, Illinois and Texas in relation to third-party products that it sold. Five class actions were filed against the company with respect to claims that the labeling, packaging and advertising with respect to a third-party product sold by the company were misleading and deceptive. The company denies any wrongdoing and is pursuing indemnification claims against the manufacturer. As a result of mediation, the parties agreed to a national settlement of the lawsuits, which has been preliminarily approved by the court. Notice to the class has been published in mass advertising media publications. In addition, notice has been mailed to approximately 2.4 million GNC Gold Card members. Each person who purchased the third-party product and who is part of the class will receive a cash reimbursement equal to the retail price paid, net of sales tax, upon presentation to the Company of a cash register receipt or original product packaging as proof of purchase. If a person purchased the product, but does not have a cash register receipt or original product packaging, such a person may submit a signed affidavit and will then be entitled to receive one or more coupons. Register receipts or original product packaging, or signed affidavits, must be presented within a 90-day period after the settlement is approved by the court and the time for an appeal has ended. The number of coupons will be based on the total amount of purchases of the product subject to a maximum of five coupons per purchaser. Each coupon will have a cash value of $10.00 valid toward any purchase of $25.00 or more at a GNC store. The coupons will not be redeemable by any GNC Gold Card member during Gold Card Week and will not be redeemable for products subject to any other price discount. The coupons are to be redeemed at point of sale and are not mail-in rebates. They will be redeemable for a 90-day period beginning in the first calendar quarter after the court approves the settlement and the time for an appeal has ended. The company will issue a maximum of 5.0 million certificates with a combined face value of $50.0 million. In addition to the cash reimbursements and coupons, as part of the settlement the company will be required to pay legal fees of approximately $1.0 million and will incur $0.7 million in 2006 for advertising and postage costs related to the notification letters; as a result $1.7 million was accrued as legal costs at Dec. 31, 2005. No adjustments were recognized during the second quarter 2006. The deadline for class members to opt out of the settlement class or object to the terms of the settlement was July 6, 2006. A final fairness hearing is scheduled to take place on Nov. 6, 2006. As the sales of this product occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the company cannot reasonably estimate: -- how many of the purchasers of the product will receive notice or see the notice published in mass advertising media publications; -- the amount of customers that will still have sales receipts or original product packaging for the products; and -- the amount of customers that sign an affidavit in lieu of a register receipt or original product packaging. Due to the uncertainty that exists as to the extent of future sales to the purchasers, the coupons are an incentive for the purchasers to buy products or services from the entity at a reduced gross margin. Accordingly, the company will recognize the settlement by reducing revenue in future periods when the purchasers utilize the coupons. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based GNC Corp. -- http://www.gnc.com/ -- is a specialty retailer of health and wellness products, including vitamins, minerals, herbal, and specialty supplements, sports nutrition products and diet products. The company sells its products through a worldwide network of more than 5,800 locations operating under the GNC brand name and operates in three business segments: retail, franchise and manufacturing/wholesale. LEIMEN-SCHLISSEL: Sued Over Kosher Labeling of Tic-Tac Candies -------------------------------------------------------------- The maker of Tic-Tac candies, Leimen-Schlissel, is facing a $47 million (NIS205 million) class action in Israel for marketing the product without a valid kosher certificate, according to Ynetnews. The suit was filed by Ofir Fikholtz with his attorneys Dr. Avi Weinrot and Yaniv Aharonovich from the offices of Dr. Weinrot and Partners. The filing follows a report by Ynet that the kosher license of Tic-Tac candy expired at the end of 2005, and that at the start of 2006 the product would no longer have a kosher certificate. The suit alleges the company violated the law of kashrut which prohibits the marking of a product kosher if it hasn't been granted a kosher certificate. Leimen-Schlissel said it has recalled all the products. But Mr. Fikholtz's complaint states that Tic-tac packages made after Jan. 1, 2006 and have misleading kosher symbol are still out in many stores in the Tel Aviv region. MEDICAL STAFFING: Fla. Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted class-action status to the consolidated securities class action against Medical Staffing Network Holdings, Inc., according to the company's Aug. 4, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 25, 2006. Marrari, Williams Lawsuits On Feb. 20, 2004, Joseph and Patricia Marrari filed class actions against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, on behalf of themselves and purchasers of the company's common stock pursuant to or traceable to the company's initial public offering in April 2002. On April 16, 2004, Tommie Williams filed the same suit in the same court. These lawsuits also named as defendants certain of the company's directors and executive officers. The complaints allege that certain disclosures in the Registration Statement/Prospectus filed in connection with the company's initial public offering on April 17, 2002 were materially false and misleading in violation of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933. The complaints seek compensatory damages, as well as costs and attorney fees. Haddon Zia's Lawsuit On March 29, 2004, a third class action was brought on behalf of the same class of the company's stockholders, making claims under the Securities Act similar to those in the lawsuits filed by Joseph and Patricia Marrari and Tommie Williams. The suit was brought by Haddon Zia in the Florida Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and plaintiff moved to remand the case back to the Florida Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, a motion that defendants opposed. On Sept. 16, 2004, the federal district court entered an order granting plaintiff's motion to remand. On Jan. 6, 2005, the state court stayed the state court proceedings until further order of the court. The Zia complaint seeks rescission or damages as well as certain equitable relief and costs and attorney fees. Jerome Gould Lawsuit On March 2, 2004, Jerome Gould filed another class action complaint against the company and certain of its directors and executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The suit was filed on behalf of a class of the company's stockholders who purchased stock from April 18, 2002 through June 16, 2003. It alleges that certain of the company's public disclosures during the class period were materially false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, costs and attorney fees. On July 2, 2004, the Marrari, Gould, Williams and Zia actions were consolidated, although, as noted above, the Zia action was subsequently remanded to state court. Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Appointment Plaintiff Thomas Greene was appointed lead plaintiff of the consolidated action and the law firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman LLP -- now known as Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins LLP -- was appointed plaintiffs' lead counsel. On Sept. 1, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed his consolidated amended class action complaint, which makes allegations on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers of the company's common stock pursuant to or traceable to the company's initial public offering in April 2002, for purposes of the Securities Act claims, and on behalf of the company's stockholders who purchased stock during the period from April 18, 2002 through June 16, 2003, for purposes of the Exchange Act claims. The complaint alleges that certain of the company's public disclosures during the class period were materially false and misleading in violation of Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages as well as costs and attorney fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which, on Sept. 27, 2005, was granted in part as to those portions of plaintiffs' Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims concerning statements or omissions prior to Oct. 29, 2002, and denied as to the remaining claims. On May 15, 2006, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. Boca Raton, Florida-based Medical Staffing Network Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: MRN) -- http://www.msnhealth.com/-- is a temporary healthcare staffing company and providing of per diem nurse staffing services. MONTANA: Billings Firefighters' Labor Lawsuit Under Mediation ------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit over back pay filed by Billings firefighters against the city is currently before mediator Ron Lodders, according to Billings Gazette. The suit was filed before District Judge G. Todd Baugh, but was appealed to the Montana Supreme Court. As a requirement under state law, parties submitted to mediation so that the case could go to the high court. About six years ago, a group of 119 firefighters filed a class action against the city, claiming that they'd been working more than 40 hours a week for years, but are only receiving an annual wage equivalent to a 40-hour work week. The lawsuit was brought by individual firefighters, not their union. It was based on the claim, upheld by Judge Baugh, that because of their 27-day work cycle, consisting of 24-hour shifts followed by multiple days off, firefighters had been working more than 40 hours a week for years but had been paid for only 40 hours. It eventually grew into a class action on behalf of 119 current and former firefighters to whom the city owed money. Judge Baugh looked at three contracts between the city and the firefighters covering the years 1991-93, 1993-94 and 1995-97. He found that the two earlier contracts stated the firefighters were paid an annual wage. But in the 1995-97 contract the wording was changed, and it became an hourly wage agreement. Since the wording of that contract was kept in later labor agreements, Judge Baugh ruled, the period of liability ran from 1995 onward. The period of liability ended June 30, the day before a new contract went into effect. The new contract stipulated that the firefighters were to be paid an hourly wage. In a May ruling Judge Baugh ordered the city to pay firefighters $625,000 and another $81,000 in back pay. Back in November, Judge Baugh ruled the city owed the firefighters close to $3 million in back pay (Class Action Reporter May 3, 2006). The judge also ordered the city of Billings to pay $253,000 in penalties, bringing the damages and penalties owed to just under $4 million. For more details, contact Richard A. Larson of Harlen, Chronister, Parish & Larson, P.C., Attorneys at Law, 36 W. Sixth Avenue, P.O. Box 1152, Helena, Montana 59624, Phone: (406) 443- 0360, Fax: (406) 449-3693, E-mail: info@hcpllaw.com, Web site: http://hcpllaw.com/attorneys.html. PARMALAT SPA: Court Lets Investors File 3rd Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge of the Southern District of New York has allowed class plaintiffs of the "Parmalat Securities Litigation" to file the Third Amended Complaint, which includes [the new] Parmalat S.p.A. among the defendants (Parmalat Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 75). The class action has been pending for more than two years in the District Court. The judge has denied certification in his July 21, 2006 ruling. Other defendants in this class action are: -- Deloitte & Touche; -- Mr. James Copeland, as an individual; -- Grant Thornton; -- Citigroup, including Buconero, Vialattea, Eureka Securitization; -- Bank of America; -- Credit Suisse; -- Banca Nazionale del Lavoro; -- Banca Intesa; Morgan Stanley; -- the law office of Pavia Ansaldo; -- the law office of Zini Associates; and -- other individuals. Defendants may conduct discovery with respect to class certification until Sept. 21, 2006. A copy of the District Court Order is available for free at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/ParmalatJul21DistCourtORD.pdf The suit is "In Re: Parmalat Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-md-01653-LAK-HBP," filed in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A. Kaplan with referral to Judge Henry B. Pitman. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Joshua Seth Devore of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC (DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Towen #500, Washington, D.C., DC 20005, Phone: (202) 408-4600, Fax: (202)-408-4699, Web site: jdevore@cmht.com; and (2) Stuart M. Grant of Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, (DE), Chase Manhattan Centre, 1201 North Market Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, Phone: (302) 622-7000, Fax: (302) 622-7100, E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com. Representing the defendants are: (1) Christopher Moore Brubaker of Kittredge Donley Elson Fullem & Emb (PA), 400 Market Street, Suite 200, Philadelphia, PA 19106, Phone: (215)-829-9900, Fax: (215)-829-9888, E-mail: cbrubaker@kdefe.com; (2) Donald C. Moss of Moss & Moss, L.L.P., 170 East 61st Street, New York, NY 10021, Phone: (212) 644-1000; PIPER JAFFRAY: Denial of Class Status in N.Y. Lawsuit Appealed -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs are appealing a court decision to deny class certification to the consolidated class action, "In re Issuer Plaintiff Initial Public Offering Fee Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 00 CV 7804," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Piper Jaffray companies along with other leading securities firms. Similar purported class actions were filed against the company on behalf of issuer plaintiffs asserting antitrust claims based upon allegations that 7.0 percent underwriters' discounts violate the Sherman Act. These purported class actions were consolidated by the district court as "In re Issuer Plaintiff Initial Public Offering Fee Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 00 CV 7804 (LMM)," on May 23, 2001. They seek unspecified compensatory damages, treble damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on July 6, 2001. The district court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on Sept. 30, 2002. Defendants filed a motion to certify the order for interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Oct. 15, 2002. On March 26, 2003, a motion to dismiss based upon implied immunity was also filed in connection with this action. The court denied the motion to dismiss on June 26, 2003. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and supporting memorandum of law on Sept. 16, 2004. Class discovery concluded on April 11, 2005. Defendants filed their brief in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification on May 25, 2005, and plaintiffs' reply brief in support of their motion for class certification was filed on Oct. 20, 2005. Defendants filed a surreply brief in opposition to class certification on Nov. 15, 2005. Plaintiffs filed a summary judgment motion on liability on Oct. 25, 2005. The court denied class certification of an issuer class in its Memorandum and Order dated April 18, 2006. The Order further requires the purchaser plaintiffs to notify the court within 14 days as to their intention of pursuing class certification of purchaser class to pursue injunctive relief without the prospect of recovery of money damages. Plaintiffs filed a Rule 23(f) application with respect to the denial of class certification on May 1, 2006. The court granted their request that the response to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment be adjourned until 30 days after a ruling on the 23(f) application or the Second Circuit rules on the appeal, whichever is later. The suit is "In re Issuer Plaintiff Initial Public Offering Fee Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 00 CV 7804," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Lawrence M. McKenna with referral to Judge Douglas F. Eaton. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Randall Keith Berger of Kirby, McInerney & Squire, L.L.P., 830 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 371-6600; and (2) Francis S. Chlapowski of Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, LLP, 1633 Broadway, 47th Floor, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 237-2571, E-mail: fchlapowski@morganlewis.com. Representing the company is Jay N. Varon of Foley & Lardner, 3000 K. Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20007-5109, Phone: 212-672- 5300. PIPER JAFFRAY: Denial of Class Status in Antitrust Suit Appealed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs are appealing the denial of class certification to the consolidated class action, "In re Public Offering Fee Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:98-cv-07890," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Piper Jaffray companies along with other leading securities firms. Initially several putative class actions were filed against the company in 1998. The court's order, dated Feb. 11, 1999, consolidated these purported class actions for all purposes as, "In re Public Offering Fee Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 98 CV 7890 (LMM)." The consolidated amended complaint, which seeks unspecified compensatory damages, treble damages and injunctive relief, was filed on behalf of purchasers of shares issued in certain initial public offerings for U.S. companies and alleges that defendants conspired in offerings of an amount between $20 million and $80 million to fix the underwriters' discount at 7.0 percent of the offering amount in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The court dismissed this consolidated action with prejudice and denied plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint and include an issuer plaintiff. The court stated that its decision did not affect any class actions filed on behalf of issuer plaintiffs. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision on Dec. 13, 2002 and remanded the action to the district court. A motion to dismiss was filed with the district court on March 26, 2003 seeking dismissal of this action in their entirety, based upon the argument that the determination of underwriting fees is implicitly immune from the antitrust laws because of the extensive federal regulation of the securities markets. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 25, 2003. The underwriter defendants filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum of law in further support of their motion to dismiss on June 10, 2003. The court denied the motion to dismiss based upon implied immunity in its memorandum and order dated June 26, 2003. A supplemental memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss, applicable only to this action because the purported class consists of indirect purchasers, was filed on June 24, 2003 and sought dismissal based upon the argument that the proposed class members cannot state claims upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs filed a supplemental memorandum in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on July 9, 2003, and defendants filed a reply in further support of the motion to dismiss on July 25, 2003. The court entered its memorandum and order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss on Feb. 24, 2004. Plaintiffs' damage claims were dismissed because they were indirect purchasers, but the motion to dismiss was denied with respect to plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief. The company filed its answer to the consolidated amended complaint on April 22, 2004. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and supporting memorandum of law on Sept. 16, 2004. Class discovery concluded on April 11, 2005, and defendants filed their brief in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification on May 25, 2005. Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of their motion for class certification was filed on Oct. 20, 2005, and defendants filed a surreply brief in opposition to class certification on Nov. 15, 2005. Plaintiffs filed a summary judgment motion on liability on Oct. 25, 2005. The court denied class certification of an issuer class in its Memorandum and Order dated April 18, 2006. The Order further requires the purchaser plaintiffs to notify the court within 14 days as to their intention of pursuing class certification of purchaser class to pursue injunctive relief without the prospect of recovery of money damages. Plaintiffs filed a Rule 23(f) application with respect to the denial of class certification on May 1, 2006. The court granted their request that the response to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment be adjourned until 30 days after a ruling on the 23(f) application or the Second Circuit rules on the appeal, whichever is later. The suit is "In re Public Offering Fee Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:98-cv-07890-LMM-DFE," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Lawrence M. McKenna with referral to Judge Douglas F. Eaton. Representing the plaintiffs is Randall Keith Berger of Kirby, McInerney & Squire, L.L.P., 830 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 371-6600. Representing the company are Bryan B. House, Jay N. Varon and Samuel Winer of Foley & Lardner, 3000 K. Street, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20007-5109, Phone: 202-672-5300. PLAINS MEAT: Recalls Ground Beef for E. Coli Contamination ---------------------------------------------------------- Plains Meat Co., Ltd. of Lubbock, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service, is voluntarily recalling approximately 13,078 lbs. of ground beef products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. The products subject to recall are in five to 20-lb. packages of "Ground Beef, Packed by Plains Meat Company, Ltd." Each package bears the establishment number "Est. 1429" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The problem was discovered through routine FSIS microbiological testing. FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of this product. The ground beef was produced between July 31 and Aug. 4, 2006 and was sent to restaurants and distributors in Amarillo and Lubbock, Texas. E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause bloody diarrhea and dehydration. The very young, seniors and persons with compromised immune systems are the most susceptible to foodborne illness. Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact company owner Howard Griffin at (806) 765-5595. RENT-A-CENTER: Proposed Burdusis Suit Settlement to Cost $4.95M --------------------------------------------------------------- Rent-A-Center, Inc. reached a prospective settlement with the plaintiffs to resolve these coordinated cases pending in state court in Los Angeles, California: -- "Jeremy Burdusis, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et al./Israel French, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc."; and -- "Kris Corso, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc." The suits allege violations by the company of certain wage and hour laws of California. Under the terms contemplated, the company anticipates it will pay an aggregate of $4.95 million in cash, including plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, to be distributed to an agreed-upon class of company employees from August 1998 through the date of preliminary court approval of the settlement. The company estimates the class size to be approximately 6,000 persons. However, in the event there are more than 6,250 class members, the company has agreed to increase the settlement fund by $750 per person in excess of 6,250. In connection with the prospective settlement, the company is not admitting liability for its wage and hour practices in California. As a result of the settlement, the company anticipates recording a charge in the third quarter of this year to account for the aforementioned settlement amount and attorneys' fees. The terms of the prospective settlement are subject to the parties entering into a definitive settlement agreement and obtaining court approval. Rent-A-Center, Inc., headquartered in Plano, Texas, currently operates approximately 2,750 company-owned stores nationwide and in Canada and Puerto Rico. The stores generally offer high- quality, durable goods such as major consumer electronics, appliances, computers and furniture and accessories under flexible rental purchase agreements that generally allow the customer to obtain ownership of the merchandise at the conclusion of an agreed upon rental period. SHURGARD STORAGE: Enters MOU to Settle Suit Over Planned Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. and Public Storage, Inc. entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on Aug. 8, 2006 to settle the action, "Doris Staer v. Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc., et al.," pending in Superior Court of Washington, County of King at Seattle. The suit was filed as a putative class action on behalf of holders of Shurgard common stock against Shurgard and certain of the members of its board of directors related to the proposed merger between Public Storage and Shurgard. Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, Shurgard and Public Storage agreed to disclose certain additional information. This information should be read carefully together with the joint proxy statement/prospectus that Public Storage and Shurgard have previously filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and mailed to their respective shareholders in connection with the proposed merger. In the process of evaluating the strategic alternatives available to Shurgard, the Shurgard board of directors considered selling Shurgard's European operations separately. However, after conducting an auction process that sought bids for both Shurgard's European operations and U.S. operations separately, as well as for the entire company, the Shurgard board determined that a transaction for the entire company in a single transaction would likely result in a higher total value than selling the company in separate parts. In addition to the bid received from Public Storage, on Jan. 12, 2006, Shurgard received five non-binding preliminary bids from third parties, two of which were for the entire company and three of which were for only Shurgard's European operations. The two preliminary bidders that submitted a bid for the entire company proposed $51.00 and $49.49, on an implied value basis, respectively, for each outstanding share of Shurgard common stock, representing approximately 12.9% and 15.4% less, respectively, than the proposed price reflected in Public Storage's preliminary bid for the entire company, based on the closing price of Public Storage common stock on Jan. 12, 2006. The three preliminary bidders that expressed an interest in acquiring only Shurgard's European operations proposed a purchase price for those operations of EUR1.05 billion, EUR1 billion and EUR868 million, respectively, or $1.26 billion, $1.20 billion and $1.04 billion, respectively, based on currency prices at the close of trading in New York on Jan. 12, 2006. At a meeting of Shurgard's independent directors on March 5, 2006, the independent directors noted that the combined value of the highest offer submitted in the bidding process for Shurgard's European operations and the highest offer for Shurgard's U.S. operations was less than the implied value of Public Storage's offer for the entire company. Accordingly, the independent directors determined that, pending resolution of negotiations with Public Storage for a sale of the entire company, Shurgard should take no further action with respect to the revised bid for Shurgard's European operations from the only other remaining bidder in the process at the time, the acquisition group that included Charles K. Barbo, chairman of the board of directors of Shurgard, and David K. Grant, president and chief executive officer of Shurgard. On Jan. 17, 2006, the Shurgard board of directors approved certain technical amendments to Shurgard's business combination agreements with senior management. The amendments to the business combination agreements were intended to: -- clarify the terms for inclusion of bonus in severance amounts to ensure that a buyer could not reduce bonuses to $0 after a sale and thereby dramatically reduce the amount of severance owed; -- to clarify that the business combination agreements would terminate if an executive were to quit other than for "Good Reason"; or be fired for "Cause"; prior to a business combination; -- to clarify that the business combination agreements would terminate on a leave of absence unless otherwise agreed to in writing by Shurgard; and -- "to add a provision requiring Shurgard (or its successor) to pay for the executive's legal fees in the event of a dispute under the business combination agreement, unless the executive's claim was found to be frivolous or brought in bad faith. Shurgard believes that the changes to the business combination agreements do not affect the amount of severance payable, except potentially for the clarification of the treatment of bonus described in clause (i), the types of transactions that would trigger severance payments or the duration of the period after a business combination during which severance payments would be triggered. Since Jan. 1, 2004, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., one of Shurgard's financial advisors, and affiliates of Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. received from Public Storage aggregate fees for corporate and investment banking services unrelated to the merger of approximately $10 million. SOUTH DAKOTA: County Gets Favorable Ruling in Strip Search Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of Minnehaha County Detention Center in a suit challenging its strip search policy, Associated Press reports. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Piersol previously ruled that the policy of strip-searching juveniles accused of minor offenses was unconstitutional. Jodie Smook of Luverne, Minnesota, challenged the policy in court, when in 1999, as a 16-year-old, she had to be strip searched for a curfew violation by detention officials. Judge Steven Colloton wrote in an opinion that in the context of the situation the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches, was not violated. The court said detention center officials are responsible for making sure that juveniles are not hiding weapons or drugs. The suit is "Smook, et al. v. Minnehaha, County of, et al. Case No. 4:00-cv-04202-LLP" filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Lawrence L. Piersol. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) James G. Abourezk at Abourezk Law Office, 401 E 8th Street, Suite 321, Sioux Falls, SD 57103, U.S., Phone: 334-8402, Fax: 334-9404; and (2) Juliet Berger-White at Gessler, Hughes, Socol, Piers, Resnick & DYM, Ltd., Three First National Plaza, 70 W. Madison, Suite 2200, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 580-0100. Representing the defendants are: (1) Mary A. Akkerman at Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith, PC P.O. Box 5027, Sioux Falls, SD 57117-5027, Phone: 336- 3890, E-mail: Mary.Akkerman@woodsfuller.com; and (2) Scott N. Heidepriem at Johnson, Heidepriem, Miner, Marlow & Janklow, P.O. Box 1107, Sioux Falls, SD 57101- 1107, Phone: 338-4304, Fax: 338-4162, E-mail: scott@jhmmj.com. STRATEGIC ENERGY: Plaintiffs Amend Suit Over Power Supply Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Strategic Energy, L.L.C., a subsidiary of KLT Energy Services, faces a purported class action in the Pennsylvania over its Power Supply Coordination Service Agreements. In 2005, a class action complaint for breach of contract was filed against the company. Plaintiffs purportedly represent the interests of certain customers in Pennsylvania who entered into the agreement or a certain product in Pennsylvania. The complaint seeks monetary damages, attorney fees and costs and a declaration that the customers may terminate their agreement with the company. In response to the company's preliminary objections, plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint that management is evaluating. VONAGE HOLDINGS: Faces Several Securities Suits in N.J. Over IPO ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vonage Holdings Corp. was named as defendant in several purported securities class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in relation to the company's May 2006 initial public offering. On June 2, 2006, the company and several of its officers and directors, and the firms who served as the underwriters in its IPO were named as defendants in, "Lang v. Vonage Holdings Corp. et al." Subsequently, several similar purported class actions were filed. The complaints assert claims under the federal securities laws on behalf of a professed class consisting of all those who were allegedly damaged as a result of acquiring the company's common stock in connection with the company's IPO. They allege, among other things, that the company omitted and/or misstated certain facts concerning the IPO's Customer Directed Share Program. Some complaints also allege the IPO prospectus contained misrepresentations or omissions concerning certain of the company's products and/or the prior experience of some of the its management. The company expects the complaints to be consolidated at some time in the future. The first identified complaint is "Lang v. Vonage Holdings Corp. et al.," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Freda L. Wolfson with referral to Judge John J. Hughes. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Christopher Michael Placitella of Cohen, Placitella & Roth, PC, 115 Maple Avenue, Red Bank, NJ 07701, Phone: (732) 747-9003, E-mail: cplacitella@cprlaw.com; and (2) Joseph J. Depalma of Lite, Depalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102- 5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail: jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com. VONAGE HOLDINGS: Faces Suit in N.J. Over Initial Public Offering ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vonage Holdings Corp. was named as a defendant in a purported class action, "Norsworthy v. Vonage Holdings Corp. et al.," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in relation to the company's initial public offering. Filed on July 14, 2006 by Steven R. Norsworthy, the suit also names as defendants the firms that served as the underwriters in the company's May 2006 IPO. The lawsuit asserts state law breach of contract and negligence claims relating to the alleged inability of participants' in the company's Customer Directed Share Program to trade their shares after the IPO. The suit is "Norsworthy v. Vonage Holdings Corp. et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-03192-FLW-JJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Freda L. Wolfson with referral to Judge John J. Hughes. Representing the plaintiff is Gary Martin Meyers of Law Offices Of G. Martin Meyers, PC, 35 West Main Street, Suite 106, Denville, NJ 07834, Phone: (973) 625-0838, E-mail: gmm@gmeyerslaw.com. WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Trial of WilTel Investors' Suit Set Today ------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in a suit filed by securities holders of WilTel Communications, previously an owned subsidiary known as Williams Communications, are set to meet for a case trial Aug. 16, 2006. On and after Jan. 29, 2002, multiple securities fraud class actions were filed against the company and co-defendants, WilTel Communications, and certain corporate officers. The defendants were accused of acting jointly and separately to inflate the stock price of both companies. Other suits allege similar causes of action related to a public offering in early January 2002 known as the FELINE PACS offering. These cases were also filed in 2002 against the company, certain corporate officers, all members of its board of directors and all of the offerings' underwriters. WilTel is no longer a defendant as a result of its bankruptcy. These cases were all consolidated and an order was issued requiring separate amended consolidated complaints by the company's equity holders and WilTel equity holders. The underwriter defendants have requested indemnification and defense from these cases. The company said that if it grants the requested indemnifications to the underwriters, any related settlement costs will not be covered by its insurance policies. The company is currently covering the cost of defending the underwriters. In 2002, the amended complaints of the WilTel securities holders and of the company's securities holders added numerous claims related to the company's Power segment. The parties went through discovery, and an Aug. 16, 2006 trial date was set. On June 13, 2006, the company announced that it had reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the claims of its securities holders for a total payment of $290 million. Of the total settlement amount, the company expects to pay approximately $150 million in cash to fund the settlement, and expect the balance to be funded by its insurers. Payment will be made after the filing of definitive settlement documents with the court and the issuance of an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. The exact amount of the company's payment is subject to final determination and timing of certain insurer coverage allocations. The company has entered into indemnity agreements with certain of its insurers to ensure their timely payment related to this settlement. The carrying value of the company's estimated liability related to these agreements is immaterial, as it believes the likelihood of any future performance is remote. As of June 30, 2006, the company has accrued approximately $162 million for this settlement and related costs, according to the company's Aug. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006. The suit is "In re: Williams Securities Litigation, Case No. 02- CV-72-H," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma under Judge Stephen P. Friot with referral to Judge Frank H. McCarthy. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) R. Robyn Assaf of Kirby McInerney & Squire, (OKC), 4312 N. Classen, Oklahoma City, OK 73118, Phone: 405-525- 0777, Fax: 557-0777; (2) Brian Barry of Brian Barry Law Office, 1801 Ave. Of The Stars, Ste. 307, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-788- 0831, Fax: 310-788-0841, E-mail: BriBarry1@yahoo.com; (3) Laurie Bernice Ashton of Keller Rohrback, LLP, 3101 N Central Ave., Ste. 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600, Phone: 602-248-0088, Fax: 602-248-2822, E-mail: lashton@kellerrohrback.com; and (4) Wayne T. Boulton of Schatz & Nobel, PC, 1 Corporate Ctr., Ste. 1700, Hartford, CT 06103-3202, Phone: 860- 493-6292, Fax: 493-6290. XEROX CORP: Court Hears Appeal on N.Y. Apartheid Suit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York of the class action, "Digwamaje et al. v. IBM et al.," which was filed against Xerox Corp. and several other corporations. The suit alleges that defendants provided material assistance to the apartheid government in South Africa from 1948 to 1994, by engaging in commerce in South Africa and with the South African government and by employing forced labor, thereby violating both international and common law. Filed on Sept. 27, 2002, the First Amended Complaint on the company was deemed effective as of Dec. 6, 2002. On March 19, 2003, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint that eliminated a number of corporate defendants but was otherwise identical in all material respects to the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs claim violations of the Alien Tort Claims Act, the Torture Victims Protection Act and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. They also assert human rights violations and crimes against humanity. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in excess of $200 billion and punitive damages in excess of $200 billion. The foregoing damages are being sought from all defendants, jointly and severally. The company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Oral argument of the motion was heard on Nov. 6, 2003. By Memorandum Opinion and Order filed Nov. 29, 2004, the court granted the motion to dismiss. A clerk's judgment of dismissal was filed on Nov. 30, 2004. On Dec. 27, 2004, the company received a notice of appeal dated Dec. 24, 2004. On Feb. 16, 2005, the parties filed a stipulation withdrawing the Dec. 24, 2004 appeal on the ground that the Nov. 30, 2004 judgment of dismissal was not appealable. On March 28, 2005, plaintiffs submitted a letter requesting permission to file a motion for leave to file an amended and consolidated complaint. By Summary Order filed April 6, 2005, the court denied the request. In a second Summary Order filed the same day, the court amended its Nov. 29, 2004, Opinion and Order, which dismissed the action, so as to render the Opinion and Order appealable and plaintiffs filed a new appeal on May 3, 2005. On Aug. 19, 2005, plaintiffs-appellants filed their brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On Oct. 4, 2005, defendants-appellates filed their brief in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument in the Second Circuit was held on Jan. 24, 2006. The company denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously defending the action. The suit is "Digwamaje, et al. v. IBM Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-06218-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge John E. Sprizzo. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Kweku J. Hanson, 487 Main Street, Harford, CT 06106, Phone: (860) 728-5454, Fax: (860) 548-9660; (2) Medi Moira Mokuena, 268 Jubilee Avenue, Halfway House 1685, Extension 12, Republic of South Africa; and (3) Paul M. Ngobeni, 914 Main Street, Suite 206, East Hartford, CT 06108, Phone: (860) 289-3155 and (508) 620-4798. Representing the defendants are: (i) Kristin M. Heine of Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP, 500 Campus Drive, Florham Park, NJ 07932-1047, Phone: (973) 549-7338, Fax: (973) 360-9831, Web site: http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/;and (ii) Kristin Michele Heine of Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP, 140 Broadway, 39th Flr., New York, NY 10005, Phone: (973) 549-7338, Fax: (973) 360-9831, E-mail: kristin.heine@dbr.com. XEROX CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Conn. Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut ordered the issuance of a form of notice in the consolidated securities class action, "In re Xerox Corporation Securities Litigation," which was filed against Xerox Corp. and other defendants. Initially consisting of seventeen cases, the consolidated action named as defendants: -- the company, -- Barry Romeril, -- Paul Allaire, and -- G. Richard Thoman The suit purports to be a class action on behalf of the named plaintiffs and all other purchasers of common stock of the company between Oct. 22, 1998 and Oct. 7, 1999. The amended consolidated complaint in the action alleges that in violation of Section 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder, each of the defendants is liable as a participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of the company's common stock during the class period by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material facts relating to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose the material negative impact that the April 1998 restructuring had on the company's operations and revenues. The amended complaint further alleges that the alleged scheme: (1) deceived the investing public regarding the economic capabilities, sales proficiencies, growth, operations and the intrinsic value of the company's common stock; (2) allowed several corporate insiders, such as the named individual defendants, to sell shares of privately held common stock of the company while in possession of materially adverse, non-public information; and (3) caused the individual plaintiffs and the other members of the purported class to purchase common stock of the Company at inflated prices. The amended consolidated complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the other members of the purported class against all defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of defendants' alleged wrongdoing, including interest thereon, together with reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action, including counsel fees and expert fees. On Sept. 28, 2001, the court denied the defendants' motion for dismissal of the complaint. On Nov. 5, 2001, the defendants answered the complaint. On or about Jan. 7, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The company and the individual defendants filed their opposition to that motion on June 28, 2005. The motion has been fully briefed, but has not been argued before the court. The court has not issued a ruling. On or about Nov. 8, 2004, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Welfare Fund of Local Union No. 164 filed a motion to intervene as a named plaintiff and class representative. Separately, on June 8, 2005, IBEW and Robert W. Roten moved to substitute as lead plaintiffs and proposed class representatives. On May 12, 2006, the court denied, without prejudice to refiling, plaintiffs' motion for class certification, IBEW's motion to intervene and serve as named plaintiff and class representative, and IBEW and Mr. Roten's joint motion to substitute as lead plaintiffs and proposed class representatives. The court also ordered the parties to submit to it a notice to certain putative class members to inform them of the circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of several lead plaintiffs, and to advise them of the opportunity to express their desire to serve as a representative of the putative class. On July 25, 2006, the court so-ordered a form of notice. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. The suit is "In Re Xerox Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:99-cv-02374-AWT," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Alvin W. Thompson. Representing the for the plaintiffs are: (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com; (2) Hurwitz & Sagarin, 147 North Broad St., Po Box 112, Milford, CT, 06460-0112, Phone: 203.877.8000; (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) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York, NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065, Phone: 212.594.5300; (5) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com; (6) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, 35 East State Street, Media, PA, 19063, Phone: 877.891.9880, E-mail: jshah@classactioncounsel.com; (7) 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; and (8) Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY), The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY, 10126, Phone: 212.682.3025, Fax: 212.682.3010, E-mail: info@wyca.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Alfred U. Pavlis, Daly & Pavlis, LLC, 107 John St., Southport, CT 06890, Phone: 203-255-6700, Fax: 203-255- 1953, E-mail: apavlis@dalypavlis.com; and (ii) Andrew N. Vollmer, Gordon Pearson and Heather A. Jones, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, 2445 M St., NW, Washington, DC 20037-1420, Phone: 202-663-6000. XEROX CORP: Discovery Continues in "Carlson" Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is still ongoing in the consolidated securities class action, "Carlson v. Xerox Corp., et al.," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Initially consisting of 21 cases, the consolidated securities class action, also names as defendants KPMG LLP, Paul A. Allaire, G. Richard Thoman, Anne M. Mulcahy, Barry D. Romeril, Gregory Tayler, and Philip Fishbach. On Sept. 11, 2002, the court entered an endorsement order granting plaintiffs' motion to file a third consolidated amended complaint. The defendants' motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint was denied, as moot. According to the third consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs purport to bring this case as a class action on behalf of an expanded class consisting of all persons and/or entities who purchased the company's common stock and/or bonds between Feb. 17, 1998 and June 28, 2002 and who were purportedly damaged thereby. The third consolidated amended complaint sets forth two claims: -- each of the company, KPMG, and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 thereunder; and -- the individual defendants are also allegedly liable as "controlling persons" of the company pursuant to Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act. Plaintiffs claim that the defendants participated in a fraudulent scheme that operated as a fraud and deceit on purchasers of the company's common stock and bonds by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts relating to various of the company's accounting and reporting practices and financial condition. Plaintiffs further allege that this scheme deceived the investing public regarding the true state of the company's financial condition and caused the plaintiffs and other members of the alleged class to purchase the company's common stock and bonds at artificially inflated prices, and prompted a SEC investigation that led to the April 11, 2002 settlement which, among other things, required the company to pay a $10 penalty and restate its financials for the years 1997-2000, including restatement of financials previously corrected in an earlier restatement which plaintiffs contend was improper. The third consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the other class members against all defendants, jointly and severally, including interest thereon, together with reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. On Dec. 2, 2002, the company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 13, 2005, the court denied the motion. On Oct. 31, 2005, the defendants answered the complaint. On Jan. 19, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class ratification. That motion has not been fully briefed or argued before the court. The parties are engaged in discovery. The suit is "Carlson, et al. v. Xerox Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:00-cv-01621-AWT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Alvin W. Thompson. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Francis P. Karam and Keith M. Fleischman of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th St., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-779-1414, Fax: 212-779-3218, E- mail: karam@bernlieb.com; (2) Eliot B. Gersten and John Joseph Robaczynski of Gersten & Clifford, 214 Main Street, Hartford, CT 06106, Phone: 860-527-7044, Fax: 860-527-4968, E-mail: egersten@gcrlaw.net and jrobacynski@gcrlaw.net; (3) Dennis J. Johnson and Jacob B. Perkinson of Johnson & Perkinson, 1690 Williston Rd., South Burlington, VT 05403, Phone: 802-862-0030, Fax: 802-862-0060, E-mail: djohnson@jpclasslaw.com and jperkinson@jpclasslaw.com; (4) Abigail Romeo of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo-MA, One Liberty Square, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-542-8300, Fax: 617-542-1194, E-mail: aromeo@bermanesq.com; and (5) Cary L. Talbot of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 4915, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-5300. Representing the defendants are: (i) Michael Gruenglas and Jay B. Kasner of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Four Times Square, New York, NY 10036-3897, Phone: 212-735-3000; (ii) Timothy W. Blakely, Evan R. Chesler, Karin A. DeMasi and Sandra C. Goldstein of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, 825 8Th Ave., Worldwide Plaza, New York, NY 10019-7415, Phone: 212-474-1000, Fax: 212-474-3700, E-mail: echesler@cravath.com, kdemasi@cravath.com and sgoldstein@cravath.com; and (iii) Thomas D. Goldberg of Day, Berry & Howard, One Canterbury Green, Stamford, CT 06901-2047, Phone: 203- 977-7383, Fax: 203-977-7301, E-mail: tdgoldberg@dbh.com. XEROX CORP: Mediation Results in N.Y. Title VII Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Xerox Corp. and plaintiffs in the class action "Warren, et al. v. Xerox Corp." reached a settlement in the case after a private mediation session in mid-May 2006. On Mar. 11, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered an order certifying a nationwide class of all black salespersons employed by Xerox from Feb. 1, 1997 to the present under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Six black sales representatives commenced the suit on May 9, 2001. Plaintiffs allege that the company engaged in a pattern or practice of race discrimination against them and other black sales representatives by assigning them to less desirable sales territories, denying them promotional opportunities, and paying them less than their white counterparts. Although the complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought, plaintiffs do seek, on behalf of themselves and the classes they seek to represent, front and back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. Fact discovery recently concluded and expert reports were exchanged. The parties participated in private mediation in mid-May 2006. Fact discovery was concluded and expert reports have been exchanged. Following three days of mediation with a private mediator, a tentative agreement was reached. The company said terms of the agreement were not material to it. Counsels for the parties are working on drafting mutually acceptable language for a settlement agreement and release. The agreement will be subject to a fairness hearing and court approval. The suit is "Warren, et al. v. Xerox Corp., Case No. 1:01-cv- 02909-JG-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge John Gleeson with referral to Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto. Representing the plaintiffs is Barry Alan Weprin of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th floor, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (212) 946-9312, Fax: 212-868-1229, E-mail: bweprin@milbergweiss.com. Representing the defendant are Eugene D. Ulterino and Amy Laura Ventry of Nixon Peabody, LLP, Phone: 585-263-1580 and (516) 832- 7500, Fax: 585-263-1600 and (516) 832-7555, E-mail: eulterino@nixonpeabody.com and aventry@nixonpeabody.com. ZHONE TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Reached in N.J. Tellium Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Zhone Technologies, Inc. and plaintiffs in the securities fraud class action against Tellium, Inc., which was acquired by the company in November 2003, reached a settlement in the case. The suit, "In re Tellium, Inc. Securities Litigation," is filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On various dates between Dec. 10, 2002 and Feb. 27, 2003, numerous class action securities complaints were filed against Tellium. On May 19, 2003, a consolidated amended complaint representing all of the actions was filed. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Tellium and its then-current directors and executive officers, and its underwriters, violated the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 by making false and misleading statements or omissions in its registration statement prospectus relating to the securities offered in the initial public offering. The complaint further alleges that these parties violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by acting recklessly or intentionally in making the alleged misstatements and/or omissions in connection with the sale of Tellium stock. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount, including compensatory damages, costs and expenses incurred in connection with the actions and equitable relief as may be permitted by law or equity. On Mar. 31, 2004, the court granted Tellium's and the underwriters' motions to dismiss the complaint and allowed the plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint. On May 14, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated and amended complaint. On Jun. 25, 2004, the company, as Tellium's successor-in- interest, and the underwriters again moved to dismiss the complaint. On Jun. 30, 2005, the court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, but denied the motions to dismiss with respect to the plaintiffs' claims under the Securities Act of 1933. The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of that portion of the court's Jun. 30, 2005 decision dismissing their claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On Aug. 26, 2005, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. The case proceeded to discovery. On or about March 10, 2006, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the case. The court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement on or about May 30, 2006. Notice of the proposed settlement is being sent to the affected stockholders to determine whether those stockholders wish to participate in or object to the proposed settlement. The court has scheduled a final approval hearing for Sept. 7, 2006. The suit is "In re Tellium, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-05878-FLW-AMD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Freda L. Wolfson with referral to Judge Ann Marie Donio. Representing the plaintiffs is Robert J. Berg of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 2050 Center Avenue, Suite 200, Fort Lee, NJ 07024, Phone: (201) 592-3201, E-mail: berg@bernlieb.com. Representing the defendants is Joseph T. Boccassini of Mccarter & English, LLP, Four Gateway Center, 100 Mulberry Street, Newark, NJ 07102, Phone: (973) 622-4444, Fax: (973) 624-7070, E- mail: jboccassini@mccarter.com. ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Faces Orthopedic Products Antitrust Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- Zimmer Holdings, Inc. and several other major orthopedic manufacturers were named as defendants in six putative class actions as of July 27, 2006. Direct and indirect purchasers of orthopaedic products filed the suits, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws and certain state consumer protection statutes. In each of these lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices of orthopedic implant devices. The direct purchaser cases are: -- "South Central Surgical Center, LLC v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on July 13, 2006; and -- "Chaiken DDS, P.C. v. Biomet, Inc. et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana on July 26, 2006. The indirect purchaser cases are: -- "Morganti v. Johnson & Johnson, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 19, 2006; -- "Thomas v. Biomet, Inc., et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on July 18, 2006; -- "Kirschner v. Biomet, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on July 24, 2006; and -- "Williams v. Biomet, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on July 27, 2006. In all of these cases, plaintiffs seek damages of unspecified amounts, in some cases to be trebled under applicable law, attorneys' fees and injunctive or other unspecified relief. Warsaw, Indiana-based Zimmer Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: ZMH) -- http://www.zimmer.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and markets reconstructive orthopaedic implants, including joint and dental, spinal implants, trauma products and related orthopaedic surgical products. Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- September 18-19, 2006 NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Ritz-Carlton Hotel (Arlington St.), Boston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 20, 2006 ASBESTOS INSURANCE CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Ritz-Carlton Hotel (Arlington St.), Boston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 20, 2006 INSURANCE CONTRACT WORDING CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 21-22, 2006 BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 21-22, 2006 EMINENT DOMAIN CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Ritz-Carlton, Marina del Rey, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 26-27, 2006 REINSURANCE ARBITRATION American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 September 27-28, 2006 CONSUMER FINANCE CLASS ACTIONS & LITIGATION American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 September 27-28, 2006 CLINICAL TRIALS American Conference Institute Boston Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 September 28-30, 2006 LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS ALI-ABA Boston Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 September 28-29, 2006 INSURANCE & REINSURANCE CORPORATE COUNSEL CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 12-13, 2006 MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR Mass Torts Made Perfect Wynn, Las Vegas, Nevada Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678 October 4-5, 2006 CHEMICAL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION American Conference Institute Chicago Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 October 5-7, 2006 LEXISNEXIS PRACTICE MANAGEMENT CIC CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars Ballantyne Resort, Charlotte, NC Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 11, 2006 CORPORATE E-DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Ritz-Carlton, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 16-17, 2006 WATER CONTAMINATION CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Fairmont Miramar Hotel, Santa Monica, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 19-20, 2006 INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS Mealeys Seminars Caesar's Palace, Las Vegas Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 25-26, 2006 WAGE & HOUR CLAIMS & CLASS ACTIONS American Conference Institute San Francisco Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 October 25-26, 2006 DERIVATIVES BOOT CAMP American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 October 26-27, 2006 EMERGING DRUGS & PREEMPTION CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars Hyatt Regency, Chicago Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 31-November 1, 2006 EXIT STRATEGIES FOR THE INSURANCE MARKETPLACE CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Jurys Great Russell Street Hotel, London, UK Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 1-2, 2006 INTERNATIONAL ASBESTOS CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Jurys Great Russell Street Hotel, London, UK Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 2-3, 2006 LONG TERM CARE LITIGATION American Conference Institute Miami Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 November 9-10, 2006 BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES American Conference Institute Miami Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 November 16-17, 2006 CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE ISSUES ALI-ABA Washington, D.C. Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 November 30-December 1, 2006 ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY ALI-ABA New Orleans Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 December 4-5, 2006 BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 13-15, 2006 DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 March 2007 MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR Mass Torts Made Perfect Loews Hotel, Miami, Florida Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678 May 3-4, 2007 Accountants' Liability CM076 ALI-ABA Boston Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 * Online Teleconferences ------------------------ August 1-30, 2006 HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com August 1-30, 2006 CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com August 1-30, 2006 HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com August 1-30, 2006 IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS: CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY? CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com August 1-30, 2006 BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE -- FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE & CONSUMER LAW UPDATES CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com August 1-30, 2006 HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND TORT CASES IN TEXAS" CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com August 1-30, 2006 CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com August 16, 2006 INVESTIGATIONS INTO FRAUDULENT ASBESTOS & SILICA CLAIMS Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com August 17, 2006 EMERGING DRUGS AND DEVICES Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 13, 2006 PROPOSITION 64/17200 Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 15, 2006 HOW TO GET ON AN MDL COMMITTEE Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 17, 2006 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TELECONFERENCE SERIES: WOMEN IN THE LAW Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 24, 2006 NANOTECHNOLOGY Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 26, 2006 CURRENT CLAIMS ISSUES FOR UNDERWRITERS AND SENIOR CLAIMS PEOPLE Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN DISCOVERY CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com PAXIL LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION? LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE LawCommerce.Com Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO SALES AND ADVERSTISING American Bar Association Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org ________________________________________________________________ The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. New Securities Fraud Cases BROADCOM CORP: Kahn Gauthier Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of shareholders who purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock and other securities of Broadcom Corp. between July 21, 2005 and July 13, 2006. Broadcom and certain of its officers and directors are charged with issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On July 14, 2006, Broadcom announced that it would record more than $750 million in added expenses and restate its past earnings related to the illegal backdating of stock options. Prior to any news of options backdating reaching in the market, shares of Broadcom traded at slightly above $40.00 per share and, thereafter, shares traded down to approximately $27.50 per share -- a rapid decline of over 31%. Options pricing backdating occurs when options grants to senior officers or directors of public companies are made at prices lower than the trading price of the stock on the date such options are granted. The undisclosed backdating of options violates generally accepted accounting principles. For more details, contact Lewis Kahn of KGS Phone: 1-866-467- 1400, ext., 100, or 504-648-1850, E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com. JOS A BANK: Kirby McInerney Announces Securities Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP announces that a class action was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of all purchasers of Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. common stock between Jan. 5, 2006 and June 7, 2006. The lawsuit alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false statements. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that: -- the company had overinvested in inventories of fall clothing, building excessive levels of in-stock inventories of seasonal merchandise that carried over into the first quarter of 2006; -- that the company resorted to very aggressive promotional pricing in February and March 2006 which deeply discounted the prices of the merchandise in order to move the merchandise and make room for new seasonal merchandise; and -- the company's gross profit margins were substantially reduced in February and March 2006 by reason of the inventory and pricing actions taken by defendants which caused the company's profit margins and profits in February and March 2006 to shrink dramatically even as sales revenues increased, which represented an extreme departure from Jos. A. Bank's historical pattern. On June 8, 2006, defendants announced that net income for the first quarter of 2006 had fallen 13% even as sales revenues increased 18%. On this news, the company's common stock fell 29%, dropping $10.72 to close at $26.40 per share on June 8, 2006. Interested parties must move the Court no later than Sept. 25, 2006 for appointment as lead plaintiff. For more details, contact Ira M. Press, Esq. of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, Phone: 888-529-4787, E-mail: info.newcases@kmslaw.com, Web site: http://www.kmslaw.com. SCOTTISH RE: Wolf Haldenstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Scottish Re Group Ltd. between Feb. 17, 2005 and July 28, 2006, against defendants Scottish Re, and certain of its officers and directors, including: -- Glenn S. Schafer, -- Scott E. Willkomm, -- Paul Goldean, -- Elizabeth A. Murphy, -- Dean E. Miller, and -- Seth Vance, alleging violations under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78(i)(b), 78(t) and 78t-1(a) and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. Mr. Willkomm resigned as CEO on July 31, 2006. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, Defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions concerning Scottish Re's financial health and business prospects. Defendants also engaged in a concerted scheme to cover up serious operational and financial problems. In February 2006, the company reported strong earnings for the 2005 fourth quarter, and stated that this positive momentum would continue going forward. In early May 2006, Scottish Re announced that it had refinanced, at favorable rates, all of its regulatory reserves for the business acquired in its acquisition of ING Re, Scottish Re's reinsurance business. The company then reported reduced earnings for the first quarter of 2006, but dismissed it as temporary, and certainly not a cause for major concern. However, on July 31, 2006, before the market opened, defendants shocked investors with news that: -- the company's chief executive, defendant Scott Willkomm, had resigned his position; -- that for the second quarter ended June 30, 2006, contrary to the company's earlier positive guidance, Scottish Re expected to report a net operating loss of an astounding $130 million, of which $112 million was due to the valuation of allowances on deferred tax assets; -- that the company would suspend its ordinary share dividend; -- that the company had engaged Goldman Sachs and Bear Stearns to assist Scottish Re with evaluating strategic alternatives and potential sources of capital; and -- that results for the remainder of the year would be negatively affected. On this news the company's share prices plummeted from $16.00 to $3.99, a 75% decline, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of the dissemination of the false and misleading statements set forth above, the market price of Scottish Re common stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period. In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the statements described above, and the deceptive and manipulative devices and contrivances employed by said defendants, plaintiffs and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on the integrity of the market price of the stock in purchasing Scottish Re common stock. Had plaintiffs and the other members of the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said shares, or would not have purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid. The case is "Hickock v. Scottish Re Group Ltd., et al." Interested parties may request for lead plaintiff status by Oct. 2, 2006. For more details, contact Gregory M. Nespole, Esq., Paulette S. Fox, Esq., or Derek Behnke of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, Phone: (800) 575-0735, E-mail: classmember@whafh.com, Web site: http://www.whafh.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 * * *