/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/061121.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, November 21, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 231 Headlines AMERICAN ELECTRIC: To Appeal Dismissal of Ohio ERISA Breach Suit APOLLO GROUP: Stock Suit by Schoengold Assigned Judge, Case No. ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: $8M Settlement Money to Be Disbursed to Class AT&T INC: Calif. Court Allows Wiretapping Lawsuit to Proceed CALIFORNIA: Judge Wanger Hears Suit by Homeless Fresno Residents CALIFORNIA: Ventura County Seeks Review of Strip Search Lawsuit CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Faces Suits Over Intel-Gathering Activities CHICAGO SUN-TIMES: Groups Get Money From Circulation Fraud Deal CLEAR CHANNEL: Wechsler Harwood Files Shareholders' Suit in Tex. DELAWARE: Judge Mulls Alleged "Double Dipping" By State Lawmaker DELL INC: Keller Rohrback to File Amended 401(k) Complaint Jan. GENESIS MICROCHIP: Calif. Court Approves Securities Suit Deal GUND INC: Recalls Woodles Activity Toys for Choking Hazard H&R BLOCK: Ill. Judge Dismisses Suit Over Electronic Filing Fees HONORE MERCIER: Families of C. Difficile Victims Mull Lawsuit IRWIN MORTGAGE: Ind. Court Orders Notices Publication in "Silke" IRWIN MORTGAGE: Settles Md. Consumer Act Violations Lawsuit KENTUCKY: Deadline Set to Name Micro-City Suit Lead Plaintiff NEWMONT MINING: Parties Settle Colo. Consolidated Stock Lawsuit ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Butland" ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Still Faces Fla., Ga. Personal Injury Suits PAINT MANUFACTURERS: Calif. Counties Join Negligence Lawsuit PHILIPPINES: First Gentleman Faces Rights Violation Lawsuit PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Annuities Case Dismissed Without Prejudice PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Eighth Circuit Affirms Nixing of "Sofonia" PUBLIX SUPER: Fla. Woman Files Suit Over Benzene in Soda Drinks SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Appeals Court Affirms Insurance Entitlement SCOTT ELECTRIC: Recalls Fake Circuit Breakers Due To Fire Hazard THQ INC: Faces Litigation Over Back-Dated Stock Option Grants TOWN SPORTS: Mediation ongoing in Overtime Wage Lawsuit in N.Y. WINDOW BLINDS CASES: Big Lots Requests Dismissal from Ill. Suit ZHONE TECHNOLOGIES: N.J. Court Approves Tellium Suit Settlement New Securities Fraud Cases BODISEN BIOTECH: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing JABIL CIRCUIT: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Suit in N.Y. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Lockridge Grindal Files Stock Suit in Calif. NATURAL HEALTH: Kahn Gauthier Announces Securities Suit Filing ********* AMERICAN ELECTRIC: To Appeal Dismissal of Ohio ERISA Breach Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff in a suit alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act by American Electric Power filed a notice to appeal the denial of class certification to the suit by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In the fourth quarter of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003, three putative class action lawsuits were filed against AEP, certain executives and AEP's ERISA Plan Administrator alleging violations of ERISA in the selection of AEP stock as an investment alternative and in the allocation of assets to AEP stock. Defendants are American Electric Power Co., Inc., American Electric Power Service Corp., E. Linn Draper, Jr., and Thomas V. Shockley, III. In July 2006, the Court entered judgment denying plaintiff's motion for class certification and dismissing all claims without prejudice. In August 2006, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Briefing of this appeal is scheduled for completion in December 2006. The suit is "Bridges v. American Electric Po, et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-00067-ALM-MRA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Algenon L. Marbley with referral to Judge Mark R. Abel. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Edwin J. Mills of Stull, Stull and Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-687-7230, E- mail: ssbny@aol.com; (2) James Edward Arnold of Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott, 471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400, Columbus, OH 43215, Phone: 614-469-1400, E-mail: jarnold@cpaslaw.com; and (3) Joseph J. Braun of Strauss & Troy - 1, The Federal Reserve Building, 150 E Fourth Street, 4th Floor, Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018, Phone: 513-621-2120, E-mail: jjbraun@strausstroy.com. Representing the defendants are Michael J. Chepiga, Charlie L. Divine, Joseph M. McLaughlin, Issa Mikel and George S. Wang of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, 425 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017-3954, Phone: 212-455-2000, Fax: 212-455-2502, Web site: http://www.stblaw.com/. APOLLO GROUP: Stock Suit by Schoengold Assigned Judge, Case No. --------------------------------------------------------------- The suit filed by the law firm of Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C. against Apollo Group on behalf of International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds is assigned to District Judge Robert C. Broomfield (Case No. 06- 2674-PHX-RCB). On Nov. 2, filed a class action against Apollo Group Inc. and certain key officers and/or directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Since the filing, Apollo has announced that a restatement of its historical financial statements will be certain "to record additional charges for compensation expenses" relating to its stock options granting practices. On Oct.18, the company announced a restatement could be "possible." In addition, the company also announced that its Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer Kenda B. Gonzales has resigned and Chief Accounting Officer Dan Bachus has been placed on "administrative leave." Both Ms. Gonzales an M. Bachus are named as individual defendants in the complaint. At its recent Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company said it expects to restate financial results at least as far back as 2001 and that it may face "significant" tax liability. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare Funds have brought the current lawsuit on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Apollo securities during the period between Nov. 28, 2001 and Oct. 18, 2006. The deadline to seek lead plaintiff status in thw case expires Jan. 2, 2007. ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: $8M Settlement Money to Be Disbursed to Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nearly $8 million in settlement checks are being distributed this month to descendants of victims of the Armenian genocide as part of a $20 million global settlement with New York Life Insurance Co. in New York, according to BestWire Services. The suit is "Martin Marootian, et al. v. New York Life Insurance Company, Case No. C99-12073 CAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The class action alleged the company owed unpaid life insurance benefits to the class. In February 2004, a $20 million settlement was approved to settle the case. The settlement board reviewed claims and verified 2,515 that could be traced legitimately to policies sold by New York Life. The settlement includes: -- Claim fund: $11 million to pay class representatives and pay the individual class claims; -- The Unclaimed Benefits Fund of $3 million for contributions to Armenian charitable organizations; -- Administrative Fund: $2 million toward the cost of administering the settlement; -- Attorney Fee Fund: $4 million to class counsel as attorney fees and costs. U.S. descendents will collect $2.6 million of the settlement proceeds, while descendents living in Armenia will receive $3.4 million. The remaining $2 million will be distributed among descendents living in 24 other countries, according to the report. Settlement Administrator Marootian v. New York Class Action Settlement P.O. Box 5053 Portland, Oregon 97208-5053 Class Counsels: Vartkes Yeghiayan, Esq. Law Offices of Vartkes Yeghiayan 535 North Brand Boulevard, Glendale, California 91203 New York Life's Counsel John C. Holmes, Esq., Barger & Wolen LLP, 633 West Fifth St., 47th Floor, Los Angeles California 90071 On the Net: http://www.armenianinsurancesettlement.com AT&T INC: Calif. Court Allows Wiretapping Lawsuit to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California allowed a class action to proceed against AT&T Inc. and other telecommunications carriers accused of unlawfully providing assistance to the National Security Agency's wiretapping program, The Jurist reports. A motion to dismiss the case is on appeal before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 31, the U.S. government petitioned the court for permission to appeal the district court's order denying the government's motion to dismiss the action. It said that the case warrants an immediate appeal because the district court has, in a highly unusual action, overruled the government's assertion of the state secrets privilege, and has thereby placed at risk particularly sensitive national security interests. The question is presented for appeal is whether the district court erred in rejecting an assertion of the state secrets privilege by the director of National Intelligence, and therefore in denying the government's motion to dismiss this action. Case Background Plaintiffs allege that AT&T and its holding company, AT&T Inc., are collaborating with the National Security Agency in a massive warrantless surveillance program that illegally tracks the domestic and foreign communications and communication records of millions of Americans. The first amended complaint, filed on Feb. 22, 2006, claims that AT&T and AT&T Inc. have committed violations of: -- the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (acting as agents or instruments of the government) by illegally intercepting, disclosing, divulging and/or using plaintiffs' communications; -- Section 109 of Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 USC SS 1809, by engaging in illegal electronic surveillance of plaintiffs' communications under color of law; -- Section 802 of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended by section 101 of Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), 18 USC SS 2511(1)(a), (1)(c), (1)(d) and (3)(a), by illegally intercepting, disclosing, using and/or divulging plaintiffs' communications; -- Section 705 of Title VII of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 USC S 605, by unauthorized divulgence and/or publication of plaintiffs' communications; -- Section 201 of Title II of the ECPA (Stored Communications Act), as amended, 18 USC SS 2702(a)(1) and (a)(2), by illegally divulging the contents of plaintiffs' communications; -- Section 201 of the Stored Communications Act, as amended by section 212 of Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act, 18 USC SS 2702(a)(3), by illegally divulging records concerning plaintiffs' communications to a governmental entity and (7) California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal Bus & Prof Code SS 17200 et seq, by engaging in unfair, unlawful and deceptive business practices. The complaint seeks certification of a class action and redress through statutory damages, punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement and injunctive and declaratory relief. Since the filing of this complaint, 20 additional class actions have been filed in various jurisdictions that allege substantially the same claims. All 21 pending lawsuits have been consolidated under the jurisdiction of a single court, namely the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, before the judge presiding over the Hepting case. The case is consolidated as: "In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation, MDL-1791." To date, a small number of plaintiffs have objected to this consolidation and their objections are pending before the joint panel on multidistrict litigation. Defendant Verizon Communications Inc. and two of its affiliates moved the panel, pursuant to section 1407 of the U.S. Judicial Code, for an order centralizing the MDL-1791 actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In one of these 21 cases, "Terkel v. AT&T Corp. and Illinois Bell," (filed with the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois), a purported class action filed on behalf of defendants' Illinois customers, the court, on July 25, 2006, dismissed the case, acknowledging that the U.S. government's state secrets privilege prohibited the plaintiffs' case from proceeding. The Terkel case involved allegations that the defendants supplied the U.S. government with calling records data in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act but did not allege interception of communications. The suit is "In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation, MDL-1791" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Vaughn R. Walker. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Cindy Ann Cohn of Electronic Frontier Foundation, 454 Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110, Phone: 415- 436-9333 x 108, Fax: (415) 436-9993, E-mail: cindy@eff.org; and (2) Jeff D. Friedman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288- 4534, E-mail: JFriedman@lerachlaw.com. Representing the defendants are: Bruce A. Ericson and Jacob R. Sorensen of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, 50 Fremont St., Post Office Box 7880, San Francisco, CA 94120-7880, Phone: (415) 983-1000, Fax: (415) 983-1200, E-mail: bruce.ericson@pillsburylaw.com and jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com. CALIFORNIA: Judge Wanger Hears Suit by Homeless Fresno Residents ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Oliver Wanger of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California is hearing arguments in a class-action complaint over the alleged illegal confiscation and destruction of personal property of homeless people in Fresno, The Fresno Bee reports. Judge Wanger issued a temporary order in October requiring Fresno to keep personal belongings so homeless residents can reclaim them when homeless settlements are torn down. In October, Fresno was named as a defendant in a lawsuit over allegations that work crews illegally confiscated and destroyed their personal property when they tore down makeshift settlements this year (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 20, 2006). The suit, "Kincaid, et al. v. City Of Fresno, et al.," was filed on behalf six homeless Fresno residents who claim that their civil rights were violated. It seeks a permanent ban on the removal of personal belongings during similar city actions, a judgment that the practice violates state and federal constitutional provisions and unspecified monetary damages for destruction of property. The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California is one of two organizations that filed the suit on Oct. 17, 2006. The other is the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights. Other defendants named in the lawsuit are: -- California Department of Transportation, -- Fresno Mayor Alan Autry, -- Police Chief Jerry Dyer, -- Police Capt. Greg Garner, -- Caltrans director Will Kempton, and -- other city employees. According to the suit, "for more than a year, defendants have engaged in an ongoing and continuing policy and practice of raids on those Fresno residents who are unsheltered, in which they take and destroy the personal property of these individuals." The suit claims that the city violated the homeless residents' Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, their 14th Amendment rights to due process and equal protection under the law, and similar violations of the state constitution. Attorneys for the homeless said that property was seized without giving those residents a chance to reclaim it and the city rarely gave notice that it was coming. The hearing will conclude on Nov. 22, and Judge Wanger has indicated that he will issue a ruling that same day, according to the report. The suit is "Kincaid, et al. v. City Of Fresno, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01445-OWW-SMS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California under Judge Oliver W. Wanger with referral to Judge Sandra M. Snyder. Representing the plaintiff is Paul Alexander of Heller Ehrman, LLP, 275 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025-3506, Phone: (650) 324-7000 or 7015, Fax: (650) 324-0638, E-mail: paul.alexander@hellerehrman.com. Representing the defendants are James B. Betts of Betts & Wright, P.O. Box 28550, Fresno, Ca 93729, Phone: (559) 438-8500, Fax: (559) 438-6959, E-mail: bettswrightlaw@sbcglobal.net. CALIFORNIA: Ventura County Seeks Review of Strip Search Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers representing Ventura County in a civil case challenging its strip search policy have filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court for review of the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that finds the policy unconstitutional, The Ventura County Star reports. The lawyers contends that the jail's strip-search policy is modeled on state laws and three Ninth Circuit decisions. It is also asking the Supreme Court to strike down the appeals court's decision. The justices set a case conference for Nov. 21. The suit was brought on behalf of Noelle Way, former bartender, who was arrested by a Ventura police officer in September 2000 on suspicions of being under the influence of a controlled substance, a misdemeanor. The officer took her to Ventura County Jail, where she went through the booking process, which, following jail security policy, included a strip search (Class Action Reporter, July 28, 2006). Ms. Way tested negative for drugs, bailed out of jail and was never charged. In 2001, she sued the county over the strip search policy in a class action, "Noelle Way v. Ventura County, et al., Case No. 2:01-cv-05401-CBM-E." Subsequently, a U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that a "blanket strip search" policy violated Ms. Way's Fourth Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure. The Ninth Circuit in San Francisco upheld that decision in a 16-page ruling in April. The suit is "Noelle Way v. Ventura County, et al., Case No. 2:01-cv-05401-CBM-E," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Consuelo B. Marshall with referral to Judge Charles F. Eick. Representing the plaintiffs is Earnest C.S. Bell, Earnest C.S. Bell Law Offices, 3897 Market St., Ventura, CA 93003, Phone: 805-650-5458, Fax: 805-650-3778. Representing the defendants are Jeffrey Held and Alan E. Wisotsky of Alan E. Wisotsky Law Offices, 300 Esplanade Dr., Ste. 1500, Oxnard, CA 93036, Phone: 805-278-0920, Fax: 805-278- 0289. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Faces Suits Over Intel-Gathering Activities --------------------------------------------------------------- Cellco Partnership and a number of other telecommunications companies is a defendant in a consolidated class action concerning alleged participation in intelligence-gathering activities. These activities are allegedly carried out by the federal government, at the direction of the U.S. President, as part of the government's post-September 11 program to prevent terrorist attacks. Plaintiffs generally allege that Verizon Wireless has participated by permitting the government to gain access to the content of its subscribers' telephone calls and/or records concerning those calls and that such action violates federal and/or state constitutional and statutory law. On Aug. 9, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that these actions be transferred, consolidated and coordinated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Panel subsequently ordered that a number of "tag along" actions also be transferred to the Northern District of California. That court entered an administrative stay of all proceedings before it on Sept. 1, 2006, pending issuance of a consolidated case management order. Motions to set a case management order are pending before the court. Verizon Wireless has not answered or otherwise responded to any of the complaints. Bedminster, New Jersey-based Cellco Partnership, -- http://www.verizonwireless.com/-- which does business as Verizon Wireless, serves nearly 55 million customers nationwide and offers mobile voice services, including push-to-talk walkie- talkie style service. Other service offerings include text and picture messaging, multimedia content, and mobile Web services. CHICAGO SUN-TIMES: Groups Get Money From Circulation Fraud Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Legal aid and other charitable groups are set to receive $4.9 million from the settlement of a circulation fraud scandal class action that advertisers filed against The Chicago Sun-Times in 2004. According to court officlas, Chicago Sun-Times officials agreed to pay $32 million to settle claims that the newspaper had inflated circulation figures and, as a result, overcharged advertisers. To compensate advertisers who paid for inflated circulation, The Chicago Sun-Times has paid out most of the $24.5 million in cash and $7.3 million in free or discounted ads. However, not all of the money could be distributed to the class members, leaving the court with discretion as to how best to use the money. Thus, on Nov. 15, 2006, Judge Bernetta Bush of the Cook County Circuit Court approved a deal that pays $2 million each to the Chicago Bar Foundation and the Abraham Lincoln Marovitz Lend-a- Hand Program and lesser amounts to eight other groups. Others receiving grants ranging from $50,000 to $250,000 each include legal programs conducted by DePaul and Loyola Universities; research at Children's Memorial Hospital; and the Teach For America program. CLEAR CHANNEL: Wechsler Harwood Files Shareholders' Suit in Tex. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wechsler Harwood, LLP, announces that a class action has been commenced in a Texas state court on behalf of all shareholders of Clear Channel Communications, Inc. The complaint charges Clear Channel and its directors with breach of fiduciary duties in connection with taking Clear Channel private to the detriment of its shareholders and the benefit of insiders, especially members of the Mays family, its dominant shareholders and board members. The plaintiff seeks an injunction against the going private transaction, or, should the transaction be completed, damages on behalf of Clear Channel's shareholders. For more details, contact Robert I. Harwood of Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022, Phone: 877- 935-7400, E-mail: rharwood@whesq.com, Web site: http://www.whesq.com. DELAWARE: Judge Mulls Alleged "Double Dipping" By State Lawmaker ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court for the State of Delaware recently heard a purported class action over dual-employment public employees, The Associated Press reports. Newark resident Robert Reeder filed the suit, alleging that state Rep. Nancy Wagner, R-Dover, has billed the Capital School District, where she is a school-to-work coordinator, for time spent on legislative duties. Specifically, Mr. Reeder alleges that Rep. Wagner has engaged in illegal "double dipping," being paid by the school district and the legislature for the same work hours. Mr. Reeder's complaint cites four specific instances in which he said Rep. Wagner billed the district for planning periods that she actually spent attending legislative committee meetings, for which she was compensated as a member of the General Assembly. The case was filed as a class action based on the advice of a court employee, according to Mr. Reeder, who is representing himself. Mr. Reeder also pointed out that he filed the lawsuit only after the attorney general's office, responding to his request for clarification of a 1995 opinion on dual-employment public employees, said it would not disclose whether legal action is warranted based on a citizen's complaint. The initial complaint asked the court to order Rep. Wagner to return any money she received improperly to the state treasury. Conceding that he may not have the standing to demand such relief, Mr. Reeder asked the court for a summary judgment on the impropriety of Rep. Wagner's alleged actions. However, in asking Judge Richard Cooch to dismiss the complaint, attorney John Brady argued that Mr. Reeder has no standing to bring a lawsuit. DELL INC: Keller Rohrback to File Amended 401(k) Complaint Jan. --------------------------------------------------------------- Keller Rohrback, LLP is broadening its investigation of Dell Inc. in light of the company's recent announcement that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission had commenced a formal investigation into certain accounting and financial reporting matters at Dell. In August, the company had disclosed it was the subject of an informal SEC investigation for unspecified accounting issues. Additionally, Keller Rohrback said that it would file an amended complaint on January 31, 2007, pursuant to a court order signed on November 16, 2006. On Oct. 4, Keller Rohrback L.L.P. initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas against Dell and various defendants on behalf of the participants and beneficiaries of the Dell Inc. 401(k) Plan. The complaint alleges that Dell and the various defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to Plan participants by: -- failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's assets; -- failing to provide participants with complete, accurate and material information concerning the problems with Dell's business and financial condition necessary for Participants to make informed decisions concerning the prudence of directing the Plan to invest in the Dell stock fund; and -- failing to appoint and monitor the performance of the other fiduciaries. For more information on the case, contact Jennifer Tuato'o, Erin Riley, Derek Loeser or Lynn Sarko all of Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Phone: (800) 776-6044, E-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com, Website: http://www.erisafraud.com. GENESIS MICROCHIP: Calif. Court Approves Securities Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the class action, "Kuehbeck v. Genesis Microchip, et al., Case No. 02-CV- 05344." In November 2002, a putative securities class action was filed against the company, former Chief Executive Officer Amnon Fisher, and former Interim Chief Executive Officer Eric Erdman. The suit was amended in July 2003 to include Executive Vice President Anders Frisk. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against Genesis and individual defendants, and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock between April 29, 2002 and June 14, 2002. In July 2005, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the case, with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, on March 2006, parties signed an agreement to settle the case. In August 2006, the court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement. The suit is "Kuehbeck v. Genesis Microchip Inc., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-05344-JSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Jeffrey S. White. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) William M. Audet of Alexander, Hawes & Audet, LLP, 300 Montgomery Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415/982-1776, Fax: 415/576-1776, E-mail: waudet@alexanderlaw.com; (2) Patricia I. Avery of Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-759-4600, Fax: 212-486-2093, E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com; and (3) Ryan M. Hagan of Alexander Hawes & Audet, LLP, 152 North Third Street, Suite 600, San Jose, CA 95112, Phone: 408-289-1776, Fax: 408-287-1776, E-mail: rhagan@alexanderlaw.com. Representing the defendants is Nina F. Locker, Ignacio E. Salceda and Bahram Seyedin-Noor of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail: nlocker@wsgr.com, isalceda@wsgr.com and bnoor@wsgr.com. GUND INC: Recalls Woodles Activity Toys for Choking Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------- Gund Inc., of Edison, New Jersey, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 18,900 units of Baby Gund Woodles Activity Toys. The company said the wooden rings on the stuffed toy could break, posing a small parts choking hazard to young children. Gund has received four reports from consumers about the wooden rings on the toys breaking, including one report of a child mouthing small pieces. No injuries were reported. The product is a baby activity toy available in various animal shapes. It consists of a soft, stuffed body with a rattle component inside the body and two smooth wooden rings attached to loops at the end of each arm. The product is available in four different styles: -- Rumba Lion Activity Toy with style number 58553; -- Gazoo Giraffe Activity Toy with style number 58554; -- Wango Horse Activity Toy with style number 58555; and -- Tippy Cow Activity Toy with style number 58556. "Woodles" and the style number are located on the sewn-in label. Pictures of the recalled Woodles activity toys: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07030b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07030a.jpg These recalled "Woodles" activity toys were manufactured in Vietnam and are being sold by independent specialty toy stores nationwide and in Canada from June 2005 through April 2006 for about $12. Consumers are advised to stop using these toys immediately, and contact Gund for a free replacement product. For more information, call Gund at (800) 448 4863 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or e-mail: woodles@gund.com. Information about this recall also can be found on the firm's Web site: http://www.gund.com. H&R BLOCK: Ill. Judge Dismisses Suit Over Electronic Filing Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Madison County Circuit Court in Illinois dismissed a class action filed against H&R Block over allegations it unfairly charged a fee for electronically filing customers' tax returns, Ann Knef of The Madison County Record reports. In a dismissal order dated Nov. 9, 2006, Judge Don Weber wrote, "Caveat Emptor--Let the buyer beware." He explains that each plaintiff could have accepted the requirement of electronic filing or rejected it. Judge Weber thus pointed out that as long as the fee was disclosed and as long as it was not clearly unreasonable, there can be no claim of deception or unfairness in the transaction. Madison County resident Lori Marshall filed the suit in 2003, claiming that she was "victimized" by the company's deceptive practice because she placed her trust in H&R Block's superior knowledge of tax preparation. The Lakin Law Firm of Wood River, Freed & Weiss of Chicago and Macey Chern & Diab of Chicago are representing Ms. Marshall in the case. According to the suit, the electronic filing fee ranged from $10 to more than $30. It alleges that H&R Block fails to inform customers that tax returns could be filed for free using an IRS program, or for the mere price of a stamp. Instead, the suit alleges that H&R Block deceptively sells this free service under the guise that it is an exclusive and unique service that it offers. It also alleges that the company likewise attempts to increase profits by cramming charges for electronic filing fees onto the bills of unsuspecting clients. In essence, Ms. Marshall alleged the acts and omissions of H&R Block constituted breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Act. The suit had sought to rescind plaintiffs' contracts and to be reimbursed from the profits and proceeds generated from the charges. For more details, contact The Lakin Law Firm, P.C., 300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229, Wood River, Illinois 62095-0229 (Madison Co.), Phone: 618-254-1127, Telecopier: 618-254-0193. HONORE MERCIER: Families of C. Difficile Victims Mull Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Honore Mercier Hospital in St. Hyacinthe in Canada could face a class action by families of C. difficile victims. According to The Gazette, at least three families have already approached lawyer Jean-Pierre Menard, who specializes in medical law, to possibly file a collective action for negligence that led to death. Twelve deaths have been reported after a total of 31 people contracted the disease at the hospital, the report said. The families of the victims, however, still have to wait for a coroner's report next spring to decide whether there are grounds for a class action. IRWIN MORTGAGE: Ind. Court Orders Notices Publication in "Silke" ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Indiana Superior Court for Marion County ordered the publication of class notices for the suit, "Silke v. Irwin Mortgage Corp.," which was filed against Irwin Mortgage Corp., formerly Inland Mortgage Corp., an indirect subsidiary of Irwin Financial Corp. The complaint, which named the company as a defendant in April 2003, alleges that the company charged a document preparation fee in violation of Indiana law for services performed by clerical personnel in completing legal documents related to mortgage loans. The company filed an answer on Jun. 11, 2003 and a motion for summary judgment on Oct. 27, 2003. On Jun. 18, 2004, the court certified a plaintiff class consisting of Indiana borrowers who were allegedly charged the fee by the company at any time after Apr. 14, 1997. This date was later clarified by stipulation of the parties to be Apr. 17, 1997. In November 2004, the court heard arguments on the company's motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs' motion seeking to send out class notice. On Feb. 23, 2006, the court ordered that class notice be mailed. On Sept. 7, 2006, the court ordered one-time publication of class notice in Indiana newspapers. IRWIN MORTGAGE: Settles Md. Consumer Act Violations Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Parties in a class action filed against subsidiaries of Irwin Mortgage Corp. alleging violations of the Maryland Mortgage Lending Laws and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act reached agreement to settle the suit. The suit is "White v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company and Irwin Home Equity Corp. It was filed on January 5, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. On Oct. 13, 2006, the parties tentatively agreed to settle this matter for a nonmaterial amount. KENTUCKY: Deadline Set to Name Micro-City Suit Lead Plaintiff ------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge William O. Bertelsman on Nov. 17 gave plaintiff attorneys in a class action over sexual abuses by a former youth program coordinator at the Lexington-Fayette Urban County 30 days to name their representative, according to The Herald-Leader. Ron Berry, a founder of a youth jobs program called Micro-City Government, was convicted of sodomy charges in 2000. The suit was filed in 1998. It accuses the city and several former city officials of ignoring abuses by Mr. Berry, and continuing to fund the now-defunct program despite it. Lawyers vying to become lead lawyer for more than 100 alleged victims are Barbara Bonar of Covington and Lexington attorneys William Huffman, James Morris of Morris & Morris and Gayle Slaughter. Judge Bertelsman gave them nine months to begin finding information about the victims that would support a certification of the suit as a class action. NEWMONT MINING: Parties Settle Colo. Consolidated Stock Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- A tentative settlement was reached for a consolidated securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against Newmont Mining Corp., according to its Nov. 1, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. On June 8, 2005, UFCW Local 880 & Retail Food Employers Joint Pension Fund filed a putative class action against the company and Wayne W. Murdy, Pierre Lassonde and Bruce D. Hansen. Zoe Myerson filed similar purported class actions in the same court on June 15, 2005; John S. Chapman filed his on June 20, 2005. Each of these complaints alleges, among other things, that the company and the individual defendants violated certain antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws by failing to disclose alleged operating deficiencies. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. In November 2005, the court consolidated these cases and, in March 2006, appointed a lead plaintiff. In April 2006, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint naming David Francisco, Russell Ball, Thomas Enos and Robert Gallagher as additional defendants. It alleged, among other things, that Newmont and the individual defendants violated certain antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws by failing to disclose alleged operating deficiencies and sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On Oct. 20, 2006, lead plaintiff, on behalf of a settlement class consisting of all purchasers of Newmont securities from Nov. 1, 2003, through and including March 23, 2006 (except defendants and certain related persons), entered into a stipulation of settlement with defendants. If approved by the court, the settlement: -- would release all claims asserted, or that could have been asserted in the action; -- would provide for a payment by Newmont of $15 million to be distributed to class members pursuant to a plan of allocation developed by lead plaintiff; and -- would provide that all defendants deny any wrongdoing or liability with respect to the settled matters. The suit is "UFCW Local 880-Retail Food Employers Joint Pension Fund v. Newmont Mining Corp., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01046- MSK-BNB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Marcia S. Krieger with referral to Judge Boyd N. Boland. Representing the plaintiffs are Darby K. Kennedy and Kip Brian Shuman of Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO 80218-1417, U.S.A, Phone: 303-861-3003, Fax: 303-830-6920, E- mail: dkennedy@dyershuman.com and KShuman@DyerShuman.com. Representing the defendants are, Pamela Robillard Mackey and Lee David Foreman of Haddon, Morgan, Mueller, Jordan, Mackey & Foreman, PC, 150 East 10th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203, U.S.A, Phone: 303-831-7364, Fax: 303-832-2628, E-mail: pmackey@hmflaw.com and lforeman@hmflaw.com. ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Butland" ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Florida Second District Court of Appeals denied class-action status for the purported class action, "Mark and Christine Butland et al. v. Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc., et al." The company, a subsidiary of Rollins, Inc., was a named as defendant in the case, which was filed in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Tampa, Florida on March 1999. The suit seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. The court ruled in early April 2002, certifying the class action against Orkin. Orkin appealed this ruling to the Florida Second District Court of Appeals, which remanded the case back to the trial court for further findings. In December 2004 the court issued a new ruling certifying the class action. Orkin appealed this new ruling to the Florida Second District Court of Appeals. In June 2006, the Florida Second District Court of Appeals issued a ruling denying certification of the class. Plaintiffs have moved for a rehearing from the Florida Second District Court of Appeals, which Orkin has opposed, according to its Oct. 31, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. Orkin, Inc. -- http://www.orkin.com-- is an industry leader in essential pest control services and protection against termite damage, rodents and insects in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Panama and Costa Rica. ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Still Faces Fla., Ga. Personal Injury Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Orkin Exterminating Co. remains a defendant in lawsuits that allege the company, damaged plaintiffs as a result of its services. Some lawsuits or arbitrations have been filed, including, "Ernest W. Warren and Dolores G. Warren, et al. v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., et al.," and "Francis D. Petsch, et al. v. Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc., et al.," in which the plaintiffs are seeking certification of a class. The cases originate in Georgia and Florida. In Warren, the Superior Court of Cobb County, Marietta, Georgia, ruled in August 2006, certifying the class action against Orkin. Orkin is appealing this ruling to the Georgia Court of Appeals, according to its Oct. 31, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. Orkin, Inc. -- http://www.orkin.com-- is an industry leader in essential pest control services and protection against termite damage, rodents and insects in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Panama and Costa Rica. PAINT MANUFACTURERS: Calif. Counties Join Negligence Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Other counties are joining Santa Clara County in a class action filed against paint companies in California for causing and concealing health hazards of lead-containing paint, the RedNova reports. The suit was filed by Santa Clara county in Superior Court in 2000. It alleges that several manufacturers and the Lead Industries Association promoted the sale of lead-based paint for decades while disregarding the health risks to children. The suit alleges a public nuisance, liability, fraud and negligence, and demands the companies remove paint from buildings and pay restitution. Named plaintiffs in the suit are Alameda, Solano and Santa Cruz counties, the city and county of San Francisco and the city of Oakland, along with their unified school districts, housing authorities and Oakland's redevelopment agency. Recently, Monterey and San Mateo counties joined the suit. Defendants in the case include: -- Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO), -- NL Industries Inc., -- American Cyanamid Co., -- ConAgra Grocery Products Cos., -- E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company (DuPont), -- Millenium Inorganic Chemicals Inc., -- The Sherwin-Williams Company and O'Brien Corporation In 2003, the Santa Clara County Superior Judge Jack Komar dismissed the suit saying that the public nuisance claim could not be filed on a class action basis. In March 2006, the California 6th District Court of Appeals reinstated the suit. Santa Clara County's complaint will be revised to include the new plaintiffs and to conform to the parameters set by the appeals court, said Bruce Simon, a Burlingame attorney at Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy -- http://www.cpsmlaw.com/-- who is assisting with the case. PHILIPPINES: First Gentleman Faces Rights Violation Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- University of the Philippines law professor Harry Roque, on behalf of journalists, initiated a class action against the Philippines' first gentleman, Mike Arroyo, the South China Morning Post reports. The suit claims Mr. Arroyo breached their rights under the civil code, and will seek cash damages. Professor Roque called the planned suit "unprecedented." He said they intended to make Mr. Arroyo "liable for damages" for violating the Philippines Civil Code. According to Prof. Roque, it is Article 32, in particular, that makes "any public officer or employee, or any private individual" liable for damages if he "directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person including the freedom to write for the press or maintain a periodical publication." Prof. Roque, who prepared the petition, said all but one of the 43 journalists being sued for libel by Mr. Arroyo had agreed to sign up to the lawsuit. "When he sued the 43 journalists, it was Mr. Arroyo's intention in fact to chill the freedom of the press," Professor Roque said. The high number of libel suits filed by Mr Arroyo showed "it is not only an act directly against specific individuals but an act directed to intimidate the entire profession," the report said. Mr. Arroyo's lawyer, Ruy Rondain, dismissed the suit, saying, "I can't imagine what course of action they might have against him because he hasn't done anything that violates any of their civil, political or criminal rights." But the sued journalists said they were serious about standing up for press freedom. Mr. Roque said the 42 litigants would publicly sign the petition and it would be filed next week. Other journalists who have no pending libel cases against them by Mr. Arroyo were also expected to sign up. ABS-CBN journalist Ricky Carandang said he was signing up as "I think Mr. Arroyo's actions have gone beyond that of an aggrieved person seeking redress and they are trying to redefine libel." He was then business editor at Newsbreak when it printed an article alleging the first family hid assets in the United States. Newsbreak editor-in-chief Marites Vitug confirmed she and six other staff members of the investigative news magazine who have pending libel suits would join in, according to the report. "We really want to make a statement that the first gentleman is using libel not reasonably but to stop reporting about him," she said. PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Annuities Case Dismissed Without Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a class action filed against Principal Financial Group, Inc., Principal Life Insurance Co. and Principal Financial Services, Inc., dismissed their case without prejudice. The lawsuit, "Dykes et al v. Principal Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-00599-RP-TJS," was filed against the defendants on Oct. 28, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The claims and allegations in the lawsuit were substantially the same as those of the class action, "Sofonia v. Principal Life Insurance Company et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-00040-RP-TJS." Filed on Dec. 23, 2004, "Sofonia" was filed in Iowa state court against the defendants on behalf of a proposed class comprised of the settlement class in the Principal Life sales practices class action settlement, which was approved in April 2001 by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. "Sofonia" claims that the treatment of the settlement costs of that sales practices litigation in relation to the allocation of demutualization consideration to Principal Life policyholders was inappropriate. Demutualization allocation was done pursuant to the terms of a plan of demutualization approved by the policyholders in July 2001 and Insurance Commissioner of the State of Iowa in August 2001. In "Dykes" though the proposed class was limited to those members of the settlement class in the Principal Life sales practices class action settlement who did not own annuities and who received demutualization consideration in the form of cash under the plan of demutualization. However, on March 17, 2006, plaintiff dismissed the case without prejudice, according to its Nov. 1, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. The suit is "Dykes et al v. Principal Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-00599-RP-TJS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa under Judge Robert W. Pratt with referral to Judge Thomas J. Shields. Representing the plaintiffs is E. Ralph Walker of Baudino Law Group, PLC, 2600 Grand Avenue, Suite 300, Des Moines, IA 50312, Phone: 515 282 1010, Fax: 282 1066, E-mail: walker@baudino.com. Representing the defendants is Carl Micarelli of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, 919 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212 909 6000, Fax: 212 909 6836, E-mail: cmicarelli@debevoise.com. PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Eighth Circuit Affirms Nixing of "Sofonia" --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa of the sales practices class action filed against Principal Financial Group, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries, Principal Life Insurance Company and Principal Financial Services, Inc. On Dec. 23, 2004, a lawsuit was filed in Iowa state court against the defendants on behalf of a proposed class comprised of the settlement class in the Principal Life sales practices class action settlement, which was approved in April 2001 by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The suit, "Sofonia v. Principal Life Insurance Company, et al.," claims that the treatment of the settlement costs of that sales practices litigation in relation to the allocation of demutualization consideration to Principal Life policyholders was inappropriate. Demutualization allocation was done pursuant to the terms of a plan of demutualization approved by the policyholders in July 2001 and Insurance Commissioner of the State of Iowa in August 2001. The lawsuit further claims that such allocation was not accurately described to policyholders during the demutualization process and is a breach of the sales practices settlement. On Jan. 27, 2005, the Company filed a notice to remove the action from state court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. On Jul. 22, 2005, the plaintiff's motion to remand the action to state court was denied, and the company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit was granted. On Sept. 21, 2005, the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment was denied. On Oct. 4, 2005, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Oral argument was held on April 20, 2006. On Oct. 20, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the company's motion to dismiss, according to its Nov. 1, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. The suit is "Sofonia v. Principal Life Insurance Company et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-00040-RP-TJS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa under Judge Robert W. Pratt. Representing the plaintiffs is David J. Darrell of the Baudino Law Group, PLC, 2600 Grand Avenue, Suite 300, Des Moines, IA 50312, Phone: 515 282 1010, Fax: 515 282 1066, E-mail: darrell@baudino.com. Representing the company are: (1) Brian L. Campbell of Faegre & Benson - DM, 801 Grand Avenue, Suite 3100, Des Moines, IA 50309-8002, Phone: 515 248 9000, Fax: 515 248 9010, E-mail: bcampbell@faegre.com; and (2) Carl Micarelli of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, 919 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212 909 6000, Fax: 212 909 6836, E-mail: cmicarelli@debevoise.com. PUBLIX SUPER: Fla. Woman Files Suit Over Benzene in Soda Drinks --------------------------------------------------------------- Publix Super Markets, Inc., faces a purported class action in Tallahassee, Florida, claiming that two of its store-brand sodas contain unsafe levels of the carcinogen benzene, according to Kyle Kennedy of The Ledger. Lisbeth Gordon filed the suit on Nov. 16, 2006. She states in the suit that she is a regular shopper at Publix and often purchases Publix Diet Lemon-Lime and Publix Grape sodas. According to Tim Howard, Ms. Gordon's attorney, independent testing has verified unsafe levels of benzene in the two aforementioned store-brand sodas and other beverages carried by Lakeland-based Publix. In addition, Mr. Howard states in the complaint that further independent testing has revealed unsafe benzene levels in numerous beverages sold by Publix, including Pepsi Diet Wild Cherry, Tropicana Orangeade, Sunny Delight Citrus Punch, Shasta Orange, and the two Publix-brand sodas. Mr. Howard pointed out that his client has not yet suffered any health problems from consuming the Publix-brand sodas. The suit is seeking damages from Publix for breach of warranty, deceptive trade practices and is calling for an injunction against the sale of the beverages until they have been reformulated. Benzene is found in the air in emissions from burning coal and oil, gas stations, and vehicle exhaust, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The cancer-causing chemical, also used in industrial production to make plastics and detergents, has been linked to leukemia. The chemical can form in soft drinks made with Vitamin C and sodium or potassium benzoate. It's formation can also be stimulated by way of elevated temperatures and light, which means that not all cans of a particular brand of soda might contain the chemical. The FDA said it received private laboratory results in November 2005 reporting low levels of benzene in a small number of soft drinks. Subsequent testing by the agency of more than 100 beverages found four products that had benzene levels exceeding 5 parts per billion (ppb), the maximum limit allowed to meet Environmental Protection Agency quality standards for drinking water. For more details, contact Timothy Howard of Howard & Associates, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, Phone: (850) 298-4455, Fax: (850) 216- 2537. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Appeals Court Affirms Insurance Entitlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Texas Court of Appeals ruled that Samsung Electronics is entitled to defense coverage for class actions based upon the alleged harm caused by electromagnetic fields, or EMFs, The Insurance Journal reports citing the company's lawyer. The coverage action involves general liability policies that provide defense coverage for claims that seek "damages" because of "bodily injury." The court ruled in four of five class actions that a member of the Chubb Insurance Group must pay plaintiffs costs in defending the suits. The decisions were handed down on Aug. 21 and Oct. 18. A trial court earlier agreed with Chubb in ruling that the class actions do not assert claims for damages due to diagnosed injuries, but rather seek monetary and other relief based upon allegations that EMFs from cell phones cause "biological injury" to users. However, the appeals court reversed the ruling, saying that in four of the lawsuits the claims were premised upon alleged bodily injury and therefore trigger the defense obligation. The suit is "Electronics America Inc., et al. v. Federal Insurance Company, Case No. (05-04-01316-CV)." It is also filed against several other telephone manufacturers and service providers. The fifth suit was brought under a consumer protection statute and contains atypical allegations, according to the report. Representing Samsung is Anderson Kill & Olick P.C. and the Potter Minton law firm. SCOTT ELECTRIC: Recalls Fake Circuit Breakers Due To Fire Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Electric Co. Inc., of Greensburg, Pennsylvania, in cooperation with U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 30,000 units of counterfeit "Square D" circuit breakers. The recalled circuit breakers labeled "Square D" are counterfeit and might not trip when they are overloaded, posing a fire hazard to consumers. Scott Electric Co. is not aware of any incidents or injuries associated with these counterfeit circuit breakers. The counterfeit circuit breakers include Square D QO-series models 115, 120, 130, 160, 215, 230, 260, 1515, and 1520. Actual Square D circuit breakers have: -- the amp rating written on the handle in white paint on the front of the breaker; -- on the side of the breaker, where wire terminal screw is located, the arc shoot opening should have squared corners with the bottom edge of the opening angled up; -- the mounting clip should be yellow chromate with half of the top of the clip visible; and -- the Square D insignia should be molded onto the breaker. If your Square D breaker does not match this description, it could be counterfeit. Picture of recalled counterfeit circuit breaker: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07036.jpg These counterfeit circuit breakers were manufactured in China and are being sold through Scott Electric Co. distributor locations throughout Pennsylvania and Texas from May 2005 through May 2006 for between $4 and $25. Consumers are advised to contact Scott Electric Co. to arrange for a free inspection and if necessary, replacement or refund. To arrange for a free inspection or for additional information, contact Scott Electric toll-free at (877) 222-0473 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or log on to http://www.scottelectricusa.com- consumers and contractors can also obtain additional information by E-mail: tdiorio@scottelectricusa.com. THQ INC: Faces Litigation Over Back-Dated Stock Option Grants ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody commenced a shareholder lawsuit has been commenced against certain members of the board of directors and certain executive officers of THQ Inc. The complaint alleges that certain current and prior officers and directors manipulated the prices of executive and director stock option grants (a.k.a. back-dated stock options). Such practice of awarding stock options to executives and directors at artificially low prices is alleged to violate the company's internal documents (such as the company's stock option plan), as well as state laws governing officer and director fiduciary duties and/or federal laws governing securities and taxation. In addition, the practice results in lower payments to companies, results in those companies under-reporting compensation expenses, and permits directors, officers and/or executives to unjustifiably reap millions and billions of dollars which should be disgorged and returned to the corporate coffers thereby contributing to the financial health of the company. For more information, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 1-800- 337-4983, Fax: 212-490-2022, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com, Website: http://www.ssbny.com. TOWN SPORTS: Mediation ongoing in Overtime Wage Lawsuit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Town Sports International, Inc., the parent of New York Sports Club chains, has agreed to mediate a purported class action alleging violations of various overtime provisions of the New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to certain trainers and assistant fitness managers. The suit, "Sarah Cruz, et al. v. Town Sports International, Inc.," was filed on March 1, 2005 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The plaintiffs are Sarah Cruz of Union City, New Jersey, and Mathew Dockswell of Forest Hills, New York. Plaintiffs contend that they and many other employees routinely worked more than 40 hours in a week but didn't earn overtime because the company deliberately misclassified them as managers. According to court documents, the lawyers are seeking class- action status for the lawsuit, which they say could involve hundreds of personal trainers and assistant fitness managers at 65 New York Sports Clubs in the state, including in New York City and on Long Island. The suit covers the past six years. It states that Ms. Cruz, 30, who has worked for the chain since 1999, often has worked 13-hour days, five days a week, or about 65 hours, and Mr. Dockswell, who has worked for New York Sports Club since 2002, has regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. The lawsuit is stayed upon agreement of the parties pending mediation. Plaintiffs recently submitted to the company a proposed second amended complaint, which seeks to add to the class, all New York hourly employees. Town Sports agreed to mediate with respect to such employees. Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: CLUB) -- http://www.mysportsclubs.com-- is an owner and operator of fitness clubs in the northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of the U.S. It owns and operates fitness clubs in Switzerland. WINDOW BLINDS CASES: Big Lots Requests Dismissal from Ill. Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Big Lots Stores has filed a motion to be dismissed from a class action filed against window blinds manufacturers in Madison County, Illinois, The Madison County Record reports. Attorneys for the company wrote that because of unreasonable delay by plaintiffs to serve the company with the complaint, it should be dismissed from the case. The lawsuit was filed on Feb. 18, 2005, but Big Lots was served with it only on Aug. 20, 2006. Earlier, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. also filed the same application for the same reason. Other defendants asked Circuit Judge Andy Matoesian to dismiss the suit against them for lack of personal jurisdiction (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 1, 2006). Plaintiff attorney Jeffrey Lowe of Clayton, who filed the complaint last year, said in an Oct. 6 response, that Illinois is the proper jurisdiction for the case because the defendants - - manufacturers, distributors and retailers -- engaged in a nationwide conspiracy. He said the suit is a case of specific jurisdiction. There are 60 defendants in the suit, and the court's refusal to hear the suit in Illinois would require the same lawsuit to be litigated in numerous forums, he said. Judge Daniel Stack of the Madison County Circuit Court has not set a hearing on the motions. Ronald Alsup of Edwardsville and Robert Crews of Granite City filed the suit against at least 60 manufacturers, distributors and retailers. They allege that retailers conspired to conceal a risk that dangling cords could strangle people. Thus their suit seeks to represent "hundreds of millions" of window blind buyers. Plaintiffs claim no personal injury, however they seek damages equal to the difference between what they paid for window blinds and what they would have paid if they had known the risk. For more information, contact Jeffrey C. Lowe, Associate at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP, 71 S. Wacker, Chicago, Illinois 60606-4637 (Cook Co.), Phone: 202-263-3821, Fax: 312-701-7711 Telex: 190404. Big Lots attorney is Charles L. Joley of Donovan, Rose, Nester & Joley, P.C., 8 East Washington Street, Belleville, Illinois 62220 (St. Clair Co.), Phone: 618-235-2020, Telecopier: 618-235- 9632. ZHONE TECHNOLOGIES: N.J. Court Approves Tellium Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted final approval to the suit "In re Tellium, Inc. Securities Litigation." On various dates between Dec. 10, 2002 and Feb. 27, 2003, numerous class action securities complaints were filed against Tellium. On May 19, 2003, a consolidated amended complaint representing all of the actions was filed. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Tellium and its then-current directors and executive officers, and its underwriters, violated the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 by making false and misleading statements or omissions in its registration statement prospectus relating to the securities offered in the initial public offering. The complaint further alleges that these parties violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by acting recklessly or intentionally in making the alleged misstatements and/or omissions in connection with the sale of Tellium stock. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount, including compensatory damages, costs and expenses incurred in connection with the actions and equitable relief as may be permitted by law or equity. On Mar. 31, 2004, the court granted Tellium's and the underwriters' motions to dismiss the complaint and allowed the plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint. On May 14, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated and amended complaint. On Jun. 25, 2004, the company, as Tellium's successor-in- interest, and the underwriters again moved to dismiss the complaint. On Jun. 30, 2005, the court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, but denied the motions to dismiss with respect to the plaintiffs' claims under the Securities Act of 1933. The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of that portion of the court's Jun. 30, 2005 decision dismissing their claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On Aug. 26, 2005, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. The case proceeded to discovery. On or about March 10, 2006, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the case. The court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement on or about May 30, 2006. Notice of the proposed settlement is being sent to the affected stockholders to determine whether those stockholders wish to participate in or object to the proposed settlement. The court provided its final approval of the settlement and dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims in an order and final judgment dated September 7, 2006. The suit is "In re Tellium, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-05878-FLW-AMD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Freda L. Wolfson with referral to Judge Ann Marie Donio. Representing the plaintiffs is Robert J. Berg of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 2050 Center Avenue, Suite 200, Fort Lee, NJ 07024, Phone: (201) 592-3201, E-mail: berg@bernlieb.com. Representing the defendants is Joseph T. Boccassini of Mccarter & English, LLP, Four Gateway Center, 100 Mulberry Street, Newark, NJ 07102, Phone: (973) 622-4444, Fax: (973) 624-7070, E- mail: jboccassini@mccarter.com. New Securities Fraud Cases BODISEN BIOTECH: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood announces that on Nov. 15, 2006, a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Bodisen Biotech, Inc. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from Aug. 26, 2005 through Nov. 14, 2006. Interested parties may move the court no later that Jan. 15, 2007, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the class. For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood, 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK 73120, E-mmil: wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com. JABIL CIRCUIT: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, filed a class action on Nov. 17, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Jabil Circuit, Inc. between Sept. 19, 2001 and June 21, 2006. The lawsuit was filed against Jabil and certain officers and directors. The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78n(a), and 78t(a) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder as well as 17 C.F.R. Sections 240.10b-5. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Jabil and certain officers and directors manipulated the prices of stock option grants and made materially false and misleading statements and or omitted material facts necessary to make those statements not misleading. The practice of backdating its stock options caused the company to understate its compensation expense and thereby overstated its reported earnings. When the truth about the company's stock options backdating emerged publicly, Jabil's stock declined as a result. Lead Plaintiff papers must be filed with the court no later than Nov. 20, 2006. For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. of The Law Firm of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, Phone: (800) 321-0476, Web site: http://www.labaton.com. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Lockridge Grindal Files Stock Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P., filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Marvell Technology Group Ltd. and certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the publicly traded common stock of Marvell between Feb. 24, 2005 and Oct. 2, 2006. The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants violated Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and financial results, thus causing Marvell's publicly traded common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. In particular, the complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's financial status, business, and prospects. Specifically, defendants are alleged to have failed to disclose: -- that the actual date of significant stock option grants to company executives were purposely concealed by the company; -- that the company's financial statements were presented in violation of generally accepted accounting principles; -- that the company failed to have in place the personnel and controls necessary to issue accurate financial reports and projections; and -- that, as a result, the company's financial results were materially overstated at all relevant times. On Oct. 2, 2006, after the close of trading, Marvell filed a Form 8-K with the SEC which set forth the conclusion of its special committee that Marvell's financial statements and all earning press releases and similar communications issued by the company relating to periods beginning on or after its initial public offering in June 2000 should no longer be relied on. The company announced that it would restate historical financial statements to record additional non-cash charges for stock-based compensation expense related to certain past option grants. On Oct. 3, 2006, based in substantial part on these revelations, Marvell stock plummeted, closing at $16.80 per share, a decline of $2.29 per share or approximately 12%. Also, during the class period, it is alleged that Marvell insiders sold approximately 4 million artificially inflated Marvell shares for proceeds of approximately $175 million. Interested parties move the court no later than Dec. 5, 2006 to for appointment as lead plaintiff for the case. For more details, contact Karen H. Riebel, Esq. of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P., 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401, Phone: (612) 339-6900, E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com. NATURAL HEALTH: Kahn Gauthier Announces Securities Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, announces that shareholders of Natural Health Trends Corp. common stock who purchased their shares during the period from March 31, 2003 through Aug. 11, 2006, may now move for appointment as lead plaintiff in a securities fraud class action currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. No class has yet been certified in this action. The complaint alleges that Natural Health and certain of its officers and directors violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements. In particular, the complaint alleges that during the class period defendants: -- reported revenues and earnings were artificially inflated due to phantom sales; -- failed to institute adequate internal controls and procedures; -- failed to disclose that earnings were significantly impacted from returns by its distributors; and -- defendants failed to disclose that the company's financial statements filed with the SEC were not prepared in accordance with GAAP. When these adverse facts became know to investors, the price of Natural Health shares declined precipitously. For more details, contact Lewis Kahn of KGS, Phone: 1-866-467- 1400, ext. 100, or (cell phone) 504-301-7900, E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.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 * * *