/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/061030.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, October 30, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 215
Headlines
ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Court Denies Summary Judgment Request
ANALOG DEVICES: Faces Lawsuit in Mass. Over Stock Option Grants
ASIA PULP: Appeals Court Upholds $46M Securities Suit Settlement
BAERLOCHER USA: Nov. 17 Hearing Set for $5.5M Antitrust Deal
BALLARD'S FARM: Tests Confirm Recalled Salad May be Contaminated
CABLETRON SYSTEMS: $10.5M Stock Suit Settlement Gets Final Okay
CATALINA MARKETING: Reaches MoU in Fla. Consolidated Stock Suit
CCC INFORMATION: Settles Suit Over Vehicle Wreckage Evaluation
CITIBANK CORP: Ill. Court Approves Freight Fee Suit Settlement
DELL INC: Wash. Court Approves $17M Settlement of Consumer Suits
DRUG COMPANIES: Third Party Payer Files Fraud Suit Over Plavix
E.I. DUPONT: Class Attorneys Insist on Conducting Health Study
HEALTHCARE COMPANIES: Appeals Court Allows Suit by Fla. Doctor
KERR-MCGEE CORP: Nov. 21 Hearing Set for Okla. Stock Suit Deal
MTD PRODUCTS: Recalls Snow Throwers After 16 Injury Reports
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Securities Litigation
NEW JERSEY: Faces Federal Suit Over Education for Special Kids
NX NETWORKS: Mass. Court Okays Disbursement of $6.3M Settlement
PLAINS MEAT: Recalls Ground Beef Over E. coli Contamination
RLB FOOD: Recalls Spinach Products Due to E. coli Contamination
SCANDINAVIAN CHILD: Recalls Changing Tables Posing Fall Hazard
SEITEL INC: E&Y Continues to Face Tex. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of "Daniels"
UNITED AIRLINES: D.C Woman Files Fraud Suit Over Ticket Policy
UNITED AIRLINES: Pilots Sue Union Over $545.5M Pension Benefits
UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Directors Face Lawsuit Over Buyout Offer
WD-40 CO: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit
WILLIAMS COS: Feb. 9 Hearing Set for $311M Stock Suit Settlement
WINN-DIXIE STORES: Suits Still Stayed Pending Bankruptcy Exit
New Securities Fraud Cases
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Ann D. White Files Securities Suit in Calif.
*********
ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Court Denies Summary Judgment Request
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
denied shareholders' motion for summary judgment in a securities
fraud class action filed against Adelphia Communications Corp.
The court finds that shareholders may use Adelphia directors'
criminal convictions to plead civil fraud, but must show that
the convictions met all elements of securities fraud violations.
Beginning in April 2002, more than 30 individual and class
actions were filed by purchasers of Adelphia debt and equity
securities against Adelphia, its officers and directors, its
outside counsel, Adelphia's auditors Deloitte & Touche, and/or
various of Adelphia's underwriters and lenders, the banks.
Most of those actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and were assigned to Judge
Herbert Hutton. Among the cases filed in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania were approximately 30 class actions asserting
claims under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and/or the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
In addition to the class actions, public pension funds and/or
fund managers seeking to recoup losses on behalf of their funds
commenced several individual actions.
Criminal Convictions
Adelphia directors, including chief executive John Rigas, and
his son Timothy Rigas, who was executive vice president, were
criminally convicted of fraud by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The plaintiffs sought to use the criminal convictions as
evidence that the Rigases violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act, Section 11 of the Act and various common law fraud
allegations. The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment
on these claims. To state a Section 10(b) claim, a shareholder
must allege that the defendant made a materially false
misrepresentation with scienter in connection with the sale or
purchase of securities upon which the shareholder relied,
causing the shareholder's economic loss. To state a Section 11
claim, a shareholder needs to show that there was a material
misstatement or omission in a registration statement.
Consolidation of Cases
On April 30, 2002, Judge Hutton entered an order consolidating
the then pending actions filed in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania as, "In re Adelphia Communications Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 02 CV 1781," and providing for the
consolidation of all later-filed actions.
On or about June 25, 2002, Adelphia and its subsidiaries filed
voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern
District of New York. The Chapter 11 cases were assigned to
Hon. Robert E. Gerber and are being jointly administered in the
case, "In re Adelphia Communications Corp., et al., Case No. 02-
41729 (REG)."
Thereafter, by Order dated July 23, 2003, the class actions as
well as certain individual actions against the same defendants
were transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation to the Southern District of New York and are
currently pending before Judge McKenna as, "In re Adelphia
Communications Corp. Securities & Derivative Litigation, 03 MD
1529 (LMM)."
Lead plaintiffs in the consolidated class actions are:
* Eminence Capital, LLC,
* Argent Classic Convertible Arbitrage Fund L.P.,
* Argent Classic Convertible Arbitrage Fund (Bermuda)
L.P.,
* Argent Lowlev Convertible Arbitrage Fund Ltd.,
* UBS O'Conner LLC f/b/o UBS Global Equity Arbitrage
Master Ltd., and
* UBS O'Conner LLC f/b/o UBS Global Convertible Portfolio
Co-lead counsel are:
* Abbey Gardy, LLP, (n/k/a Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams &
Paradis, LLP), and
* Kirby McInerney & Squire
On Dec. 22, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a complaint, which
alleges claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the U.S. Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77k, 77l(a)(2) and
77o, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, 15 U.S.C. Section
77jjj, 77mmm, 77ooo and 77www et seq. and state law against
various defendants including Deloitte & Touche and the Banks.
After filing the complaint, on March 8, 2004, the Settling
Defendants, along with other defendants, moved to dismiss the
complaint. The court has not yet ruled on several of the issues
raised by the defendants' motions, but has partially granted and
partially denied some of the motions.
Settlement
On or about June 30, 2005, at the suggestion of Judge Lawrence
McKenna, various parties to the class action agreed to
participate in mediation to resolve the pending litigation. The
various parties selected Judge Daniel Weinstein, a retired
judge, to serve as the mediator.
Pursuant to the court's directives, lead plaintiffs' counsel and
counsel for Deloitte & Touche and the Banks entered into
extensive negotiations under the supervision of Judge Weinstein.
As a result of such discussions and their involvement in the
extensive negotiation process, lead plaintiffs agreed to the
settlements with Deloitte & Touche and banks.
The agreement consists of two separate settlements:
-- the $210,000,000 Deloitte & Touche Settlement; and
-- the $250,000,000 Banks Settlement.
A fairness hearing is set for Nov. 10, 2006, at 2:15 p.m. in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Courtroom 15D, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007-1312.
The suit is "In Re Adelphia Communications Corp. Securities and
Derivative Litigation, Case No. 03 MD 1529 (LMM) or MDL-1529."
For more details, contact:
(1) Adelphia Claims c/o Valley Forge Administrative
Services, One Aldwyn Center, P.O. Box 220, Villanova,
PA 19085-0220, Phone: 877-965-3300, E-mail:
info@adelphiasettlement.com, Web site:
http://www.adelphiasettlement.com;
(2) Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, Phone: 1-888-529-4787;
and
(3) Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, Phone: 1-800-
889-3701.
ANALOG DEVICES: Faces Lawsuit in Mass. Over Stock Option Grants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Analog Devices Inc. and several of its executives were named
defendants in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, which claims that Analog Devices
enriched its executives by improperly backdating its stock
options.
The suit was filed by Soufiane Bendaoud, a former Analog Devices
employee. He claims that the company's stock has suffered ever
since an investigation into its stock option awards became
public. Analog's stock traded at about $90 a share in 2000
before the dot-com crash.
Mr. Bendaoud also claims that participants in the company's
retirement plan suffered as Analog Devices' stock fell after the
company disclosed an investigation. He is seeking class-action
status for the case on behalf of other retirement plan members.
In his suit, Mr. Bendaoud claims that the practice at Analog has
harmed the company's share price. "As a result of these
improper practices, Analog's stock has plummeted," the suit
says.
The company allegedly didn't disclose the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission's investigation into stock options awards
until late November 2004, when the stock was trading at about
$38 a share.
The lawsuit also cites a settlement with the SEC in which the
company agreed to pay $3 million to resolve concerns about
options grants that occurred as long ago as the late 1990s.
Analog Chief Executive Jerald Fishman agreed to pay $1 million.
The settlement became public on Nov. 15, 2005 when shares traded
at about $37 a share.
The suit is "Bendaoud v. Hodgson et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-11873-
NG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge Nancy Gertner.
Representing plaintiffs are Theodore M. Hess-Mahan and Thomas G.
Shapiro both of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, 53 State Street,
Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax: 617-439-0134, E-
mail: ted@shulaw.com or tshapiro@shulaw.com.
ASIA PULP: Appeals Court Upholds $46M Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a U.S.
District Court decision finally approving a $46 million
settlement in the securities fraud suit against Asia Pulp &
Paper Co., Ltd.
A shareholder sued Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd. on Oct. 2, 2001,
accusing the company of misleading investors about its business
and financial situation.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and seeks damages for violations
of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought
Asia Pulp & Paper's American Depository Receipts between Sept.
8, 1998 and April 4, 2001.
The lawsuit accuses the Singapore-based company of failing to
disclose the existence of two currency-swap contracts it signed
in 1997 -- or a $220 million obligation it incurred in
connection to those contracts. The company said the contracts
involved exchanges of Indonesian rupiahs for U.S. dollars and
Japanese yens for U.S. dollars.
The obligation formed part of a November 2000 settlement in
which Asia Pulp & Paper promised to pay $220 million to
terminate the swap contracts, which the company had been unable
to fulfill. Asia Pulp & Paper later defaulted on the settlement
agreement. The investing public didn't learn about the 1997
currency-swap contracts, the related obligation, or the
company's default until an April 4, 2001 announcement.
Immediately following the announcement, the company's ADR price
dropped to $0.13 per ADR, down from a class period high of over
$11 per ADR. On July 5, 2001, the New York Stock Exchange
delisted Asia Pulp & Paper.
In late October of 2001, motions for the appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel and for the consolidation of all
related actions were filed with the court. On March 12, 2002
the court issued an order consolidating all related cases into
one class action, entitled, "In re Asia Pulp & Paper Securities
Litigation, C.A. No. 01-CV-7351," and appointed lead plaintiffs
to represent the class and lead counsel to oversee the
litigation.
On April 10, 2002, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
supplemental class action complaint, which extended the class
period to include all persons who purchased Asia Pulp & Paper's
American Depository Receipts between Aug. 28, 1998 and April 4,
2001.
A consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on June
5, 2002. On Nov. 26, 2003 the court granted Anderson Worldwide
Societe Cooperative's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On Jan. 8, 2004, the defendants filed separate answers to the
amended complaint.
Settlement Terms
On Oct. 11, 2005, the parties entered into a stipulation and
agreement of settlement to settle the claims against the
defendants. Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, a
settlement fund in the amount of $46,000,000, plus interest that
accrues on the fund, will be created for the benefit of the
class. Proofs of claim were due March 6, 2006.
A settlement fairness hearing was held on Feb. 27, 2006, and
Judge John E. Sprizzo signed an order and final judgment
approving the settlement that same day. An appeal of the order
and final judgment was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit under case number 06-1082. Oral arguments
were heard on Aug. 31, 2006, and on Sept. 13, 2006, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the final judgment of the district court.
The suit is "In re Asia Pulp & Paper Securities Litigation, C.A.
No. 01-CV-7351," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Kaplan.
BAERLOCHER USA: Nov. 17 Hearing Set for $5.5M Antitrust Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
will hold a fairness hearing on Nov. 17, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for
the proposed $5,500,000 settlement by Baerlocher USA, LLC,
(BUSA) in the matter: "In Re Plastic Additives Antitrust
Litigation, Master Docket No. 03-CV2038 and MDL Docket No.
1684."
Objections to the settlement were due Oct. 28, 2006.
The case is an antitrust class action brought on behalf of
purchasers of plastics additives (including, but not limited to,
impact modifiers, heat stabilizers, and processing aids) between
Jan. 1, 1990 and Jan. 31, 2003.
Plastics additives are added to plastic resins in order to
enhance the quality of those resins. Among the principal
plastics additives are heat stabilizers, impact modifiers, and
processing aids.
Heat stabilizers are used to protect resins from thermal
degradation and to enhance the flexibility and stability of the
end product.
Impact modifiers are used to improve the resistance of the
finished plastics products to stress and improve the strength of
plastics.
Impact modifiers also reduce the weathering, chemical
resistance, tensile strength, and stress rupture of plastic
compounds.
Processing aids are chemicals that enable plastics to be
processed at lower temperatures thereby eliminating heat
degradation and ensuring quality, as well as providing greater
control over the flow of melted plastic.
Plaintiff alleges a nationwide and worldwide conspiracy among 16
companies to fix prices of plastics additives in order to raise,
maintain, or stabilize prices for plastics additives above the
level where they otherwise would have been in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
The named defendants are:
-- BUSA,
-- Rohm & Haas Co.,
-- Akzo Nobel, Inc.,
-- Akcros Chemicals America,
-- Kreha Corp. of America,
-- Kaneka Texas Corp.,
-- Crompton Corp.,
-- Union Carbide Corp.,
-- The Dow Chemical Co.,
-- Arkerra, Inc., f/k/a AtoFina Chemicals, Inc., f/k/a Elf
Atochem North America, Inc.,
-- Ferro Corp., and
-- Mitsubishi Rayon America, Inc.
Both Crompton Corp. and Kreha Corp. have settled. Plaintiff
alleges that the conspiracy began in or around Jan. 1, 1990 and
ended around Jan. 31, 2003 when it was announced that these
companies were being investigated by U.S., European, and
Japanese law enforcement and antitrust investigators for
participating in an international cartel to fix the prices of
plastics additives.
Plaintiffs seek to recover, among other things, treble damages
on behalf of itself and others who purchased plastics additives
from the defendants and others during the class period.
For more details, contact:
(1) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, 805 Third Avenue, NY, NY
10022, Phone: 1-800-290-1952 or 212-687-1980, Web site:
http://www.kaplanfox.com/;
(2) Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C., One South Broad Street, Suite
2100, Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: 215-238-1700, Fax:
215-238-1968, E-Mail: info@kohnswift.com, Web site:
http://www.kohnswift.com/;
(3) Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP, Phone: 800-778-1822,
E-mail: info@gbcslaw.com, Web site: http://gbcslaw.com;
and
(4) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 150 East
52nd Street, Thirtieth Floor, New York, NY 10022,
Phone: (212) 838-7797, Fax: (212) 838-7745, Web site:
http://www.cmht.com.
BALLARD'S FARM: Tests Confirm Recalled Salad May be Contaminated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ballard's Farm Sausage, Inc. of Wayne, West Virginia, extended
its voluntary recall involving all lots of Ballard's Farm 24 oz.
Amish Macaroni salad, Ballard's Farm 24 oz. Amish Sweet Slaw,
Ballard's Farm 12 oz. Cole Slaw, and Food City 12 oz. Cole Slaw
because of a possible health risk.
Earlier, Ballard's Farm Sausage, Inc. recalled its Ballard's 12
oz. egg salad, Food City 12 oz. egg salad and Valu Time 11 oz.
egg salad because of contamination with Listeria monocytogenes
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 27, 2006).
Ballard's Farm is announcing its recall extension based on
laboratory tests that show the products may be contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes.
This organism can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections
in young children, frail or elderly people and others with
weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may
suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe
headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea,
Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among
pregnant women.
These products were distributed in West Virginia, Kentucky,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Maryland, New Jersey, New York,
Virginia, Illinois, Indiana, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Delaware, Michigan and Alabama.
The products being recalled are displayed in a clear plastic cup
with the products name displayed on the side of the lid and the
side of the cup.
Ballard's Farm has voluntarily shut down the salad production
line for a complete top-to-bottom investigation.
Consumers with any questions may contact the company at 800-346-
7675. The company's regular business hours are 8:00 a.m. until
4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.
CABLETRON SYSTEMS: $10.5M Stock Suit Settlement Gets Final Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. District Court entered an order and final judgment
granting final approval of the $10.5 million settlement of the
securities fraud lawsuit filed against Cabletron Systems, Inc.
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of all shareholders who
purchased Cabletron Systems common stock, bought call options in
Cabletron common stock or sold put options in Cabletron common
stock between May 3, 1997 and Dec. 2, 1997.
The suit alleges that throughout the class period, Cabletron and
certain of its officers and directors, failed to disclose
material information and made material misrepresentations
regarding the company's "SmartSwitch" product, its European
operations and its market share and competitive position.
These misrepresentations and omissions artificially inflated the
price of Cabletron stock throughout the class period during
which certain of the defendants sold more than 5,000,000 shares
of Cabletron, reaping proceeds of more than $180 million.
All related cases were consolidated into one class action,
entitled, "In re Cabletron Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation,"
and lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed by order of
the court dated March 3, 1998.
The operative complaint in this action is the second
consolidated amended complaint filed on Jan. 22, 1999.
On Jan. 18, 2005, Enterasys Networks Inc., f/k/a Cabletron,
announced that it entered into an agreement in principal to
settle this litigation against Cabletron and certain Cabletron
officers and directors. The settlement creates a Settlement
Fund in the amount of $10,500,000 for the benefit of class
members.
The court held a preliminary approval hearing on April 8, 2005.
On May 13, 2005, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the proposed settlement.
On Oct. 20, 2006, the court entered an order and final judgment
granting final approval of the settlement.
The suit is "In re Cabletron Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 99cv408 (D. R.I.); 97cv00542 (D.N.H.),"
filed in the U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island under
Judge William E. Smith.
CATALINA MARKETING: Reaches MoU in Fla. Consolidated Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Catalina Marketing Corp. reached a memorandum of understanding
to settle the pending and consolidated shareholder class action
filed against it, certain of its present and former officers and
directors and Catalina Health Resource.
The settlement, which is on terms that do not adversely affect
the company, involved no admission of "liability" by the company
or any of the current and former directors and former officers
named in the lawsuit.
The settlement is subject to various conditions including court
approvals and other customary conditions.
Frederick W. Beinecke, chairman of the board, commented, "We are
pleased to have taken this significant step towards concluding
this litigation. We look forward to having this matter behind
us as we focus on the future opportunities for our business."
Numerous complaints purporting to be class actions were filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder (Class Action Reporter, May 30, 2006).
The actions were originally brought on behalf of those who
purchased the company's common stock between Jan. 17, 2002 and
Aug. 25, 2003, inclusive.
The complaints contain various allegations, including that,
during the alleged class period, the defendants issued false and
misleading statements concerning the company's business and
operations with the result of artificially inflating the
company's share price and maintained inadequate internal
controls. It seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief.
In October 2003, the complaints were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida as, "In re
Catalina Marketing Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 8:03-
CV-1582-T-27TBM."
Named as co-lead plaintiffs in December 2003 are:
-- Virginia P. Anderson, and
-- the Alaska Electric Pension Fund
On Jun. 21, 2004, they served their consolidated amended class
action complaint on behalf of those who purchased the company's
stock between Aug. 14, 1999 and Aug. 25, 2003, inclusive.
The company and other defendants subsequently moved to dismiss
the consolidated amended class action complaint which motion was
denied by the court on March 31, 2005. Plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification in May 2005, which was
subsequently granted, by the court on Feb. 16, 2006.
On May 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, granted class-action status to the consolidated
securities class action against Catalina Marketing Corp.,
certain of its present and former officers and directors and
Catalina Health Resource.
The suit is "Corwin, et al. v. Catalina Marketing, et al., Case
No. 8:03-cv-01582-JDW-TBM," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida under Judge James D. Whittemore.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Elizabeth J. Arleo, Andrew Brown, William S. Lerach and
Darren J. Robbins of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins
LLP, 401 B St., Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
619/231-1058, E-mail: AndrewB@lerachlaw.com;
(2) Jack G. Fruchter of Fruchter & Twersky, One Penn Plaza,
Suite 1910, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212/279-5050;
(3) Christopher S. Jones, Christopher S. Polaszek, Maya
Saxena, Joseph E. White of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad &
Schulman LLP, Tower One, 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite
600, Boca Raton, FL 33486-1018, Phone: 561/361-5000,
Fax: 561-367-8400, E-mail: cjones@milbergweiss.com,
cpolaszek@milbergweiss.com, msaxena@milbergweiss.com;
and
(4) Andrei Rado and Steven G. Schulman of Milberg, Weiss,
Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza,
49th Floor, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212/594-
5300.
Representing the company are Michael L. Chapman and Tracy A.
Nichols of Holland & Knight, LLP, 100 N. Tampa St., Suite 4100,
P.O. Box 1288, Tampa, FL 33601-1288, Phone: 813/227-8500, Fax:
813/229-0134, E-mail: michael.chapman@hklaw.com or
tracy.nichols@hklaw.com.
CCC INFORMATION: Settles Suit Over Vehicle Wreckage Evaluation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn of Madison County, Illinois,
signed an order dismissing the case filed over its evaluation of
a vehicle damage after parties in the case announced a
settlement, the Madison St. Clair Record reports. Details of
the settlement, however, did not appear in court record, the
report said.
The suit was filed in 2001 by Clifton Moore, whose Cadillac met
an accident and got a total loss valuation for the wreckage. It
was filed against Shelter and CCC Information Services. Mr.
Moore accused Shelter Insurance of obtaining below market values
on vehicles from CCC.
Shelter attorney Joseph Whyte argued that when Mr. Moore
complained about CCC's $3,350 evaluation of his 1987 Cadillac
DeVille, Shelter gave him $3,850 and Mr. Moore accepted without
complaint.
In 2002, Mr. Moore dismissed CCC Information Services. In 2005,
Thomas Maag of the Lakin firm added Daniel Mainer as plaintiff.
On Oct. 13, the parties announced a settlement to Associate
Judge Ralph Mendelsohn.
Representing the plaintiff are Lakin firm founder Tom Lakin, son
Brad Lakin, and eight attorneys from other firms.
CITIBANK CORP: Ill. Court Approves Freight Fee Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Andy Matoesian of Madison County, Illinois granted
preliminary approval to a settlement of a class action filed
against Citibank Corp. by a borrower who paid a transportation
fee in closing a loan, the Madison St. Clair Record reports.
The suit was filed by the Lakin Law firm of Wood River on behalf
of Carmelita McLaughlin of Alton. Ms. McLaughlin alleged that
the company charged her a transportation fee for documents in
closing a loan that exceeded the bank's actual cost.
Under the agreement, Citibank will pay $30 to every borrower who
paid the freight fee from April 1, 1998 to May 1, 2003.
Paul Marks of the Lakin law firm said he would ask Judge
Matoesian to order an award of legal fees not to exceed
$660,000. He said Ms. McLaughlin would receive $750 for serving
as class representative.
Judge Matoesian set a fairness hearing Dec. 22.
Representing Ms. McLaughlin are Vincent Rapp, Tom Lakin, Brad
Lakin and Lakin attorney Richard Burke, as well as four Chicago
attorneys and Timothy Campbell of Godfrey.
DELL INC: Wash. Court Approves $17M Settlement of Consumer Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington granted final approval to a
settlement in a class action against:
-- Dell, Inc.;
-- Dell Financial Services, L.P.; and
-- CIT Bank.
The class action was filed on behalf of certain Dell customers
nationwide. It alleged that the defendants' practices caused
consumers to incur excess finance charges and late fees.
Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants will pay up to
$17 million to settle claims by customers who bought computers
and/or related services and products from Dell and financed
their purchases with Dell Financial Services.
Dell and Dell Financial Services have also agreed to modify some
of their sales and financing practices.
"This settlement will provide substantial benefits to past,
current, and future Dell customers," said Steven A. Skalet of
Mehri & Skalet, one of the law firms representing the
plaintiffs.
The agreement settled three pending class actions and one
unfiled class action in which plaintiffs alleged that consumers
were enticed into financing their purchases by promotional
offers such as "90 Days Same as Cash," but were not informed
when they were approved for credit lines that lacked such
promotional features.
The actions also alleged that the defendants failed to
adequately disclose the terms and conditions associated with its
"Dell Preferred Account" lines of credit.
As a result, plaintiffs alleged that customers accrued
unexpected interest and late charges. All three defendants deny
that consumers were misled or that they engaged in any
wrongdoing, but agreed to the settlement in order to avoid the
cost and uncertainty of continued litigation.
Under the terms of the settlement, eligible class members may
apply to receive a refund of 75.95% of the estimated interest
paid during sixty days following the initial purchase.
Class members who paid a late payment fee may receive a refund
of 75.95% of the average late fee paid by class members. Dell
Financial Services will also make changes to the way it
advertises its promotional financing offers and communicates
with consumers who receive lines of credit.
"The financial settlement, as well as Dell's promise to change
certain sales practices, is in Dell's customers' interests in
the long run," said Jeffrey Friedman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP.
The settlement will bring to an end nearly three years of
investigation, negotiation, and litigation.
"This settlement puts money back in the pockets of Dell
customers and we are very pleased with this result," stated Eric
Chaffin of Seeger Weiss LLP.
The suit is "Watson et al. v. Dell Inc. et al., Case No. 3:05-
cv-05200-RBL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington under Judge Ronald B. Lei.
Representing plaintiffs are:
(1) Steve W. Berman and Tyler Weaver both of Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, 1301 5th Ave., Ste 2900, Seattle, WA
98101, Phone: 206-623-7292 or Fax: 206-623-0594, E-
mail: steve@hbsslaw.com or tyler@hbsslaw.com;
(2) Eric T. Chaffin and Stephen A. Weiss both of Seeger
Weiss (NY), One William St., 10th Floor, New York, NY
10004, Phone: 212-584-0700, E-mail:
echaffin@seegerweiss.com or sweiss@seegerweiss.com;
(3) Jeffrey D. Friedman, Reed R. Kathrein and Shana E.
Scarlett all of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins (SF), 100 Pine St., Ste 2600, San Francisco, CA
94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288-4534, E-mail:
jfriedman@lerachlaw.com or reedk@lerachlaw.com or
shanas@lerachlaw.com;
(4) Jeffrey F. Keller and Kathleen R. Scanlan both of
Keller Grover, 425 Second St., Ste 500, San Francisco,
CA 94107, Phone: 415-543-1305, Fax: 415-296-8891, E-
mail: jfkeller@kellergrover.com or
kscanlan@kellergrover.com; and
(5) Steven A. Skalet of Mehri and Skalet PLLC, 1300 19th
St., NW Ste 400, Washington, DC 20036, Phone: 202-822-
5100, E-mail: sskalet@findjustice.com.
Representing defendants are:
(1) Naomi Jane Gray and Ned N. Isokawa both of Paul
Hastings Janofsky & Walker (SF), 55 Second St., 24th
Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-856-7000 or
415-856-7003, E-mail: naomigray@paulhastings.com or
nedisokawa@paulhastings.com; and Barry G. Sher of Paul
Hastings Janofsky & Walker (NY), 75 E. 55th St., First
Floor, NY 10022, Phone: 212-318-6085, E-mail:
barrysher@paulhastings.com;
(2) David B. Johnson of Sidley Austin (IL), One South
Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: 312-853-7107, E-
mail: djohnson@sidley.com; and Jennifer A. Landau of
Sidley Austin (CA), 555 W, 5th St., STE 4000, Los
Angeles, CA 90013-1010, Phone: 213-896-6000, E-mail:
jlandau@sidley.com;
(3) David Florian Jurca of Helsell Fetterman LLP, PO BOX
21846, Seattle, WA 98111-3846, Phone: 206-292-1144,
Fax: 340-0902, E-mail: djurca@helsell.com;
(4) David W. Moon and Lisa M. Simonetti both of Stroock &
Stroock & Lavan (CA), 2029 Century Park E, STE 1800,
Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-556-5800, E-mail:
dmoon@stroock.com or LSimonetti@stroock.com;
(5) Stephen M. Rummage of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, 1501
4th Ave., STE 2600, Seattle, WA 98101-1688, Phone: 206-
628-7755, Fax: 628-7699, E-mail: steverummage@dwt.com;
and
(6) Jeffrey M. Thomas and Jeffrey I Tilden both of Gordon
Murray Tilden, 1001 4th Ave., STE 4000, Seattle, WA
98154, Phone: 206-467-6477, E-mail: jthomas@gmtlaw.com
or jtilden@gmtlaw.com.
DRUG COMPANIES: Third Party Payer Files Fraud Suit Over Plavix
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law firms Hersh & Hersh, Miller & Associates and Whatley Drake &
Kallas, LLC filed a lawsuit against drug companies for selling
the popular anti-coagulant drug, Plavix(R), even though they
allegedly knew the drug posed a serious risk of heart attack,
stroke, serious blood disorders and death.
Plavix(R) is the sixth top selling drug in the U.S. with sales
totaling $3.8 billion dollars.
The suit was filed against:
-- Bristol-Myers Squibb,
-- Sanofi-Aventis, and
-- Sanofi-Synthelabo
Sanofi-Aventis is a French pharmaceutical company partnering
with Bristol-Myers to manufacture and market Plavix(R). Sanofi-
Synthelabo is a Delaware-based corporation and affiliate of
Sanofi-Aventis that was instrumental in bringing Plavix(R) to
market.
The lawsuit comes after Bristol-Myers Chief Executive Peter
Dolan was forced to resign from his job at the recommendation of
the company's federal court monitor in early September. He
became the third top executive in the drug industry to be forced
out since last year due to issues regarding the Plavix(R)
patent.
Although approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
Plavix(R) has been found to nearly double the risk of a first
heart attack or stroke in patients with high cholesterol or high
blood pressure.
A statement by Hersh & Hersh and Miller & Associates and Whatley
Drake & Kallas, LLC said that a recent study published in the
New England Journal of Medicine in April 2006, found that
"although doctors believe the combination of Plavix(R) and
aspirin should reduce the risk of a second heart attack, the
combination not only does not help, but it nearly doubles the
risk of death, heart attack or stroke in people with no history
of heart disease.
It was also found to be associated with increased risk for
moderate and severe bleeding.
Hersh & Hersh, Miller & Associates and Whatley Drake & Kallas,
LLC filed the suit on behalf of third party payer, claiming that
the defendants rushed the drug to market and then launched an
aggressive marketing campaign touting Plavix(R) as providing
greater cardiovascular benefits than aspirin, while being safer
and easier on a person's stomach.
According to the suit, those assertions are not only false, but
the company knew about the serious health complications from the
use of Plavix(R) from its own studies and had been warned by the
FDA repeatedly to stop its fraudulent advertising. The company
did not stop its misleading advertising, nor did it alert the
public to the life threatening side effects of Plavix(R), the
suit alleges.
"This is a clear example of a pharmaceutical company putting
profits before people," said Nancy Hersh, Principle, Hersh and
Hersh. "Bristol-Myers Squibb withheld information, misled the
public and ignored warnings from the FDA, all to increase
profits. They should be held accountable."
For more information, contact Charles Kelly, Esq. or Severn
Williams of Hersh & Hersh and Miller & Associates, Phone: 415-
441-5544 or 415-203-0792 or 510-336-9566 or 415-336-9623.
E.I. DUPONT: Class Attorneys Insist on Conducting Health Study
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers representing West Virginia and Ohio residents in a class
action over a chemical used to produce Teflon, filed a motion in
Wood County Circuit Court to force E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.
to allow a science panel to study workers at a West Virginia
plant as part of the settlement of the case, Associated Press
reports.
Residents living near the plant, located on the Ohio River about
7 miles southwest of Parkersburg, West Virginia sued Dupont in
August 2001, claiming their drinking supply was contaminated
with perfluorooctonoate, also known as C8, C-8, PFOA, APFO,
FC143, FC-143).
The chemical is used to produce Teflon at the plant in
Washington, West Virginia, along the Ohio River. The
communities affected are residents of Belpre, Little Hocking,
Lubeck, Pomeroy, Tuppers Plains, and Mason County (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 19, 2006).
In 2004, the parties reached a $343 million settlement that
included a review of blood samples and health information of the
residents to determine if there is a link between C8 and health
problems. Wood County Circuit Judge George W. Hill subsequently
approved the settlement.
Judge Hill noted that the settlement was finalized without any
evidence that the chemical caused any disease. That settlement,
in which the company agreed to pay at least $107.6 million,
covers the medical monitoring, water treatment, attorney's fees,
and general payments to the class (Class Action Reporter, Jan.
19, 2006).
In recent developments, a DuPont lawyer asked the court in a
letter to stop a study by a court-appointed science panel.
Subsequently, lawyers representing the residents filed a motion
opposing the move on grounds it violates the 2004 settlement
agreement.
Dupont lawyer Laurence F. Janssen said the particular study was
not contemplated by the settling parties and is not part of the
settlement agreement. He also said the company has conducted it
own studies of its workers, and any additional studies should be
conducted by the company or its contractors.
DuPont released the second phase of a study that found no higher
mortality rates among current and former West Virginia employees
than workers at seven DuPont plants in other states, the
population of West Virginia or the rest of the nation's
population. However, additional tests would be needed because
the study found slightly elevated cases of kidney disease,
diabetes and heart disease, the report said.
HEALTHCARE COMPANIES: Appeals Court Allows Suit by Fla. Doctor
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 4th District Court of Appeal overturned on Oct. 18 the
dismissal of the suit filed by orthopedic surgeon Peter Merkle
in Pompano Beach, Florida against:
-- Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida (BCBSF),
-- Aetna Health,
-- Vista Healthplan, and
-- Neighborhood Health Partnership, a unit of
UnitedHealthcare Group.
Mr. Merkle filed the lawsuit in late 2004. He is demanding full
payment for emergency services done on patients of healthcare
providers. He said the health maintenance organizations
underpaid him by paying him the lower rate they pay doctors in
its plans. Mr. Merkle said he was not a participating provider
under contract to those health plans.
The health plans are legally bound to pay the full charges, said
Fort Lauderdale attorney Stephanie Alexander, who is
representing the Florida Medical Association and the Florida
Hospital Association.
"The court's decision is limited to a specific issue. The case
has been remanded, and we will address the merits at the trial
court level," Blue Cross Blue Shield said in a statement.
The recent ruling, as well as that of the Florida Supreme Court
in the case of Plantation-based Westside EKG Associates against
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida and Humana Inc., is expected
to change healthcare practice and related insurance laws,
reports say.
The insurers have long maintained that state statutes about
health maintenance organizations do not include a "cause of
action" provision, preventing enforcement of the statutes
through the courts. Circuit court judges agreed in their
rulings in both the Westside and Merkle case, but the appellate
courts have disagreed. The court allowed the lawsuit demanding
prompt payment by Westside EKG to go forward against BCBSF and
Humana on Nov. 19.
Lawyers representing both Westside and Merkle said they plan to
seek class-action status for the cases.
The Merkle suit involved emergency rooms, in which patients are
required by law to be treated whether they have insurance or are
in or out of network, while the Westside case involved prompt-
pay provisions of the statutes, according to Stephanie
Alexander, a Fort Lauderdale attorney representing hospitals and
other providers in these and other similar suits.
Representing Mr. Merkle is Patrick Lawlor.
Representing Westside EKG is Jeff Liggio at Liggio, Benrubi &
Williams, P.A., Barristers Building, 1615 Forum Place, Suite 3B
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (Palm Beach Co.), Phone: 561-616-
3333, Fax: 561-616-3266, Web site: http://www.liggiolaw.com.
KERR-MCGEE CORP: Nov. 21 Hearing Set for Okla. Stock Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Oklahoma County in Oklahoma will hold a
fairness hearing on Nov. 21, 2006 at 9:00 a.m., for the proposed
settlement in the matter: "John Rinderknecht, et al., v. Kerr-
McGee Corp. et al., Case No. OJ-2006-5204."
The court will hold the hearing before the Honorable Bryan C.
Dixon at the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma County
Office Bldg./Courthouse Annex, 320 Robert S. Kerr, Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma.
Any objection to the settlement must be made on or before Nov.
1, 2006.
The case was brought as a class action, alleging that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders
of Kerr-McGee common stock in connection with the acquisition of
Kerr-McGee by Anadarko.
The case covers all persons or entities that owned Kerr-McGee
Corp. common stock as of June 23, 2006, or at anytime
thereafter, through and including the closing of the acquisition
of Kerr-McGee by Anadarko Petroleum Corp.
Plaintiff sought to stop the defendants from proceeding with the
acquisition and challenged the terms of the acquisition
agreement and the emission of information necessary for Kerr-
McGee shareholders to make an informed vote on the proposed
acquisition.
The settlement provides for the disclosure of additional
information by Kerr-McGee in a Form 8-K that was filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about Aug. 2, 2006.
Plaintiff believes disclosure of such information was necessary
in order for Kerr-McGee shareholders to make an informed vote on
the proposed acquisition.
For more details, contact Ellen Gusikoff Stewart of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 655 West Broadway,
Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058 and (800)
449-4900, Fax: (619) 231-7423, E-mail: elleng@lerachlaw.com, Web
site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/.
MTD PRODUCTS: Recalls Snow Throwers After 16 Injury Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
MTD Products Inc., of Cleveland, Ohio, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
130,000 units of Two-Stage Compact Snow Throwers.
The company said if the snow thrower's tires are over-inflated,
the plastic wheel rims can burst, posing a risk of lacerations
and fractures.
MTD has received reports of 16 injuries, including fractured
fingers, a broken toe, and facial lacerations.
The recalled two-stage compact snow thrower is used for snow
removal. The snow thrower has two wheels and comes in red,
green, gray or black. Troy-Bilt, Yard Machines or Craftsman is
printed on the snow thrower's housing. The model number is
located on the snow thrower's rear frame.
The model numbers included in this recall are:
Brand Model Snow Thrower
Troy-Bilt 31AS3BB2766 5.5 HP 24-inch Two Stage
31A-3AAD700 5 HP 22-inch Two Stage
31A-3BAD700 5.5 HP 22-inch Two Stage
Yard Machines 31A-3BAD729 5.5 HP 22-inch Two Stage
31A-3BAD752 5.5 HP 22-inch Two Stage
31A-3BAD762 5.5 HP 22-inch Two Stage
31AS3DDE729 7 HP 24-inch Two Stage
Craftsman 247.88255 5.5 HP 24-inch Two Stage
247.88700 5 HP 22-inch Two Stage
These two-stage compact snow throwers were manufactured in
Canada. The Troy-Bilt and Yard Machines snow throwers were sold
at independent dealers, home improvement and hardware stores.
The Craftsman brand snow throwers were sold at Sears and Kmart
stores. Affected snow throwers were sold from July 2004 through
March 2006 for between $500 and $800.
Consumers are advised to contact MTD for a free service kit with
pressure relief valves, labels and instructions. Consumers with
Craftsman brand snow throwers will be mailed a service kit
directly by Sears.
For more information, contact MTD toll-free at (888) 848-6038
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.mtdproducts.com.
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barbara S. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismissed the class action "In re
National Australia Bank Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-
06537-BSJ."
In an order entered on Oct. 26, 2006, the judge ruled that the
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of
foreign purchasers of NAB securities purchased on non-U.S.
exchanges.
The court also ruled that the plaintiff who purchased NAB ADRs
did not sustain damages and dismissed the claims of ADR
purchasers.
The suit was brought as a class action on behalf of purchasers
of the equity, debt, and other securities of National Australia
Bank Ltd. including, but not limited to, its ordinary shares and
American Depository Receipts between April 1, 1999 and Sept. 3,
2001, inclusive.
The consolidated class action complaint alleged that defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by disseminating materially false and
misleading statements concerning fraud by NAB at its subsidiary,
HomeSide Lending, Inc.
The suit is "In re National Australia Bank Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-06537-BSJ," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Barbara S. Jones.
Representing the defendants are:
(1) A. Graham Allen of Rogers, Towers, P.A., 1301
Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 1500, Jacksonville, FL
32207, Phone: (904) 398-3911, Fax: (904) 396-0663;
(2) George T Conway, III of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz,
51 West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212)
403-1000, Fax: (212) 403-2000, E-mail:
GTConway@wlrk.com;
(3) Robert Scott Loigman and Eric Jonathan Seiler both of
Friedman, Kaplan, Seiler and Adelman, 1633 Broadway,
NY, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 833-1114, Fax: (212) 373-
7914, E-mail: rloigman@fklaw.com.
Representing plaintiffs are:
(1) Thomas A. Dubbs and James W. Johnson both of Labaton
Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor, New
York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-907-0700 or 212-907-0859,
Fax: 212-818-0477 or 212-883-7059, E-mail:
tdubbs@labaton.com or jjohnson@labaton.com; and
(2) Menachem E. Lifshitz of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz,
LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
212-779-1414, Fax: 212-779-3218, E-mail:
lifshitz@bernlieb.com.
NEW JERSEY: Faces Federal Suit Over Education for Special Kids
--------------------------------------------------------------
The State of New Jersey and several of its agencies face a
purported federal class action alleging that children with
disabilities are consistently denied access to general education
classrooms in violation of federal laws, The Daily Record
reports.
The suit was filed on Aug. 28, 2006 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey on behalf of three children with
Down syndrome:
-- Vincenzo Grieco, 9, of Jefferson,
-- Simone Boucher, 6, of Metuchen,
-- Christopher Briscese, 13, of Hamilton Township, and
-- all children who are "cognitively impaired" or
"multiply disabled."
The state Department of Education, Jefferson Township School
District and their respective boards of education were served
with the lawsuit on Oct. 26, 2006.
The suit states that Mr. Grieco, the lead plaintiff, and other
children with disabilities have been deprived by New Jersey
Education officials of their rights to be educated in regular
classrooms with typically developing classmates, and to be
provided with supplementary aids, support services and
accommodations required to achieve integrated education (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 25, 2006).
Specifically, according to the suit, the state is violating the
federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and
Americans with Disabilities Act, pointing out that New Jersey's
worst-in-the-nation record for including students with
disabilities in general education classrooms is proof of these
violations.
It further alleges that the state has systematically failed to
carry out its duty to educate these children with their non-
disabled peers, with a high percentage of students placed in
segregated classrooms.
The suit is "Greico, et al. v. New Jersey Department Of
Education, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Peter G. Sheridan with
referral to Judge Ronald J. Hedges.
Representing the plaintiffs are Andrew I. Hamelsky of White &
Williams, LLP, The Atrium, East 80, Route 4, Paramus, NJ 07652,
Phone: (201) 368-7206, E-mail: hamelskya@whiteandwilliams.com.
NX NETWORKS: Mass. Court Okays Disbursement of $6.3M Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
granted a motion by lead plaintiffs in a consolidated securities
fraud suit filed against Nx Networks, Inc. to authorize the
distribution of a $6.3 million Settlement Fund.
Investors sued Nx Networks, formerly known as Netrix Corp., for
stock fraud in a federal class action, "Rees v. Holley," filed
on Sept. 13, 2000 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.
The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of all persons and entities,
who purchased or otherwise acquired Nx Networks or Netrix Corp.
common stock from Dec. 8, 1999 through and including April 24,
2000. Defendants are:
-- the company;
-- Steven T. Francesco, chairman and chief executive
officer; and
-- Bryan Holley, former chief operating officer and
president.
The class action charges defendants with violating Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants
issued false and misleading press releases and other statements
regarding the availability of the company's products, and that
the company's reported financial results overstated revenues and
profitability during the class period in a scheme to
artificially inflate the value of Nx Networks' and Netrix's
common stock.
More specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants stated
that Nx Networks' new Series 3000 product-line would begin
shipping during the first quarter of 2000, knowing and/or
recklessly disregarding the misleading nature of the statement.
This complaint also alleges that defendants further misled
investors by stating:
-- that Nx Networks had already booked $9.8 million by
Feb. 22, 2000;
-- that the company had booked only a small fraction of
that amount as of that date; and
-- ultimately booked $8.9 million in revenue for the entire
quarter.
The Werbowski Lawsuit
On Nov. 27, 2000, a separate action, "Werbowski v. Nx Networks,
Inc., C. A. No. 00-1967-A," was filed in the Eastern District of
Virginia, and was transferred to U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on Feb. 16, 2001 under C. A. No. 01-
10377-JLT."
This complaint names as defendants:
-- the company;
-- Mr. Francesco; and
-- Peter Kendrick, vice president and chief financial
officer.
The suit alleges that defendants misled investors with respect
to the company's financial statements for the second quarter of
2000. This complaint alleges violations of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles, claiming that defendants had prematurely
and improperly booked revenue for products that they had neither
manufactured nor shipped before the close of the quarter.
The complaint also points to Nx Networks' restatement of their
financial results for that quarter, decreasing reported revenues
from $10.4 to $8.4 million, in support of its claim that the
Defendants made false statements. This action was filed on
behalf of persons who purchased or acquired shares of Nx
Networks or Netrix Corp. common stock from July 27, 2000 through
and including Nov. 2, 2000.
By a court order dated Jan. 29, 2001, the court consolidated
cases related to the "Rees Action" into one class action, "In re
Nx Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation (the Rees Plaintiffs),
C. A. No. 00-CV-11850-JLT (the Rees Action)," and appointed lead
plaintiffs and Berman DeValerio -- http://www.bermanesq.com/--
as one of two co-lead counsel.
Amended Class Action Complaints
On May 4, 2001, lead plaintiffs in the Rees Action filed their
consolidated amended class action complaint, which names as
defendants the company and Mr. Francesco. Plaintiffs in the
Werbowski Action filed their first amended class action
complaint the same day. On May 8, 2001, the court appointed
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel and Berman DeValerio as Liaison
Counsel in the Werbowski Action.
On June 8, 2001, defendants moved to dismiss in their entirety
both the Rees and Werbowski Complaints. Defendants thereafter
filed a motion to consolidate the Rees and Werbowski Actions.
On Oct. 11, 2001, after briefing and oral argument, the court
denied defendants' motions to dismiss.
Chapter 11 Filing
On or about Nov. 5, 2001, Nx Networks filed for protection under
Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia. The Bankruptcy Court issued a final order
approving Nx Networks' plan of liquidation on Sept. 18, 2002.
Accordingly, lead plaintiffs dismissed Nx Networks from the Rees
and Werbowski Actions on May 6, 2003.
On Nov. 13, 2003, the parties appeared before the court for a
status conference. On that same day, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion to reopen and restore the actions to the
active docket, and ordered that the parties would be permitted
to conduct discovery for six months, before a June 15, 2004
trial date.
Mediation and Settlement
On March 26, 2004, the parties participated in mediation with
the Honorable Nicholas Politan, which resulted in an agreement
in principle to settle the actions on May 25, 2004.
On Sept. 10, 2004, the parties entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement to settle the claims against the defendants in both
actions. Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, as
described more fully in the Stipulation, which is subject to
court approval, a Settlement Fund in the amount of $6,300,000,
to be paid by defendants' insurers, plus interest that accrues
on the Fund prior to distribution, will be created for the
benefit of the classes described above.
On Sept. 13, 2004, the parties filed the stipulation along with
a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement
with the court. On Sept. 22, 2004, Judge Tauro signed an order
granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. A
settlement fairness hearing to determine, among other things,
whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate
was held on Nov. 22, 2004, and Judge Tauro granted final
approval of the settlement that same day. Proofs of claim and
release form were accepted until Jan. 13, 2005.
On Aug. 31, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed a motion for order to
authorize distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, which the
court granted on Oct. 3, 2006. The Claims Administrator,
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 170500
Milwaukee, WI 53217-8041
(866) 797-0826
A.B. Data Ltd.
will be distributing the Fund to those shareholders who filed a
valid claim.
The suit is "In re Nx Networks, Inc. Litigation, Case No.
00cv11850," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge Joseph L. Tauro.
Case Contact: Nicole R. Starr, Phone: 800-516-9926
PLAINS MEAT: Recalls Ground Beef Over 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:
-- five to 20- pound packages of "Ground Beef, Packed by
Plains Meat Company, Ltd." Each package bears the
establishment number "Est. 1429" inside the USDA mark of
inspection; and
-- five to 20- pound packages of "Beef Patties Mix, 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.
RLB FOOD: Recalls Spinach Products Due to E. coli Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
RLB Food Distributors, L.P., of West Caldwell, New Jersey, is
initiating a multiple east coast states voluntarily recall of
certain salad products that may contain spinach with an Enjoy
Thru date of 9/20/06.
The products recalled by RLB are:
-- Balducci's Mesclun Mix 5 oz.,
-- Balducci's Organic Baby Spinach 5 oz.,
-- Balducci's Mixed Greens 5 oz.,
-- FreshPro Mesclun Mix 5 oz.,
-- FreshPro Organic Baby Spinach 5 oz.,
-- FreshPro Mixed Greens 5 oz.,
-- FreshPro Salad Mix with Italian Dressing 4.75 oz.,
-- FreshPro Salad Mix with Ranch Dressing 5.25 oz
Spinach used in these products may have been supplied from
Natural Selections Foods, a California grower and processor, to
RLB Food Distributors.
This recall was initiated when Natural Selections Foods issued
on Sept. 15 a nationwide recall of all their products that
contain spinach because they may be contaminated with
Escherichia coli 0157:H7 bacteria (E. coli).
E. coli 0157:H7 causes a diarrhea illness often with bloody
stools. Although most healthy adults can recover completely
within a week, some people can develop a form of kidney failure
called Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome.
Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome is most likely to occur in young
children and the elderly. The condition can lead to serious
kidney damage and even death.
The recalled products were distributed in Connecticut, New York,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia and
Washington DC. They can be identified by an "Enjoy Thru" date
of 9/20/06 or before that is located on the bottom of the
package.
No illnesses have been reported to the company as of this date
from consuming these products.
An investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
several states, and Natural Selections Foods is ongoing to
identify the cause of the possible E. coli contamination.
Consumers who have purchased these products are advised to
return them to the place of purchase for full refund. Customers
with questions may contact RLB Food Distributors at 973-575-9526
X154.
SCANDINAVIAN CHILD: Recalls Changing Tables Posing Fall Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scandinavian Child, of Raleigh, North Carolina, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 90 Cariboo folding changing tables and about 40 Cariboo
bassinet changers.
The company said if the zipper is misaligned, it can come apart
and allow the cloth surface to separate, posing a fall hazard to
the baby. The firm has received one report of the zipper coming
apart. No injuries have been reported.
The frame of the folding changing table is made of wood with two
folding legs and has a cream-colored changing tablecloth surface
with zippers and side pockets. The product also has a bottom
shelf cloth with Velcro strips. The frame of the bassinet
changer is made of wood and has a cream-colored changing
tablecloth surface with zippers that attaches to the top rails.
These recalled changing tables and bassinet changers are
manufactured in New Zealand and are being sold at retailers
nationwide and on several online merchants from September 2005
through September 2006 for about $260 and $120 respectively.
Pictures of the recalled changing tables and bassinet changers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07502a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07502b.jpg
Consumers are advised to stop using the changing tables
immediately and contact Scandinavian Child to receive a
replacement product. Scandinavian Child will notify all known
purchasers.
For additional information, consumers should contact
Scandinavian Child toll-free at (888) 353-2229 between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday ET or visit
http://www.SCIchild.com
SEITEL INC: E&Y Continues to Face Tex. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sietel Inc.'s auditor, Ernst & Young, remains a defendant in a
consolidated securities fraud lawsuit pending against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas.
On May 9, 2002, a class action was filed against Seitel, Inc.
and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas. It seeks damages for
violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors
who bought Seitel common stock from May 5, 2000 through May 3,
2002.
The complaint names as defendants:
-- Seitel;
-- Paul A. Frame president, chief executive officer, and,
as of February 2002, chairman of the board;
-- Debra D. Valice, chief financial officer, executive vice
president of finance, treasurer and corporate secretary;
-- Marcia H. Kendrick, chief accounting officer and
assistant corporate secretary; and
-- Herbert M. Pearlman, founder and chairman of the board
of directors until his resignation in February of 2002.
According to the complaint, Houston-based Seitel and the
individual defendants materially misrepresented the company's
financial results for 2000 and 2001 by improperly recognizing
revenues. Most of the improper revenue, the complaint says, was
attributable to Seitel's undisclosed practice of recording
revenue for the licensing of its seismic data and other
geophysical information before delivering data to customers.
The practice ran afoul of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles and artificially inflated Seitel's stock price during
the class period, the complaint says. The complaint alleges
that the defendants were motivated to commit the accounting
fraud in order to earn commissions and bonuses, which were tied
to the company's revenues and earnings. The complaint claims
the defendants had nearly $10 million of insider stock sales
during the class period.
On April 1, Seitel announced that it was restating its financial
results for the year 2000 and the first three quarters of 2001.
The restatement reduced reported revenue by 15% in 2000 and 30%
during the first three quarters of 2001. It also turned what
had purportedly been profits during those periods into losses,
the lawsuit states.
By the time Seitel further detailed the restatements on May 3,
2002, the company's stock price had plunged to $5.65 per share,
more than 75% below the class period high of $22.72 per share,
the complaint says.
On July 22, 2002, competing motions for consolidation of all
related cases and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel were filed with the court. On Aug. 3, 2002, the court
issued an order consolidating all related actions into one class
action, "In re Seitel, Inc. Securities Litigation." The court
held a hearing on the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel on Aug. 30, 2002 and continued the hearing on Sept. 5,
2002.
On Sept. 11, 2002, Judge Werlein, Jr. issued an order appointing
a lead plaintiff and his selection of lead and liaison counsel.
On Dec. 6, 2002, lead plaintiff filed his consolidated amended
class action complaint naming:
* Ernst & Young, the company's auditor, as an additional
defendant.
In response, beginning on Feb. 4, 2003, defendants filed their
motions to dismiss this complaint. On March 26, 2003 plaintiffs
filed an opposition to defendants' motions.
Bankruptcy Proceedings
On June 11, 2003, Seitel filed a notice with the court regarding
the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings. On July 2, 2003,
the court administratively closed the case, granted the parties
leave to move to reinstate the case on the court's active docket
in the future, and denied, without prejudice to re-filing, all
outstanding motions.
1st Partial Settlement
Following the expiration of the automatic stay of the action due
to Seitel's bankruptcy filing, lead plaintiff and defendants
Seitel, Mr. Frame, Ms. Valice, Ms. Kendrick and the Estate of
Herbert Pearlman entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated Oct. 28, 2004 to settle the claims against
these defendants. Pursuant to the terms of this proposed
settlement, a Settlement Fund in the amount of $5,250,000, plus
interest that accrues on the fund, will be established for the
benefit of the class.
On May 6, 2005, Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore signed an order
granting preliminary approval of this proposed settlement;
certifying, for settlement purposes only, the action as a class
action "on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Seitel common stock in the open market during the
period from May 5, 2000 through and including May 3, 2002; and
setting a settlement fairness hearing to determine, among other
things, whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable,
adequate and in the best interests for the class, for July 29,
2005.
The settlement fairness hearing was held, and the court issued
an order and final judgment that same day granting final
approval of this settlement.
On Sept. 14, 2006, a motion for distribution of the settlement
fund was filed with the court. Once the court approves the
motion, the claims Administrator will distribute the Fund to
those shareholders who filed a valid claim.
The case is continuing against Ernst &Young.
On July 27, 2005 lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
against E&Y and on Sept. 27, 2005, E&Y filed a motion to dismiss
this complaint, which lead plaintiff opposed on Nov. 14, 2005.
On Aug. 29, 2006, Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore signed an order
denying E&Y's motion. E&Y filed their Answer to the Second
Amended Complaint on Sept. 13, 2006.
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of "Daniels"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal in San Diego affirmed the
dismissal of the case "Daniels et al. v. Philip Morris et al.,"
on Oct. 6. The case is currently on appeal to the California
Supreme Court.
The lawsuit was filed in Superior Court, San Diego County,
California, on April 2, 1998. In November 2000, the court
granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on behalf
of minor California residents who smoked at least one cigarette
between April 1994 and December 1999.
Certification was granted as to plaintiffs' claims that
defendants violated California Business and Professions Code
Section 17200 pursuant to which plaintiffs allege that class
members are entitled to reimbursements of the costs of
cigarettes purchased during the class period and injunctive
relief barring activities allegedly in violation of the Business
and Professions Code.
In September 2002, the court granted defendants' motions for
summary judgment as to all claims in the case, and plaintiffs
appealed. In October 2004, the California Fourth District Court
of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling. In February 2005,
the California Supreme Court agreed to hear plaintiffs' appeal.
Defendants in the suit are Philip Morris USA, R.J. Reynolds,
Lorillard and Brown & Williamson.
UNITED AIRLINES: D.C Woman Files Fraud Suit Over Ticket Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Airlines, Inc. faces a purported class action in D.C.
Superior Court over allegations that it defrauded customers by
automatically canceling a return flight if a passenger fails to
use the initial leg of a reserved round-trip ticket, The
Courthouse News Service reports.
Plaintiff Sara Wexler claims that United Airlines refused to
issue refunds for either leg of the flight. She also claims
that the airline fraudulently conceals this policy, which left
her stranded in Chicago.
The suit alleges that Ms. Wexler, who is represented by D.C.
attorney Nat Polito, was thus forced to pay an extra $917 for a
new ticket home to Washington, D.C., in addition to the round
trip she already had paid for. It is seeking punitive damages.
For more details, contact Nat Polito of Leftwich & Douglas,
P.L.L.C., Suite 600, Washington, Washington D.C. (DC) 20005,
Phone: (202) 434-9100 and (202) 296-1000.
UNITED AIRLINES: Pilots Sue Union Over $545.5M Pension Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three United Airlines, Inc. pilots filed a federal lawsuit
against their union, claiming that it failed to pay them the
pension benefits that they were entitled to from the company's
now-terminated pension plan, The Associated Press reports.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, the
suit alleges that the Air Line Pilots Association International
disbursed most of a $545.5 million payout it received from
United Airlines in 2005.
However, according to the suit, the union did not give any money
to the pilots, who were temporarily dismissed but recalled after
the company's Feb. 1 exit from bankruptcy.
The pilots who filed the suit are:
-- Eric Passannante of Portland,
-- Raymond Chop of Florida, and
-- Bruce Hudson of Colorado
The pilots' attorneys claim that as many as 1,500 pilots might
have been on furlough at the time United Airlines left
bankruptcy. They plan to seek class-action status to represent
any active pilots who didn't receive a payout.
In 2003, United Airlines filed for bankruptcy protection. In a
step that it claimed was necessary to return to profitability,
the Chicago-area-based carrier terminated its defined-benefit
pension plans. It replaced them with less-expensive 401(K)-type
retirement funds.
In addition, the United Airlines also negotiated a new labor
contract with its pilots' union pledging to pay the union's
6,600 active pilots $550 million in convertible notes.
Portland-based attorney John Crowell, who is representing the
pilots, believes that the union has sold the notes. However, he
also believes that that the union disbursed money in lump sums
to pilots still flying or recalled from furlough before United
Airlines exited bankruptcy on Feb. 1.
Mr. Crowell explains that the older pilots will get a lump sum
of anywhere from $25,000 to $50,000, but his clients and others
like them will get nothing.
The plaintiffs were hired by the airline in 1999, furloughed in
2003 and recalled after Feb. 1, 2006, according to Mark
Passannante, a Portland attorney and Eric Passannante's brother.
For more details, contact John B. Crowell, Jr. of Lane Powell,
PC, Phone: 1.800.426.5801 and (503) 778-2100, Web site:
http://www.lanepowell.com.
UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Directors Face Lawsuit Over Buyout Offer
------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates filed a class action charging that the
management of Universal American Financial Corp. led a buyout
offer to purchase all of the public shares of Universal American
Financial Corp. in a transaction that is unfair, and constitutes
a breach of the fiduciary duties of the directors involved.
The complaint alleges that the buyout price of $18.16 per share
is unfair because it does not adequately compensate the public
shareholders for the value of their shares, and the company is
worth significantly more than the price offered.
Further, it is alleged that the defendants have access to
material nonpublic information which if disclosed would likely
demonstrate the unfairness of the offer.
No claim for damages is made against the company.
Plaintiffs in the suit wants to insure that if a buyout takes
place that the public shareholders receive full and fair
compensation for the value of their shares.
The breach of fiduciary duty claim is raised against Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer Richard A. Barasch, and three
directors who are high-level principals of Capital Z Partners,
Ltd., one of the buyout participants.
For more information on the suit, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of
Roy Jacobs & Associates, Phone: (888) 884-4490, E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.com
WD-40 CO: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in the purported consumer fraud
class action pending against WD-40 Co. in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California.
James Drimmer filed the suit on April 19, 2006, alleging fraud
in the company's marketing of automatic toilet bowl cleaners.
After several of the plaintiff's factual claims were dismissed
by way of motion, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
Sept. 20, 2006.
The amended complaint is seeking class-action status. It
alleges that the company misrepresented that its 2000 Flushes
Bleach and 2000 Flushes Blue Plus Bleach automatic toilet bowl
cleaners (ATBCs) are safe for plumbing systems and unlawfully
omitted to advise consumers regarding the allegedly damaging
effect the use of the ATBCs has on toilet parts made of plastic
and rubber.
The complaint seeks to remedy such allegedly wrongful conduct:
-- by requiring the company to identify all consumers who
have purchased the ATBCs and to return money as may be
ordered by the court; and
-- by the granting of other equitable relief, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.
Though a new named plaintiff brought this case, it is legally
and factually identical to a similar case that was dismissed by
the San Diego Superior Court in April 2005, according to the
company's Oct. 25, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Aug. 31, 2006.
The suit is "Drimmer v. WD-40 Co., Case No. 3:06-cv-00900-W-
AJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California under Judge Thomas J. Whelan with referral to
Judge Anthony J. Battaglia.
Representing the plaintiff is Robert L. Kenny of The Law Offices
of Robert L. Kenny, 401 West A Street, Suite 2300, San Diego, CA
92101, Phone: (619) 234-1616, Fax: (619) 234-1650.
Representing the company is Shannon Sweeney of Baker and
McKenzie, 101 West Broadway, Suite 1200, San Diego, CA 92101-
8213, Phone: (619) 236-1441, Fax: (619) 236-0429.
WILLIAMS COS: Feb. 9 Hearing Set for $311M Stock Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
will hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 9, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for
the proposed $311,000,000 settlement with the WMB Subclass in
the matter: "In Re: Williams Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-
CV-72-SPF (FHM)."
The settlement hearing will be held before Judge Stephen P.
Friot at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma, U.S. District Court, Page Belcher Federal Building,
333 West Fourth, Room 411, Tulsa, OK 74103.
Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before Jan. 19, 2007 and Dec. 22, 2006, respectively.
Claims forms must be submitted by Feb. 16, 2007.
The cases affect all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded common stock, 7.125% Notes due 2011, 7.875%
Notes due 2021 or FELINE PACS of The Williams Companies, Inc.
between July 24, 2000 and July 22, 2002, and were damaged
thereby.
The settlement provides for the payment of $311,000,000 in cash
by the settling defendants. The settlement resolves the
settlement class litigation against Williams and certain of its
officers and directors and its auditor, Ernst & Young, alleging
violations of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.
For more details, contact:
(1) In re: Williams Securities Litigation c/o The Garden
City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 91185,
Seattle, WA 98111-9285, Phone: 1-888-366-5344, Web
site: http://wmbsettlement.com/;and
(2) Blair A. Nicholas, Esq. of Berstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossman, LLP, 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300, San
Diego, CA 92130, Phone: (858) 793-0070, Web site:
http://www.blbglaw.com/.
WINN-DIXIE STORES: Suits Still Stayed Pending Bankruptcy Exit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two consolidated class actions in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida against Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.,
continue to remain stayed pending the conclusion of the
company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding.
In February 2004, several putative class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
against the company and certain present and former executive
officers alleging claims under the federal securities laws.
In March and April 2004, three other putative class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida against the company and certain present and former
executive officers and employees of the company alleging claims
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended relating to the company's Profit Sharing/401(k) Plan.
By separate court orders, both the securities laws claims and
the ERISA claims have been consolidated and will proceed as
separate, single actions. The consolidated complaint has not
yet been filed in either action.
On Feb. 21, 2005, the company and 23 of its subsidiaries
(debtors) filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under
Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy laws in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Middle District of Florida under the caption, "In
re: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-03817."
As a result of the company's Chapter 11 filing, the automatic
stay prevents the plaintiffs in the class actions mentioned
above from proceeding against the company.
Any such claims against the company are subordinated under the
Plan pursuant to the provision of 11 U.S.C. Section 510(b), and
will be treated in the same manner as the company's existing
shares, which will be cancelled without any distribution.
As to the individual co-defendants, on May 10, 2005, the court
entered an order staying both lawsuits as to all parties and all
issues in light of the company's Chapter 11 filing.
The court also denied the ERISA plaintiffs' motion to dismiss
the company as a defendant so that the case could continue
against the individual defendants, according to the company's
Oct. 25, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 20, 2006.
The consolidated securities suit is "In re: Winn-Dixie Stores,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-00071-HES-MCR,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger.
Plaintiff firms in this litigation 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) Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton,
FL), One Boca Place. 2255 Glades Road, Suite 421A, Boca
Raton, FL, 33431, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
561.750.3364;
(3) Chitwood & Harley, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2900
Promenade II, Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone: 888.873.3999;
(4) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com;
(5) Fruchter & Twersky, 60 East 42 Street, New York, NY,
10021, Phone: 212.687.6655;
(6) Glancy and Binkow, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, suite 311,
Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, E-mail:
info@glancylaw.com;
(7) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300;
(8) Vianale & Vianale LLP, The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355 Town
Center Road., Boca Raton, FL, 33486, Phone:
561.391.4900, Fax: 561.368.9274, E-mail:
info@vianalelaw.com;
(9) Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New
York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:
info@whhf.com; and
(10) 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;
and
(11) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com.
The ERISA suit is "In re: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. ERISA
Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-00194-HES-MCR," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge
Harvey E. Schlesinger.
Plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(i) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave., Suite
801, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212/682-1818;
(ii) Emerson Poynter LLP, 2228 Cottondale Ln., Suite 100
Little Rock, AR 72202-2037, Phone: 501/907-2555;
(iii) Federman & Sherwood, 120 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 2720
Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405/235-1560, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com; and
(iv) David B. Ferebee, P.A., 503 E. Monroe St.,
Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/358-7001, fax:
904/353-2756, E-mail: ferebeeatlaw@bellsouth.net.
Representing the defendants in both litigation are:
(a) King & Spalding LLP, 191 Peachtree St., Suite 4900,
Atlanta, GA 30303-1763, Phone: 404/572-4600; and
(b) Liles, Gavin, Costantino & Murphy, 225 Water St., Suite
1500, Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/634-1100, Fax:
904/634-1234.
New Securities Fraud Cases
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Ann D. White Files Securities Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ann D. White Law Offices has been retained to commence a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of securities of Marvell
Technology Group, Ltd. between Oct. 3, 2001 and Oct. 3, 2006.
The complaint alleges that Marvell and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by making false
and misleading statements and omissions concerning the
backdating of the grant of stock options to management.
Marvell has now said that its financial statements from June of
2000 to the present cannot be relied upon, and that it will be
restating financial results.
The practice of manipulating stock option dates not only
potentially lines the pockets of the executives, but here
resulted in the overstatement of Marvell's earnings during the
class period, and the under-booking of compensation expenses.
Under accounting rules, backdating an option grant is deemed the
payment of additional compensation and must be accounted for as
an expense, which Marvell failed to do.
On Oct. 3, 2006, the defendants announced that Marvell would be
forced to restate its financial statements to correct for the
backdating of stock options.
From the time that assertions were first made in the press that
Marvell's options practices might be questionable to the date of
this announcement, Marvell stock dropped from over $28 per share
to roughly $16 per share.
This case will be prosecuted on a contingent fee basis. All
motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff must be filed with the
Court by Dec. 5, 2006.
For further information, questions about the lawsuit contact Ann
White, Phone: 1-866-389-0274, E-mail: awhite@awhitelaw.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 * * *