/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060829.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, August 29, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 171 Headlines AMERICAN HOME: High Court Suspends Attorneys in Fen-Phen Suit AXIS CAPITAL: U.S. Insurers Continue to Face N.J. Antitrust Suit AXIS CAPITAL: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y CANADA: Dartmouth Man to be Named Plaintiff in Agent Orange Suit CHEVRON CORP: Judge Speeds up Ecuadorian Waste Dumping Lawsuit CHUBB CORP: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Contingent Commissions CONSECO HEALTH: Continues to Face La. Suit Over Insurance Policy CONSECO INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Insurance Fee Costing CONSECO INSURANCE: Files Motion to Dismiss Annuity Products Suit CROSS COUNTRY: Plaintiffs Seek Class Status for Calif. Wage Suit EMERY WORLDWIDE: Continues to Face WARN Violations Suit in Ohio EQ RESOURCE: Suits Over 2005 Explosion May be Joined as One Case EV3 INC: Continues to Face Suit in Del. Over MTI Transaction FORD MOTOR: Appeals Court Upholds Class in Suit Over Minivans GENERAL ELECTRIC: Arguments in "Turner" Suit Settlement Heard HUB INT'L: Continues to Face Lawsuit Over Contingent Commissions HUB INT'L: Still Faces N.J. Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Applied Medical's Lawsuit Goes to Trial JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial Nears for Wholesale Drug Pricing Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Still Faces Employment Bias Lawsuit in N.J. MEADOW GOLD: Recalls Choco Ice Cream with Undeclared Egg Content MEDSTAFF INC: Continues to Face Overtime Wage Suit in Calif. METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Pa. Suit METROPOLITAN LIFE: Ruling in D.C. Pension Fund Lawsuit Appealed MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit MORTGAGEIT HOLDINGS: Faces Stockholder Suit in N.Y. State Court NEW YORK: Attorney Plans Suit Over Parking Meters in Bellerose OSCEOLA FARMS: Fla. Court Dismisses Sugarcane Cutters' Wage Suit POZEN INC: Discovery Starts in N.C. Securities Fraud Lawsuit REWARDS NETWORK: Allowed to Ask Review of Ruling in "Bistro" SANDS REGENT: Agrees to Settle Nev. Lawsuit Over Herbst Merger SPIN MASTER: Recalls Toy Planes with Batteries That Can Overheat TELLIUM INC: Sept. 7 Hearing Set for N.J. Stock Suit Settlement TOBACCO LITIGATION: Anti-Smoking Groups Urge Filipinos to Sue TORCHMARK CORP: Oct. Trial Set for Vesta Insurance Suit in Ala. TOYOBO: Mass. Police Gets Payout in $29M Zylon Suit Settlement VISTEON CORP: Mich. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit VISTEON CORP: Settlement Talks Continuing in Mich. ERISA Suit YORK BARBELL: Recalls Weightlifting Bars with Defective Sleeve New Securities Fraud Cases PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Abraham Fruchter Announces Stock Suit Filing PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set October ********* AMERICAN HOME: High Court Suspends Attorneys in Fen-Phen Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Kentucky Supreme Court has temporarily suspended the licenses of three Lexington lawyers accused of breaching their fiduciary duty when they diverted more than $20 million in the settlement of Kentucky's fen-phen lawsuits, the Herald-Leader reports. The court suspended Melbourne Mills, Shirley Cunningham Jr. and William Gallion until further court order. The court said there is probable cause to think that the three had misappropriated money they held for others to their own use or that they had been improperly dealing with that money, according to the report. In 2001, fen-phen maker American Home Products settled a national class action over its diet drug by paying $200 million. Three years later, in 2004, former fen-phen plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the lawyers who took their case, asking for a full accounting of settlement funds. It turned out that the three lawyers and their consultants received more money than their 431 clients by getting about $105 million and giving their clients only $74 million. According to the lawyers they used case law governing excess funds in class suits that allow for lawyers to receive additional fees and also allows for creation of a non-profit fund from those fees. Circuit Court Judge Jay Bamberger Judge Bamberger approved the additional payments and the creation of a fund. The Judicial Conduct Commission later publicly reprimanded him for not properly following judicial procedures in making the decision. A judge ruled in March the lawyers had breached their fiduciary duty by receiving more than their contracts allowed. Also, by diverting more than $20 million in settlement money to non- profit Kentucky Fund for Healthy Living. The three attorneys are represented by Frankfort lawyer William E. Johnson. AXIS CAPITAL: U.S. Insurers Continue to Face N.J. Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. insurance companies of AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. remain defendants in the putative class action, "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Filed on Aug. 1, 2005, the suit includes as defendants numerous insurance brokers and insurance companies. It generally alleges antitrust and a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act in connection to the payment of contingent commissions and manipulation of insurance bids and seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The suit is "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1663," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg with referral to Judge Patty Shwartz. Representing the plaintiff are: (1) Thomas M. Louis of Wells Marble & Hurst, PLLC, P.O. BOX 131, JACKSON, MS 39205-0131, Phone: (601) 355-8321, E- mail: tlouis@wellsmar.com; (2) H. Alan Mccall of Stockwell Sievert, P.O. Box 2900, Lake Charles, LA 70601, US, Phone: 337-436-9491; (3) Ellen Meriwether of Miller Faucher & Cafferty, LLP, One Logan Square, Suite 1700, 18TH & Cherry Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-864-2800, E-mail: emeriwether@millerfaucher.com; and (4) Douglas A. Millen, Counsel Not Admitted to USDC-NJ Bar Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Rubenstein, PC, 191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60605- 1615, Phone: (312) 521-2100. Representing the company is William F. Clarke of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meahter & Flom, LLP, Four Times Square, New York, NY 10036-6522, Phone: (212) 735-3000, E-mail: wclarke@skadden.com. AXIS CAPITAL: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y ------------------------------------------------------------- AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. and certain of its executive officers remain defendants in the consolidated securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Two suits initially filed against the company relate to dealings being investigated by the Attorney General of the state of New York and other state regulators. The suits are: -- "James Dolan v. AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd., Michael A. Butt and John R. Charman" (filed on Oct. 28, 2004); and -- "Robert Schimpf v. AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd., Michael A. Butt, Andrew Cook and John R. Charman," (filed on Nov. 5, 2004). The suits were filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's publicly traded securities during the period between Aug. 6, 2003 and Oct. 14, 2004. The complaints charge AXIS and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaints further allege that during the class period, defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements concerning the company's results and operations. The true facts, which were known by each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the class period, are allegedly: (1) that the company was paying illegal and concealed "contingent commissions" pursuant to illegal "contingent commission agreements;" (2) that by concealing these "contingent commissions" and such "contingent commission agreements," the defendants violated applicable principles of fiduciary law, subjecting the company to enormous fines and penalties totaling potentially tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars; and (3) that as a result, the company's prior reported revenue and income was grossly overstated. On April 13, 2005, these lawsuits were consolidated as, "In re AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. Securities Litigation." The suit alleges securities violations in connection with the failure to disclose payments made pursuant to contingent commission arrangements and seeks damages in an unspecified amount. On May 13, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended, consolidated complaint and added as defendants the managing underwriters and one of the selling shareholders in the company's secondary offering completed in March 2004. The suit is "Dolan v. AXIS Capital Holdings Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-08564-RJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Richard J. Holwell. Representing the plaintiffs is Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com. Representing the company is Benjamin E. Rosenberg of Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP, 405 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10174, Phone: (212) 891-9231, Fax: (212) 891-9519, E-mail: benjamin.rosenberg@dechert.com. CANADA: Dartmouth Man to be Named Plaintiff in Agent Orange Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Merchant Law Group will file court papers in Halifax naming Paul Thompson of Dartmouth as plaintiff in a class action against the federal government over Agent Orange sprayed in CFB Gagetown, according to a report by Jennifer Taplin of The Daily News. The filing will make Mr. Thompson the first Nova Scotian to launch a class action against Canada. Merchant Law filed the suit in July 2005. Mr. Thompson reportedly said what they have is a lead plaintiff in every province. There are least 1,000 other plaintiffs across the country, according to the report. Mr. Thompson served in Gagetown base where U.S. military sprayed herbicides between the mid 1950s and 1984. In the 1960s they tested defoliants Agent Purple and Agent Orange. Mr. Thompson was stationed in the base in 1966-1970 and in 1981-1987. Mr. Thompson has multiple sclerosis and Graves' disease, his son has Crohn's disease and his grandson is severely autistic, according to the report. Merchant Law Group on the Net: http://www.merchantlaw.com/. CHEVRON CORP: Judge Speeds up Ecuadorian Waste Dumping Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Ecuadorian judge German Yanez denied Chevron Corp.'s motion to conduct 64 additional judicial inspections in a move to speed up a lawsuit against Chevron Corp. over toxic wastewater dumping in the rainforest of Ecuador. The decision eliminated almost all of the remaining judicial inspections. Chevron is accused of dumping more than 18 billion gallons of toxic waste into Ecuador's rainforest. The suit asserts the dumping threatened five indigenous groups and has produced cancers and oil-related health problems. Cleanup is estimated at $6.1 billion. Proof in the lawsuit, the first by rainforest residents against a U.S. oil company, is based largely on field inspections of Chevron well sites where scientists took water and soil samples to determine the presence of toxic contamination. Thus far, both sides are reporting extensive levels of toxins at 100% of the 42 sites inspected, often at levels hundreds of times higher than both U.S. and Ecuadorian norms, Amazon Watch said. Lawyers for the plaintiffs believe proof from the 42 inspections is more than enough to prove the case and that Chevron's motion to conduct 64 additional inspections was intended to delay. If accepted, Chevron's motion would have added at least three years to the trial. According to Alejandro Ponce, a member of the plaintiffs' legal team, Chevron wanted the trial to continue endlessly because it fears the outcome. "Chevron believes it is cheaper to pay lawyers to delay than to fund a clean-up that could save lives and protect the company from further liability and harm to its reputation," he added. "We urge the leadership of Chevron to change course because shareholders are at substantial risk in Ecuador as this decision makes clear," Mr. Ponce said. He said if further delays by Chevron can be forestalled, the case could be decided in 2007. The final phase of the trial is a damage assessment, which the plaintiffs are currently preparing. After the inspections are complete and the damage assessment submitted, the court will hear final arguments and then make a decision. Case Background On April 25, nine unnamed citizens and residents of Ecuador, filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking to represent residents of Ecuador's Oriente region who allegedly contracted cancer or who are at increased risk of cancer and other diseases because of the company's activities. The suit claims the company dumped wastewater into open pits and rivers during its oil drilling operations in Ecuador between 1971 and 1992. The practice was illegal in the U.S. at the time, the suit says. Plaintiffs are asking a court order that would compel Chevron to give up or disgorge profits Texaco made in the region by using non-industry-standard drilling methods. Those funds would then be used to build and maintain medical facilities for the affected regions. The suit also charges that Chevron violated the California Business and Professions Code by repeatedly and publicly misrepresenting or denying its responsibility for the problems. The suit arose out of the activities of Chevron subsidiary -- Texaco Petroleum Co., which the company bought in 2001 -- in Ecuador as the operating partner of a joint venture with the state-owned oil company, PetroEcuador. Chevron has filed a motion to dismiss. Chevron Corp Ecuadorian Waste Dumping suit on the Net: http://chevrontoxico.com The suit is "Doe, et al. vs. Texaco Inc., Texaco Petroleum Co. Inc. and Chevron Corp.," filed under Judge William H. Alsup. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Cristobal Bonifaz of Law Offices of Cristobal Bonifaz, 180 Maple St., PO Box 180 Conway, MA 01341, U.S., Phone: 413-369-4263, 413-369-0076; (2) Thomas Joseph Cmar of International Labor Rights Fund, 2001 S Street, NW, Suite 420, Washington, DC 20009, Phone: (202) 347-4100, E-mail: thom.cmar@ilrf.org; and (3) Paul Lindsey Hoffman of Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman, 723 Ocean Front Walk Venice, CA 90291, Phone: 310-396-0731, E-mail: hoffpaul@aol.com. Representing the defendants is Robert A. Mittelstaedt of Jones Day, 555 California Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415-875-5710, Fax: 415/875-5700, E-mail: ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com. CHUBB CORP: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Contingent Commissions -------------------------------------------------------------- Chubb Corp. is a defendant in purported class actions arising out of investigations into payment of contingent commissions to brokers and agents in the property and casualty insurance industry. On Aug. 1, 2005, the company and certain of its subsidiaries were named in a putative class action "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:05-cv-01168-FSH," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. This action, brought against several brokers and insurers on behalf of a class of persons who purchased insurance through the broker defendants, asserts claims under the Sherman Act and state law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, arising from the unlawful use of contingent commission agreements. The complaint seeks treble damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees. The company was also named in two purported class actions in state court relating to allegations of unlawful use of contingent commission arrangements. The first was filed on Feb. 16, 2005 in Seminole County, Florida. The second was filed on May 17, 2005 in Essex County, Massachusetts. In October 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring the Florida case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for consolidation with the "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation." On the same month, the JPMDL issued a Conditional Transfer Order conditionally transferring the Massachusetts case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for consolidation with the "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation." The plaintiff and one of the company's unaffiliated co- defendants filed motions to vacate the Conditional Transfer Order. Those motions have not yet been decided. In December 2005, the company and certain of its subsidiaries were named in an action similar to the "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation." The action is pending in the same court and has been assigned to the judge who is presiding over the "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation." The complaint has not yet been served in this matter. In these actions, the plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants unlawfully used contingent commission agreements. The actions seek unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. Separately, in April 2006, the company and one of its subsidiaries were named in an action similar to the "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation." This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. In these actions, the plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants unlawfully used contingent commission agreements. The actions seek unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. New Jersey-based Chubb Corp. (NYSE: CB) -- http://www.chubb.com/ -- is a holding company for a family of property and casualty insurance companies known informally as the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies (P&C Group). The P&C Group is divided into four business units: Chubb Commercial Insurance, Chubb Specialty Insurance, Chubb Personal Insurance and Reinsurance Assumed. CONSECO HEALTH: Continues to Face La. Suit Over Insurance Policy ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the purported class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against Conseco Health Insurance Co., a unit of Conseco, Inc. On Sept. 24, 2004, a purported statewide class action, "Diana Doiron, et al. v. Conseco Health Insurance Co., Case No. 61,534," was filed in the 18th Judicial District Court, Parish of Iberville, Louisiana. In her complaint, plaintiff claims that she was damaged due to Conseco Health's failure to pay claims made under her cancer policy, and seeks compensatory and statutory damages along with declaratory and injunctive relief. Conseco caused the case to be removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on Nov. 3, 2004, and it was assigned case number 04-784-D-M2. This case is now in the discovery stage, and the court has not yet set a hearing for plaintiff's class certification motion, according to the company's Aug. 8 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006. The suit is "Doiron v. Conseco Health Co., Case No. 3:04-cv- 00784-JJB-CN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana under Judge James J. Brady with referral to Judge Christine Noland. Representing the plaintiff is Stanley P. Baudin of Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, P.O. Drawer 71, 24110 Eden St., Plaquemine, LA 70764-0071, Phone: 225-687-6396, Fax: 225-687- 6398, E-mail: sbaudin@pbclawfirm.com. Representing the defendant is Raymond J. Pajares of Pajares & Schexnaydre, LLC, 103 Northpark Boulevard, Suite 110, Covington, LA 70433, Phone: 985-292-2000, Fax: 985-292-2001, E-mail: rpajares@pajares-schexnaydre.com. CONSECO INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Insurance Fee Costing --------------------------------------------------------------- Conseco, Inc. and certain subsidiaries, including principally Conseco Life Insurance Co., remain defendants in several purported state court class actions in Indiana, California and Pennsylvania. The suits alleges breach of contract, fraud and misrepresentation in relation to a change made in 2003 and 2004 in the way cost of insurance charges are calculated by the company for life insurance policies sold primarily under the names "Lifestyle" and "Lifetime." Those cases filed in Superior Court, Hamilton County, Indiana were consolidated as "Arlene P. Mangelson, et al. v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Cause No. 29D01-0403-PL-211." Four putative nationwide and/or statewide class actions filed in California state courts have been consolidated and are being coordinated in the Superior Court of San Francisco County under the new caption "Cost of Insurance Cases, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4384" (Judicial Council of California). On Jan. 25, 2005 an amended complaint making similar allegations was filed in the case, "William Schwartz v. Jeffrey Landerman, Diann P. Urbanek, Metro Insurance, Inc., Samuels Jacky Insurance Agency, Conseco Life Insurance Co., Successor to Philadelphia Life Insurance Co., Case No. GD 00-011432," filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Additionally, Mr. Schwartz filed a purported nationwide class action, "William Schwartz and Rebecca R. Frankel, Trustee of the Robert M. Frankel Irrevocable Insurance Trust v. Conseco Life Ins. Co. et al., Case No. GD 05-3742," filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. On May 12, 2006 these two Schwartz cases were consolidated under both original case numbers. On Dec. 22, 2005 a lawsuit was filed in Court of Common Pleas, Chester County, Pennsylvania as, "Lisa M. Jordan v. Allen R. Shank and Conseco Life Insurance Co., Case No. 05-10204." Carmel, Indiana-based Conseco, Inc. (NYSE: CNO) -- https://www.conseco.com/ -- is the holding company for a group of insurance companies operating throughout the U.S. that develop, market and administer supplemental health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance and other insurance products. CONSECO INSURANCE: Files Motion to Dismiss Annuity Products Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss the consolidated consumer fraud class action against Conseco Insurance Co. over the sale of annuity products to seniors 65 years and older. On Nov. 17, 2005, the complaint "Robert H. Hansen v. Conseco Insurance Co., f/k/a Conseco Annuity Assurance Co., Case No. C0504726" was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiff in this putative class action purchased an annuity in 2000 and is claiming relief on behalf of the proposed national class over alleged: -- violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; -- elder abuse; -- unlawful, deceptive and unfair business practices; -- unlawful, deceptive and misleading advertising; -- breach of fiduciary duty; aiding and abetting of breach of fiduciary duty; and -- unjust enrichment and imposition of constructive trust. On Jan. 27, 2006, a similar complaint was filed in the same court: "Friou P. Jones, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Conseco Insurance Company, an Illinois company f/k/a Conseco Annuity Assurance Company, Cause No. C06- 00537." Mr. Jones had purchased an annuity in 2003. Each case alleged that the annuity sold was inappropriate and that the annuity products in question are inherently unsuitable for seniors age 65 and older. On Mar. 3, 2006 a first amended complaint was filed in the Hansen case adding Friou P. Jones as a named plaintiff and adding causes of action for fraudulent concealment and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. This in effect has consolidated the two cases, and the original Jones case will be dismissed. A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed on July 28, 2006. The suit is "Robert H. Hansen v. Conseco Insurance Co., Case No. 5:05-cv-04726-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte with referral to Judge Richard Seeborg. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Howard D. Finkelstein of Finkelstein & Krinsk, 501 West Broadway, Suite 1250, San Diego, CA 92101-3593, Phone: 619-238-1333, Fax: 619-238-5425, E-mail: fk@classactionlaw.com; (2) Andrew S. Friedman of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, P.C., 2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000, Phoenix, AZ 85012, Phone: 602-274-1100, Fax: 602-274- 1199; and (3) John J. Stoia, Jr. of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058, Fax: (619) 231-7423, E-mail: jstoia@lerachlaw.com. Representing the defendants are, Thomas A. Doyle, James J. Dries and Mark L. Karasik of Baker & McKenzie, LLP, 130 E. Randolph, Drive, Suite 3500, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: 312-861-8000, Fax: 312-861-2899, E-mail: Thomas.A.Doyle@bakernet.com, James.J.Dries@bakernet.com and Mark.L.Karasik@bakernet.com. CROSS COUNTRY: Plaintiffs Seek Class Status for Calif. Wage Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the suit "Cossack et al. v. Cross Country Travelcorps, et al." are seeking class-action status for the case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit also names Cross Country Nurses, Inc., subsidiary of Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. together with Cross Country Travelcorps. On Aug. 26, 2003, a purported class action, "Theodora Cossack, et al. v. Cross Country TravCorps and Cross Country Nurses, Inc.," was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Orange. Plaintiffs plead causes of action for: -- violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et. seq; -- violations of California Labor Code Section 200, et. seq; -- recovery of unpaid wages and penalties; -- conversion; -- breach of contract; -- common counts - work, labor, services provided; and -- common counts - money had and received. Plaintiffs, who purport to sue on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated allege that defendants failed to pay plaintiffs, and the class they purport to represent, properly under California law. They specifically claim that defendants: -- failed to pay nurses hourly overtime as required by California law; -- failed to calculate correctly their employees' regular rate of pay used to calculate the rate at which overtime hours are to be compensated; -- failed to calculate correctly and pay a double time premium for all hours worked in excess of 12 in a workday; -- scheduled some of its employees on an alternative workweek schedule, but failed to pay them additional compensation when those employees did not work such alternative workweek, as scheduled; and -- failed to pay employees for the minimum hours defendants had promised them. On Feb. 10, 2006, the Superior Court of the state of California granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint to add causes of actions alleging defendant's failure to pay for missed meal periods and rest breaks. Although Cross Country Nurses, Inc. was previously dismissed from the action upon defendants' motion for summary judgment plaintiffs have erroneously included Cross Country Nurses, Inc. in the caption and allegations of the amended complaint they filed. On Mar. 10, 2006, defendants removed this putative class action to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Orange County. Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the case be remanded to state court, which was granted on Apr. 28, 2006. Defendants previously said it would appeal the motion to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit by May 5, 2006. Plaintiffs are seeking: -- an order enjoining defendants from engaging in the practices challenged in the complaint; -- for an order for full restitution of all monies defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiffs (and their purported class); -- for pre-judgment interest; for certain penalties provided for by the California Labor Code; and -- for attorneys' fees and costs. On July 28, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. The company intends to oppose the motion. Discovery in this case is ongoing. The suit is "Cossack et al. v. Cross Country Travelcorps, et al., Case No. 8:06-cv-00266-DOC-RNB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge David O. Carter with referral to Judge Robert N. Block. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Joseph Antonelli of Joseph Antonelli Law Offices, 1000 Lakes Drive, Suite 450, West Covina, CA 91790, Phone: 626-917-6228, E-mail: jantonelli@antonellilaw.com; (2) Kevin T. Barnes of Kevin T. Barnes Law Offices, 5670 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1460, Los Angeles, CA 90036, Phone: 323-549-9100, E-mail: barnes@kbarnes.com; Representing the defendants are, Enzo Der Boghossian, Arthur F. Silbergeld and Michael H. Weiss of Proskauer Rose, 2049 Century Park East, 32nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206, Phone: 310- 557-2900, E-mail: asilbergeld@proskauer.com and mweiss@proskauer.com. EMERY WORLDWIDE: Continues to Face WARN Violations Suit in Ohio --------------------------------------------------------------- Emery Worldwide Airlines remains a defendant in a labor class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The suit alleges violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act in connection with employee layoffs and ultimate terminations due to the August 2001 grounding of Emery Worldwide's airline operations and the shutdown of the airline operations in December 2001. The court subsequently certified the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of affected employees laid off between Aug. 11 and Aug. 15, 2001. The WARN Act generally requires employers to give 60-days notice, or 60-days pay and benefits in lieu of notice, of any shutdown of operations or mass layoff at a site of employment. The estimated range for potential loss on this matter is zero to approximately $8 million. Emery Worldwide is a subsidiary of CNF, Inc. and the U.S. Postal Service. The suit is "Bledsoe, et al. v. Emery Worldwide Airlines, et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-00069-WHR-SLO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Walter H. Rice. Representing the plaintiffs is David Gerard Torchia, Tobias & Kraus - 1 414 Walnut Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-241- 8137 Fax: 513-241-8137 E-mail: davet@tktlaw.com. Representing the company are: (1) Michelle R. Arendt and Thomas H. Barnard, Jr. Ulmer and Berne Penton Media Building 1300 E. Ninth Street Suite 900 Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: 216-931-6056 Fax: 216- 931-6057 E-mail: marendt@ulmer.com; and (2) Jacqueline Schuster Hobbs, Cinergy Services, Inc. 139 East Fourth Street 25ATII Cincinnati, OH 45201-0960 Phone: 513-287-1238 Fax: 513-287-2996 E-mail: Jacqueline.Hobbs@Cinergy.com. EQ RESOURCE: Suits Over 2005 Explosion May be Joined as One Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- A circuit court has yet to rule on combining as a class action suits arising from the explosion of flammable liquid at EQ Resource Recovery plant on Van Born Road, Romulus, Michigan, according to a report by Doug Guthrie of The Detroit News. More than 2,500 people living near the plant have filed suits in Wayne County Circuit Court seeking unspecified damages after a file exploded on the facility in August 2005. Elizabeth Thomson, a Southfield lawyer, represents 200 residents; Detroit attorney David Dubin represents 2,500 more residents. Ms. Thomson's clients said they want reimbursement for cleanup costs, motel stays and compensation for loss of use and enjoyment of their property. The company used to blend liquid waste solvents to create fuel used to fire industrial operations such as cement kilns. After the fire, the company reduced its operation to the production of non-flammable recycled airplane de-icer. EV3 INC: Continues to Face Suit in Del. Over MTI Transaction ------------------------------------------------------------ Ev3, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported stockholder class action in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware in relation to its proposal to acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of its majority owned subsidiary, Micro Therapeutics, Inc., that it does not already own. On Oct. 11, 2005, a purported stockholder class action filed purportedly on behalf of Micro Therapeutics' minority shareholders was filed against Micro Therapeutics, Micro Therapeutics' directors and the company challenging the previously announced exchange offer. The complaint alleged the then-proposed transaction constituted a breach of defendants' fiduciary duties. It sought an injunction preventing the completion of the transaction with Micro Therapeutics or, if the transaction were to be completed, rescission of the transaction or rescissory damages, unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees and expenses. On Jan. 6, 2006, the company completed the transaction with Micro Therapeutics. Minnesota-based ev3 Inc. (NASDAQ:EVVV) -- http://www.ev3.net/-- is a global medical device company focused on catheter-based, or endovascular, technologies for the minimally invasive treatment of vascular diseases and disorders. FORD MOTOR: Appeals Court Upholds Class in Suit Over Minivans ------------------------------------------------------------- The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati upheld a decision by U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott to certify a class action filed against Ford Motor over sticking gas pedals on its 1999 and 2000 Mercury Villager minivans, The Enquirer reports. The panel ruled that owners of 1999 and 2000 Mercury Villager minivans belongs in a single, class-action trial and that class litigation is the "superior method" of settling the dispute in court. "Permitting individual owners and lessees of 1999 or 2000 Villagers to litigate their cases is a vastly inferior method of adjudication when compared to determining threshold issues of contract interpretation that apply equally to the whole class," the court said. In 2000, Pat Daffin of West Price Hill, owner of a 1999 Villager, filed suit against Ford Motor Co., alleging that thousands of Ohioans bought or leased Villagers with throttle body assemblies that can leave gas pedals stuck in acceleration. Nearly 60 other Villager owners complained about balky gas pedals in complaints filed with the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration as of mid-2004, according to the report. Nissan Motor Co. made the power plant for 1999 and 2000 Villagers and Nissan Quest minivans. Representing the plaintiffs is John C. Murdock of Murdock Goldenberg Schneider & Groh, L.P.A., 35 East Seventh Street, Suite 600, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-2446, Phone: 513-345-8291, Fax: 513-345-8294, Website: http://www.mgsglaw.com GENERAL ELECTRIC: Arguments in "Turner" Suit Settlement Heard ------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge heard on Aug. 21 arguments on the settlement of the suit over defective General Electric Co. refrigerators, NBC2 reports. Settlement hearing in the suit "William F. Turner v. General Electric Co.," was set at the federal courthouse in downtown Fort Myers, Florida (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 21, 2006). On April 29, 2005, plaintiff filed his complaint on behalf of himself and a putative class consisting of all persons in the state of Florida who purchased any of nine specific models of General Electric refrigerators. Among other things, the complaint alleged that the "GE" and "Hotpoint" side-by-side refrigerators sizes 20, 22, and 25 cubic feet, manufactured between Jan. 1, 2001 and Dec. 31, 2002 did not perform in accordance with the advertisements, marketing materials and warranties disseminated by General Electric nor with the reasonable expectations of ordinary consumers because of alleged moisture problems. The complaint asserted causes of action for breach of express and implied warranties, negligence, and unjust enrichment. List of model and serial numbers of affected refrigerators: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?ff7 Plaintiffs' class counsels are Scott Wm. Weinstein, Weinstein Bavly & Moon, P.A., Gary E. Mason and Alexander E. Barnett of The Mason Law Firm, P.C., Jonathan W. Cuneo and Charles J. LaDuca of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, L.L.P.; and William M. Audet of Alexander Hawes & Audet, L.L. A settlement, preliminarily approved Dec. 9, 2005, includes: -- Additional Warranty Protection: GE shall provide settlement class members with additional warranty protection for moisture-related problems in the refrigerators. The Additional Warranty Protection shall be for one year following the Notice Date; -- Refrigerator Exchange: For any settlement class member whose refrigerator has required three or more unsuccessful moisture-related service calls and still has a moisture-related problem, GE shall provide, in exchange for the settlement class member's refrigerator, a new GE refrigerator of like grade and quality with comparable features; and -- Reimbursement: GE shall reimburse settlement class members for the reasonable cost of moisture-related service calls (including parts and labor) charged to the settlement class members by a GE factory service technician, an authorized GE customer care servicer, or a firm or technician that holds a business license, or is otherwise demonstrably qualified to perform major appliance service and repair work. The costs to be reimbursed must have been incurred and paid by the settlement class members between the date of purchase of their Refrigerators and the notice date. Subject to court approval, General Electric has agreed to pay attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to class counsel in the total amount of $1,325,000. A copy of the settlement agreement is available at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?ff6 The suit is "William F. Turner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. General Electric Co., Case No. 2:05-CV-186-FtM-33 DNF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division. Representing the plaintiff are: (1) William M. Audet of Alexander Hawes & Audet, L.L.P., 300 Montgomery St., Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415/921-1776, Fax: 415/576-1776; (2) Alexander E. Barnett of The Mason Law Firm, P.C., P.O. Box 230758, 144 West 72nd St., #3D, New York, NY 10023, US, Phone: 202/408-4600, E-mail: abarnett@masonlawdc.com; (3) Gary E. Mason of The Mason Law Firm, P.C., 1225 19th St., N.W., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036, US, Phone: 202/429-2290, Fax: 202/429-2294, E-mail: gmason@masonlawdc.com; (4) Jordan Lucas Chaikin and Scott Wm. Weinstein of Weinstein, Bavly & Moon, P.A., 2400 First St., Suite 303, Ft. Myers, FL 33901, Phone: 239/334-8844, Fax: 239/334-1289, E-mail: jordan@weinsteinlawfirm.com and scott@weinsteinlawfirm.com; and (5) Jonathan W. Cuneo and Charles J. LaDuca of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, 507 C. St., NE, Washington, DC 20002, Phone: 202/789-3960, Fax: 202/789-1813, E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com and charlesl@cuneolaw.com. Representing the defendant is Charles Wachter of Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A., 501 E. Kennedy Blvd. Suite 1700, P.O. Box 1438, Tampa, FL 33601-1438, Phone: 813/228-7411 ext. 1136, Fax: 813/229-6679, E-mail: cwachter@fowlerwhite.com. HUB INT'L: Continues to Face Lawsuit Over Contingent Commissions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hub International, Inc. and its affiliates remain defendants in a class action filed in Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The named plaintiff is a Chicago law firm that obtained its professional liability insurance through the company's Chicago office of what is now HUB Midwest. The suit claims that the company received an undisclosed contingent commission with respect to its policy. In a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company denied this and the other allegations of the complaint and said it intended to vigorously defend this case. The company reported no material development in the case at its Aug. 8 form 10-Q regulatory filing for the period ended June 30, 2006. The suit is "Marren Hogan v. Hub International, Inc., et al., Case No. 2005-CH-01355," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois under Judge Philip L. Bronstein. Representing the plaintiff is Nisen & Elliott, 200 W. Adams #2500, Chicago IL 60606, Phone: (312) 346-7800. Representing the company is Lowis & Gellen, 200 W. Adams St., #1900 Chicago IL, 60606 Phone: (312) 364-2500. HUB INT'L: Still Faces N.J. Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Hub International, Inc. along with 29 other insurance brokers and insurance companies remain defendants in a consolidated antitrust class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants used the contingent commission structure to deprive policyholders of "independent and unbiased brokerage services, as well as free and open competition in the market for insurance." On Feb. 17, 2005, the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred these and other class actions in which the company were not named to the District of New Jersey. In August 2005 and February 2006, amended complaints were filed in the consolidated federal court proceedings pending in New Jersey, captioned, "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation." The case has now been divided into two cases, one for employee benefits and the other for commercial insurance. Certain of the company's subsidiaries were named as additional defendants. A handful of allegations specifically pertaining to the company were added, but remain vague. The judge in these actions permitted limited discovery to take place, which is continuing, according to the company's Aug. 8 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006. The suit is "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1663," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg with referral to Judge Patty Shwartz. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Applied Medical's Lawsuit Goes to Trial ---------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson, along with its wholly owned Ethicon and Ethicon Endo-Surgery subsidiaries, are defendants in several federal suits pending in California, New York and Texas relating to endo-mechanical devices contracts. Three federal antitrust actions challenging suture and endo- mechanical contracts with group purchasing organizations and hospitals in which discounts are predicated on a hospital achieving specified market share targets for both categories of products. In each case, plaintiffs seek substantial monetary damages and injunctive relief. These actions are: -- "Applied Medical v. Ethicon Inc., et al.," (C.D.CA, filed Sept. 5, 2003); -- "Conmed v. Johnson & Johnson, et al.," (S.D.N.Y., filed Nov. 6, 2003); and -- "Genico v. Ethicon, Inc., et al.," (E.D. TX, filed Oct. 15, 2004). Trial in the Applied Medical case commenced July 11, 2006. In December 2005, two purported class actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of endo-mechanical instruments. These actions -- both filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California -- are: -- "Delaware Valley Surgical Supply Co., Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson et al.;" and -- "Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center v. Johnson & Johnson, et al." New Brunswick, New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) -- http://www.jnj.com/-- through its more than 230 operating companies is engaged in the manufacture and sale of a range of products in the healthcare field. The company operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices and Diagnostics. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial Nears for Wholesale Drug Pricing Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Suits accusing Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries of reporting inflated Average Wholesale Price for drugs it sold could go to trial before the end of the year. Johnson & Johnson and its pharmaceutical subsidiaries, along with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, are defendants in a series of lawsuits in state and federal courts involving allegations that the pricing and marketing of certain pharmaceutical products amounted to fraudulent and otherwise actionable conduct because, among other things, the companies allegedly reported an inflated AWP for the drugs at issue. Most of these cases, both federal actions and state actions removed to federal court, have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a multidistrict litigation in federal district court in Boston, Massachusetts. Plaintiffs in these cases include classes of private persons or entities that paid for any portion of the purchase of the drugs at issue based on AWP, and state government entities that made Medicaid payments for the drugs at issue based on AWP. In the MDL proceeding in Boston, plaintiffs moved for class certification of all or some portion of their claims. On Aug. 16, 2005, the trial judge certified Massachusetts-only classes of private insurers providing "Medi-gap" insurance coverage and private payers for physician-administered drugs where payments were based on AWP. The judge also allowed plaintiffs to file a new complaint seeking to name proper parties to represent a national class of individuals who made co-payments for physician-administered drugs covered by Medicare. The Court of Appeals declined to allow an appeal of those issues and in January 2006, the court certified the national class. A trial of some or all of the issues in the Massachusetts or the national class actions could occur before the end of 2006. New Brunswick, New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) -- http://www.jnj.com/-- through its more than 230 operating companies is engaged in the manufacture and sale of a range of products in the healthcare field. The company operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices and Diagnostics. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Still Faces Employment Bias Lawsuit in N.J. -------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson remains a defendant in an employment discrimination litigation filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the company in 2001. In September 2004, plaintiffs moved to certify a class of all African American and Hispanic salaried employees of the company and its affiliates in the U.S., who were employed at any time from November 1997 to the present. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for the period 1997 through the present (including punitive damages) and equitable relief. The company filed its response to plaintiffs' class certification motion in May 2005. The company disputes the allegations in the lawsuit and is vigorously defending against them. The company reported no material development on the case at its Aug. 8 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended July 2, 2006. New Brunswick, New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) -- http://www.jnj.com/-- through its more than 230 operating companies is engaged in the manufacture and sale of a range of products in the healthcare field. The company operates in three segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices and Diagnostics. MEADOW GOLD: Recalls Choco Ice Cream with Undeclared Egg Content ---------------------------------------------------------------- Meadow Gold Dairies, in cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is voluntarily recalling all cartons of Meadow Gold Hook'd on Chocolate ice cream. The recall was initiated because the product contains egg, which is not listed on the label. The company said individuals with allergies to eggs run the risk of a serious or life threatening reaction if they consume this product. The recalled ice cream was packed in 56 oz. cartons. It was processed at the Meadow Gold plant in Orem, Utah and distributed to retailers in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming and Utah. Meadow Gold employees and retailers are removing the product from store shelves. Consumers can return the product to their place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions can contact the company at 877-234- 0022. MEDSTAFF INC: Continues to Face Overtime Wage Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ Medstaff, Inc., a subsidiary of Cross Country Healthcare Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class action filed on Feb. 18, 2005 in the Superior Court of California in Riverside County. The lawsuit, "Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda v. MedStaff, Inc.," relates to MedStaff corporate employees. It alleges, violations of certain sections of the California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code, and recovery of unpaid wages and penalties. MedStaff currently has less than 50 corporate employees in California. Plaintiffs, Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda purport to sue on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege that MedStaff: -- failed, under California law, to provide meal period and rest breaks and pay for those missed meal periods and rest breaks; -- failed to compensate the employees for all hours worked; -- failed to compensate the employees for working overtime; and -- failed to keep appropriate records to keep track of time worked Plaintiffs seek: -- an order enjoining MedStaff from engaging in the practices challenged in the complaint; -- for an order for full restitution of all monies MedStaff allegedly failed to pay plaintiffs and their purported class; -- for interest; -- for certain penalties provided for by the California Labor Code; and -- for attorneys' fees and costs. The lawsuit has not yet been certified by the court as a class action, according to the Cross Country's Aug. 7 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006. Boca Raton, Florida-based Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. (NASDAQ: CCRN) -- http://www.crosscountry.com/ccinc/-- is a provider of healthcare staffing services in the U.S. Its healthcare staffing business segment is comprised of travel and per diem nurse staffing, allied health staffing, as well as clinical research trials staffing. Cross Country's brands include Cross Country TravCorps and MedStaff. METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Pa. Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- An appellate court affirmed the dismissal by the New York Superior Court in New York County of the lawsuit filed against Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. and MetLife, Inc. on behalf of a proposed class comprised of the settlement class in the Metropolitan Life sales practices class action. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania approved the sales practices suit settlement in December 1999. In their amended complaint, plaintiffs challenged the treatment of the cost of the sales practices settlement in the demutualization of Metropolitan Life and asserted claims of breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment. In an order dated July 13, 2005, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the action and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On June 26, 2006, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the action. New York, New York-based MetLife, Inc. (NYSE: MET) -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and other financial services to individual and institutional customers throughout the U.S. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance and retail banking services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement and savings products and services to corporations and other institutions. METROPOLITAN LIFE: Ruling in D.C. Pension Fund Lawsuit Appealed --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a class action filed by former employees of Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. are appealing the decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to grant the company summary judgment in the case. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of former company employees, or their surviving spouses, who are receiving deferred vested annuity payments under the company's retirement plan and who were allegedly eligible to receive the ad hoc pension increases awarded in 1977, 1980, 1989, 1992, 1996 and 2001, as well as increases awarded in earlier years. The ad hoc pension increases were awarded only to retirees (i.e., individuals who were entitled to an immediate retirement benefit upon their termination of employment) and not available to individuals like these plaintiffs whose employment, or whose spouses' employment, had terminated before they became eligible for an immediate retirement benefit. In September 2005, the company's motion for summary judgment was granted by district court in Columbia. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was denied. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The suit is "Brubaker, et al. v. Metropolitan Life, et al., case no. 1:00-cv-02511-EGS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, under Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Representing the plaintiffs is Tas Coroneos, 5801 Highland Drive, Chevy Chase, MD 20815-5531, Phone: (301) 656-1124, Fax: (301) 656-1460. Representing the company are Emmett Boaz Lewis, Mark J. Rochon and Anthony F. Shelley of Miller & Chevalier, 655 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 626- 6090, Fax: (202) 628-0858, E-mail: elewis@milchev.com, mrochon@milchev.com and ashelley@milchev.com. MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge S. James Otero of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California vacated a hearing on the motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action against Molina Healthcare, Inc. Instead the judge took the motion under submission. Beginning on July 27, 2005, a series of securities class action complaints were filed on behalf of persons who acquired company's stock between Nov. 3, 2004 and July 20, 2005. The class action complaints were consolidated into a single consolidated action, Case No. CV 05-5460 GPS (SHx), and a lead plaintiff later appointed. On March 13, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed its consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint purports to allege claims against the company, J. Mario Molina, John C. Molina, and Joseph W. White for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of the company's announcement of its guidance for the 2005 fiscal year. On May 1, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and the motion has been fully briefed by the parties. On July 27, 2006, the federal court judge vacated the hearing on the motion and took the motion under submission. The suit is "William G. Hunt v. Molina Healthcare Inc., et al., Case No. CV 05-5460 GPS (SHx)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge S. James Otero with referral to Judge Stephen J. Hillman. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Christopher Kim and Lisa J. Yang of Lim Ruger & Kim, 1055 W. 7th St., Ste. 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone: 213-955-9500, E-mail: lisa.yang@lrklawyers.com and christopher.kim@lrklawyers.com; (2) Richard A. Maniskas and Marc A. Topaz of Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706; and (3) Tricia L. McCormick of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, E-mail: triciam@lerachlaw.com. MORTGAGEIT HOLDINGS: Faces Stockholder Suit in N.Y. State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- MortgageIT Holdings, Inc. is a defendant in a purported stockholder class action filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. On July 13, 2006, a purported stockholder of the company filed a complaint seeking class-action status against the company and several of its directors. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize stockholder value with regard to the proposed acquisition of the company by DB Structured Products. The complaint seeks a court order enjoining the company and its directors from proceeding with or consummating the merger, compensation for the plaintiff and members of the class for all losses and damages suffered and the payment of attorneys', accountants' and experts' fees. New York-based MortgageIT Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: MHL) -- http://www.mortgageitholdings.com/-- is a residential mortgage lender operating in the U.S. NEW YORK: Attorney Plans Suit Over Parking Meters in Bellerose -------------------------------------------------------------- Bellerose attorney Gary Rosen is planning to file a class action against the city to complain over village parking meters that run fast, according to a report by Andrew Strickler of Newsday.com. A recent comprehensive test on the meters showed that almost one-third of the 98 meters in the village were running faster than they should. The 11 faulty 12-hour meters near a Long Island Rail Road station ran between eight and 10 minutes fast. None of the meters ran slow, according to a report conducted by Parking Products Inc. of Pennsylvania. The report said all faulty meters were fixed last month. According to the Newsday, Mr. Rosen said the result proves the village reaped profits from unfair tickets. But he would consider dropping the planned suit if the village could offer to fix the problem permanently. Mayor Donna Sherrer reportedly said the village will install more reliable digital meters as part of a planned renovation of the Bellerose business district. OSCEOLA FARMS: Fla. Court Dismisses Sugarcane Cutters' Wage Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District for the Southern District of Florida dismissed a protracted lawsuit filed by 1,600 former migrant sugarcane cutters against Osceola Farms Co., citing a lack of jurisdiction, The Associated Press reports. In his 12-page decision, Judge James Cohn said that the workers' case against the nation's largest sugar producers over more than $5 million in back wages was "a mere breach of contract claim, inappropriate for resolution in federal court." The decision issued Aug. 21 concludes 17 years of legal wrangling. The group originally filed the lawsuit in state court and sought class-action status, which it later lost. The lawsuit, which stems from pay disputes going back to 1987, seeks to recover more than $5 million in back wages. Greg Schell, the workers' attorney, has said the amount owed to the workers could be more than $10 million when interest was added. Mr. Schell, an attorney with Florida Legal Services Inc.'s Migrant Farmworker Justice Project in Lake Worth, said that his clients were considering their options, but they will likely take the case back to state court. He notes that through the discovery process in the federal case, he had obtained "clear, written evidence" that the company sought to cheat the workers. The company -- represented by attorney Joseph Klock Jr. in the federal case -- is a subsidiary of Flo-Sun Inc., one of the nation's largest sugar producers. Plaintiffs were mostly laborers from the Caribbean who came to the U.S. as temporary agriculture workers. They claim that between 1987 and 1992, the company underpaid what was promised in their contracts and then falsified the number of hours they worked in documents filed with the U.S. Department of Labor. Those documents were required as part of the visa program allowing foreign laborers to work in the U.S. if domestic workers can't be found to do a particular job. For more details, contact Florida Legal Services, Inc., 2425 Torreya Drive, Tallahassee, FL 32303, Phone: (850) 385-7900, Fax: (850) 385-9998, Web site: http://www.floridalegal.org/. POZEN INC: Discovery Starts in N.C. Securities Fraud Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities class action filed against Pozen, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Holders of the company's securities filed five purported class actions in 2004, alleging violations of securities laws. These actions were filed as a single consolidated class action complaint on Dec. 20, 2004. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other claims, violations of federal securities laws, including Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the company and a current officer, arising out of allegedly false and misleading statements made by the company concerning its product candidates, MT 100 and MT 300, during the class period. On Jan. 27, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The motion to dismiss was denied on Aug. 30, 2005. The case is now in discovery phase. The suit is "In Re: POZEN, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case 04- CV-505," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina under Judge Frank W. Bullock, Jr. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) James E. McGovern, Steven J. Toll, Matthew K. Handley, Daniel S. Sommers of Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Ave., N.W., West Tower, Ste. 500, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-408-4600, Fax: 202-408-4699, E-mail: mhandley@cmht.com and dsommers@cmht.com; (2) Harry H. Albritton, JR. and Marvin Key Blount, JR., The Blount Law Firm, P.L.L.C., POD 58, GREENVILLE, NC 27835-0058, Phone: 252-752-6000, Fax: 252-752-2174, E- mail: harry@theblountlawfirm.com and deborah@theblountlawfirm.com; and (3) Richard A. Maniskas and Marc A. Topaz of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King Of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-822-0247. Representing the defendants is Pressly McAuley Millen of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, P.O. Box 831, Raleigh, NC 27601, USA, Phone: 919-755-2100 and 919-755-2135, Fax: 919-755-6067, E-mail: pmillen@wcsr.com. REWARDS NETWORK: Allowed to Ask Review of Ruling in "Bistro" ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted Rewards Networks, Inc.'s motion to certify an issue for interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case, "Bistro Executive Inc., et al. v. Rewards Network Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-04640-CBM-Mc.," according to EventX/Knobias.com. The court ruling entitles the company to petition the Ninth Circuit to grant appellate review of the district court's application of judicial estoppel in ruling on plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Case Background On May 25, 2004, Bistro Executive, Westward Beach Restaurant Holdings, LLC and MiniBar Lounge filed a complaint in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against the company and its subsidiaries. Plaintiffs were all participants in the company's dining credits Purchase Plan (Dining Plan), and their respective owners. The complaint was brought as a putative class action and alleges that amounts paid by the company under the Dining Plan constituted loans in violation of California usury laws and the California Unfair Competition Law. The suit seeks, among other relief, damages and equitable and injunctive relief, including disgorgement of all purported "interest" and profits earned by the company from the Dining Plan in California, which plaintiffs allege to be a significant portion of an amount in excess of $300 million, and treble damages for all purported "interest" paid within one year prior to the filing of the complaint. On June 25, 2004, the action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On Oct. 11, 2005, plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted certifying two classes as: (1) all California restaurants which, from May 25, 2000 to May 25, 2004, participated in the Dining Plan and which took a cash advance from the company pursuant to its California Dining Plan agreements, and (2) all persons who, from May 25, 2000 to May 25, 2004, guaranteed payment of cash advances underlying the company's California Dining Plan agreements. The suit is "Bistro Executive Inc., et al. v. Rewards Network Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-04640-CBM-Mc," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Consuelo B. Marshall with referral to Judge James W. McMahon. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) John S. Purcell, Kenneth R. Chiate, Daniel L. Brockett, James E. Doroshow, Chandra L. Gooding of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543, Phone: 213-624-7707 and 213-443-3000, Fax: 213-624-0643 and 213-443-3100, E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com; and (2) Anat Levy of Anat Levy and Associates, 8840 Wilshire Boulevard, Third Floor, Beverly Hills, CA 90211, Phone: 310-358-3138, E-mail: alevy96@aol.com. Representing the defendants are, Scott M. Pearson, Daniel A. Rozansky and Julia B. Strickland of Stroock Stroock & Lavan, 2029 Century Park E, 18th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086, Phone: 310-556-5800, Fax: 310-556-5959, E-mail: lacalendar@stroock.com. SANDS REGENT: Agrees to Settle Nev. Lawsuit Over Herbst Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Sands Regent agreed in principle to settle a putative shareholder class suit challenging the company's acquisition by Herbst Gaming Inc., Knobias reports. As part of the proposed lawsuit settlement, Sands Regent agreed to pay $345,000 to the plaintiffs' counsel for their fees and expenses. In May, Sands Regent was named defendant in a purported stockholder class action pending in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in and for the County of Washoe over the May 16, 2006 merger agreement (Class Action Reporter, July 4, 2006). The suit was filed on behalf of the holders of the company's common stock. It names the company and its board of directors as defendants, and alleges that the board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by adopting the merger agreement and approving the merger. The complaint sought for an injunction preventing the completion of the merger, invalidating the merger agreement, and directing the board of directors to obtain a higher per share price for the company's common stock. It further sought for the immediate disclosure of the company's quarterly results for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, imposition of a constructive trust, and other unspecified costs and damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees and other expert fees. SPIN MASTER: Recalls Toy Planes with Batteries That Can Overheat ---------------------------------------------------------------- Spin Master Toys, of Toronto, Canada, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 7,500 units of Air Hogs RC Skywinder radio-controlled airplanes. The company said the rechargeable battery pack inside the toy airplane can overheat posing a burn hazard. It has received 15 reports of the toy airplane's rechargeable battery pack overheating including two reports of minor skin burns. The recalled radio-controlled toy airplane is lightweight, made of silver or black Styrofoam, and measures 19 inches from wingtip to wingtip. "Air Hogs Skywinder" is printed on the plane's wings. "2003 Spin Master Ltd." is printed on the right propeller mount. The airplane comes with a controller unit and a charger. Rechargeable batteries are preinstalled in the plane's fuselage. A date code beginning with 06XXXXHM is located under the plane's propeller, on the outside of the controller unit and inside the controller's battery compartment, and on the charger unit's stand. The recalled RC toy planes were manufactured in China and are being sold exclusively at Toys R Us from April 2006 through June 2006 for about $40. TELLIUM INC: Sept. 7 Hearing Set for N.J. Stock Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey will hold a fairness haring on Sept. 7, 2006 for the proposed $5.5 million settlement in the matter, "In re Tellium, Inc. Securities Litigation." The hearing will be held before the Honorable Freda L. Wolfson in the Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 402 East State St., Trenton, New Jersey 08608. 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 the company and its then-current directors and executive officers, and its underwriters, violated the Securities Act of 1933 by making false and misleading statements or omissions in its registration statement prospectus relating to the securities offered in its initial public offering. The amended complaint was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of the company between May 17, 2001 and July 1, 2002. 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. For more details, contact: (1) In re Tellium, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o Analytics Incorporated, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 2004, Chanhassen, MN 55317-2004, Phone: 1-800-673-7845, Web site: http://telliumsecuritieslitigationsettlement.com; (2) Beth A. Kaswan of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York 10119, (New York Co.), Phone: 212-594-5300; and (3) Nadeem Faruqi of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East, 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 983-9330 and (877) 247-4292, Fax: (212) 983-9331, Web site: http://www.faruqilaw.com. TOBACCO LITIGATION: Anti-Smoking Groups Urge Filipinos to Sue ------------------------------------------------------------- American law professor, Dr. Richard Daynard, is calling on Filipinos to file a class suit against cigarette manufacturers for not printing the statutory warning against smoking on their packets as required by a 2003 law, the Gulf News reports. Dr. Daynard, who went to Manila in the Philippines to help anti- smoking groups step up their anti-cigarette campaigns, said cigarette manufacturers in the country failed to meet the deadline to warn everyone on the dangers of smoking on packages of their products. Meanwhile, the government had extended the deadline of compliance from July 1, 2006, until year-end, requiring all cigarette manufacturers to provide statutory warnings on their packets such as "Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health", "Cigarettes are Addictive", "Tobacco Smoke Can Harm Your Children". TORCHMARK CORP: Oct. Trial Set for Vesta Insurance Suit in Ala. --------------------------------------------------------------- An Oct. 2, 2006 trial was slated for the class action, "In re Vesta Insurance Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 98-AR-1407-S," which names Torchmark Corp. as one of the defendants. On March 15, 1999, the company was named as a defendant in consolidated derivative securities class action litigation, "In re Vesta Insurance Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 98-AR-1407-S," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The amended consolidated complaint in this litigation alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the defendants Vesta, certain present and former Vesta officers and directors, KPMG, LLP (Vesta's former independent public accountants) and Torchmark and of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by certain former Vesta officers and directors and Torchmark acting as "controlling persons" of Vesta in connection with certain accounting irregularities in Vesta's reported financial results and filed financial statements. Unspecified damages and equitable relief are sought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Vesta equity securities between June 2, 1995 and June 29, 1998. A class was certified in this litigation on Oct. 25, 1999. In September 2001, Torchmark filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied by the District Court on Jan. 10, 2002. On April 9, 2003, the District Court issued an order denying the class plaintiffs' motion to strike certain of Torchmark's affirmative defenses, holding that Torchmark cannot be held jointly and severally liable with Vesta under the securities law without an affirmative jury determination that Torchmark knowingly committed a violation of the securities laws. Vesta, its officers and directors, its insurance carriers and KPMG settled their portions of the litigation with class plaintiffs in 2001; Torchmark did not. Subsequently, in May 2003, Torchmark instituted separate litigation against KPMG, which was resolved in March 2006. In April 2006, class plaintiffs in Vesta Insurance Group Securities Litigation filed a motion in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama renewing their claims against Torchmark based upon an allegation of control person liability. This matter has been set for trial in the District Court on Oct. 2, 2006. TOYOBO: Mass. Police Gets Payout in $29M Zylon Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The Orleans Police Department in Cape Cod, Massachusetts will receive $3,212 under a $29 million settlement of a class action over bulletproof vests made using the textile Zylon, The Cape Codder reports. The amount is compensation for four vests purchased by the police department. Massachusetts' attorney general filed a lawsuit against Second Chance Body Armor Inc., and Toyobo Co. Ltd., the manufacturer of Zylon in November 2003. He sought replacement vests or full restitution for those police departments, organizations and individuals using the defective vests. Lawsuits were brought against Second Chance and Toyobo after a California police officer was shot and killed in 2003 while wearing a vest made with Zylon. Second Chance recalled more than 100,000 vests made with the material after finding that Zylon body armor are prone to failure. Also named as defendant in the suit is Toyobo America, Inc. Overall, 1,366 Massachusetts departments received at total of $970,437.43 in this round of funding, the report said. Another round of payouts is scheduled for later in the summer, state Attorney General Thomas Reilly's office told the Cape Codder. The local department in Yarmouth has already received $29,000 for 40 vests they purchased. Zylon is sold under the trade names ULTIMA, ULTIMAX and TRIFLEX. The lawsuit alleged that these vests fail to meet the performance characteristics for which they were warranted, that the vests are unfit for their intended purpose, and that the allegedly defective condition of the vests was withheld from the marketplace. On Sept. 23, the District Court for Mayes County, in Oklahoma approved a settlement of the class action. The agreement provided for a settlement fund of $29 million, a replacement vest option in which class members can purchase a replacement vest from Armor Holdings Products at deeply discounted prices and an option to receive a voucher from Armor Holdings in the amount of a class member's pro rata share of the settlement fund plus 10%. In order to receive payments, claimants were required to register by Sept. 9, 2005. That deadline was extended and late registrations were accepted until July 1. Class members who registered their contact information by Nov. 21, 2005 were mailed an Election of Benefits Form on Nov. 28, 2005, according to a statement from Zylon Vest Class Action Web site. Proceeds from the Settlement were mailed the week of April 17, 2006 to all registrants who timely filed an Election of Benefit Form, the statement said. The first round of the lawsuit parties that had purchased vests were reimbursed $730, the report said. The amount of reimbursement for second-round participants has yet to be determined, according to Cindy St. Amant of the New Orleans- based law firm Kanner and Whiteley, which led the lawsuit with various co-counsels. The suit is "Lemmings v. Second Chance Body Armor, Inc." Cir. Ct. Mayes City. OK #CJ-2004-62. For more information, visit Zylon Vest Class Action Web site: http://www.zylonvestclassaction.com. VISTEON CORP: Mich. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has yet to rule on the motion to dismiss the securities class action filed against Visteon Corp. and of its current and former officers Peter Pestillo, Michael Johnston, Glenda J. Minor, Daniel R. Coulson, and James Palmer. The shareholder suit was first filed in February 2005. In July 2005, the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi was appointed as lead plaintiff in the matter. In September 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which alleges, among other things, that the company and its independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, made misleading statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of purchasers of the company's securities during the period between June 28, 2000 and Jan. 31, 2005. Class action status has not yet been certified in this litigation (Class Action Reporter, March 23, 2006). In December 2005, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, and oral arguments on that motion were held in May 2006. No ruling has been made on such motion, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2006 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006. The suit is "Ley v. Visteon Corp., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv- 70737-RHC-VMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under Robert H. Cleland with referral to Judge Virginia M. Morgan. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) E. Powell Miller and Marc L. Newman of Miller Shea (Rochester) 950 W. University Drive Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Phone: 248-841-2200 E-mail: emiller335@aol.com; and (2) Marc A. Topaz, Schiffrin & Barroway (Radnor) 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087. Representing the defendants are: (i) Michael A. Duffy of Kirkland & Ellis (Chicago), 200 E. Randolph Drive, Suite 6000, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: 312-861-2000, Fax: 312-861-2200, E-mail: maduffy@kirkland.com; (ii) Jenice C. Mitchell of Foley & Lardner (Detroit), 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700, Detroit, MI 48226-3489, Phone: 313-234-7100, E-mail: jmitchell@foley.com; and (iii) Thomas P. Bruetsch, Bodman (Troy), 201 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 500, Troy, MI 48084, Phone: 248-743-6000, E-mail: tbruetsch@bodmanllp.com. VISTEON CORP: Settlement Talks Continuing in Mich. ERISA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Negotiations are ongoing in a bid to settle a consolidated class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against Visteon Corp. over allegations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act violations. In March and April 2005, the company and a number of current and former employees, officers and directors were named as defendants in three class actions brought under ERISA in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. In September 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated complaint, which generally alleges that: the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA during the class period by among other things: -- continuing to offer the Company stock as an investment alternative under the Visteon Investment Plan; -- failing to disclose complete and accurate information regarding the prudence of investing in the Visteon stock; -- failing to monitor the actions of certain of the defendants; and -- failing to avoid conflicts of interest or promptly resolve them. The consolidated complaint was brought on behalf of a named plaintiff and a putative class consisting of all participants or beneficiaries of the Plans whose accounts included Visteon stock at any time from July 20, 2001 through May 25, 2005. Class- action status has not yet been certified in this litigation. In November 2005, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on various grounds. Settlement negotiations are currently ongoing in this matter, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2006 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006. The suit is "Skiles v. Visteon Corp., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv- 71205-AC-DAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Avern Cohn with referral to Judge Donald A. Scheer. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Gary A. Gotto of Keller Rohrback (Phoenix), 3101 N. Central Avenue, Suite 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600, Phone: 602-248-2822, E-mail: ggotto@kellerrohrback.com; and (2) Elwood S. Simon of Elwood S. Simon Assoc., 355 S. Woodward Avenue, Suite 250, Birmingham, MI 48009, Phone: 248-646-9730, Fax: 248-258-2335, E-mail: esimon@esimon-law.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Gabor Balassa and Michael A. Duffy of Kirkland & Ellis, Phone: 312-861-2186 and 312-861-2000, Fax: 312-861-2200 and 312-861-2200, E-mail: maduffy@kirkland.com; (ii) Jenice C. Mitchell of Foley & Lardner (Detroit), 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700, Detroit, MI 48226-3489, Phone: 313-234-7100, E-mail: jmitchell@foley.com; and (iii) Paul J. Ondrasik, Jr. of Steptoe & Johnson (Washington), 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-1795, Phone: 202-429-3000, Fax: 202-429-3902, E-mail: pondrasik@steptoe.com. YORK BARBELL: Recalls Weightlifting Bars with Defective Sleeve -------------------------------------------------------------- York Barbell Co. Inc., of York, Pennsylvania, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 3,300 units of Olympic weightlifting bars. The company said due to a defect in the sleeve mechanism, the bar can break under the pressure of significant weight, which could injure consumers and by-standers. York Barbell has received two reports of bars breaking under the pressure of significant weight. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves all 7' Int'l Hard Chrome 1000 lb. and 1500 lb. test Olympic bars with model number 32012 and 32013, 7' Int'l Black Oxide 1000 lb. and 1500 lb. test Olympic bars with model number 32020 and 32021, 7' International Men's Olympic Needle-bearing bars with model number 32010 and 6 1/2 International Women's Olympic Needle-bearing bars with model number 32011. The bars have split sleeves and YORK is printed on the sleeve assemblies of each bar. These weightlifting bars were manufactured in China and are being sold at fitness wholesalers and retailers nationwide from November 2005 through July 2006 for between $200 and $500. Picture of recalled weightlifting bars: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06243.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled bars immediately and return them to York Barbell for a full refund. For more information, contact York Barbell Co. at (800) 358-9675 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the company's Web site: http://www.yorkbarbell.com. New Securities Fraud Cases PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Abraham Fruchter Announces Stock Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Fruchter & Twersky announces that a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Parlux Fragrances Inc. The complaint alleges that the company's insiders took advantage of materially misleading statements to sell millions of dollars of Parlux stock to unsuspecting members of the investing public. The claims stated in the complaint arise under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and is brought on behalf of a class consisting of persons who purchased Parlux stock during the period from Feb. 8, 2006 through Aug. 10, 2006. For more details, contact Jeffrey S. Abraham Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, N.Y. 10119, Phone: (212) 279-5050, E-mail: Jabraham@aftlaw.com. PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set October ------------------------------------------------------------- Saxena White P.A. reminds investors of Parlux Fragrances, Inc. that Oct. 16, 2006 is the deadline to ask the court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. The initial complaint in this action was filed by Saxena White P.A. and has now been assigned to the Judge Paul Huck, Case No. 06-61250, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who acquired Parlux securities from Feb. 8, 2006 through and including Aug. 10, 2006. Based in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, Parlux is a manufacturer and distributor of fragrances and beauty products. The lawsuit claims that Parlux, its Chief Executive Officer Ilia Lekach, and its Chief Financial Officer Frank Buttacavoli, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Further, the lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants issued highly positive statements in an effort to create the impression that Parlux's revenues were growing and the Company was well positioned to generate strong profits. In response, Parlux stock traded at over $37 per share (prior to a stock split) during the Class Period. Starting in June 2006, the truth about the Company's declining sales and accounting issues were revealed in a series of disclosures indicating that: -- contrary to prior public statements, Parlux's sales were declining materially, including sales to related parties; and -- the company suffered from internal control issues with respect to its financial reporting, causing Parlux to delay the filing of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2006, and delaying its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2006. Prior to revealing this information, defendants and Company insiders sold over $13 million worth of their Parlux holdings. On Aug. 10, 2006, the company issued yet another shocking announcement, that Parlux's profit for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 would be far less than the investing public had been led to believe, due mainly to lower sales to U.S. department stores and related parties. On this news, Parlux stock plunged from $8.16 a share to $4.78, a drop of over 40% on unusually high volumes of over 5 million shares traded -- vastly higher than the company's average trading volume of around 1.1 million shares traded. For more details, contact Maya Saxena and Joseph White of Saxena White P.A., 2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257, Boca Raton, FL 33431, Phone: (561) 394-3399 or (800) 361-5096, Fax: (888) 782-3081, E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com or jwhite@saxenawhite.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 * * *