/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/061123.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, November 23, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 233 Headlines ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces ERISA Suits Over 1999 Restructuring AMERICAN EXPRESS: Ariz. Court Stays Proceedings in "Haritos" AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Mulls Remand Motions in "Beer," "You" AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Accused of Miscalculating Advisors' Fees ARCHDIOCESE OF PENNSYLVANIA: Suit by Sex Abuse Victims Dismissed ASTORIA FINANCIAL: N.Y. Court Certifies Mortgage Loan Fees Suit BODISEN BIOTECH: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y. BRINKER INT'L: Calif. Judge Certifies Class in Labor Lawsuit CALIFORNIA: Asian Women Sue City of Oakland for Cop Harassment CBCL INC: Lawsuit Against Owners of Great Falls Mill Dismissed DE BEERS: "Null" Litigation in Ill. Transferred to JPMDL in N.J. DOMINION BRIDGE: Jan. 2007 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal DYNEGY INC: Settles Natural Gas Antitrust Cases in California DYNEGY INC: Settles Nevada Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation ENESCO GROUP: Recalls Turtle Sprinklers for Laceration Hazard HEALTH NET: N.J. Court Certifies Suit by Employer Group Plans HEALTH NET: Tag-Along Actions in Managed Care Suit Dismissed KENNETH COLE: Plaintiffs in Calif. Labor Suit Dismiss Complaints KENNETH COLE: Calif. Court Approves Settlement of Managers' Suit MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Seeks Review of "Williams" by 11th Circuit NEW YORK: Ulster County Continues to Face Discrimination Suit OLD REPUBLIC: Faces Title Insurance Suits in Conn., N.J., Ohio PUTNAM GENERAL: Patients Accuse W.Va. Hospital of Negligence REPUBLIC MORTGAGE: Faces Private Mortgage Insurance Suit in S.C. TARGET STORES: Recalls Toys Due to Lead, Laceration Hazards VERIZON COMMS: Faces Suit Over Intelligence-Gathering Activities VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Suit Over May 2006 AGM Proposals Junked VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Del. High Court Mulls Injunction Appeal XEROX CORP: Conn. Court OKs Start of Discovery in ERISA Lawsuit XEROX CORP: Court Mulls Appeal on N.Y. Apartheid Suit Dismissal XEROX CORP: Discovery Continues in "Carlson" Securities Lawsuit XEROX CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Conn. Securities Fraud Lawsuit XEROX CORP: Mediation Results in N.Y. Title VII Suit Settlement New Securities Fraud Cases SFBC INTL: Bernstein Litowitz Files N.J. Securities Fraud Suit WARNER CHILCOTT Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in N.Y. XETHANOL CORP: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ********* ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces ERISA Suits Over 1999 Restructuring ------------------------------------------------------------- Allstate Insurance Co. is defending several lawsuits alleging Employee Retirement Income Security Act violations in relation to its agency program reorganization announced in 1999. These matters include: -- a lawsuit filed in December 2001 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging retaliation under federal civil rights laws (EEOC I); and -- a class action filed in August 2001 by former employee agents alleging retaliation and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, breach of contract and ERISA violations (Romero I). In March 2004, in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I litigation, the trial court issued a memorandum and order that, among other things, certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class of agents who had signed a release, for purposes of effecting the court's declaratory judgment that the release is voidable at the option of the release signer. The court also ordered that an agent who voids the release must return to AIC "any and all benefits received by the [agent] in exchange for signing the release." The court also stated that, "on the undisputed facts of record, there is no basis for claims of age discrimination." The EEOC and plaintiffs have asked the court to clarify and/or reconsider its memorandum and order. The case otherwise remains pending. The EEOC also filed another lawsuit in October 2004 alleging age discrimination with respect to a policy limiting the rehire of agents affected by the agency program reorganization (EEOC II). In EEOC II, in October 2006, the court granted partial summary judgment to the EEOC. Although the court did not determine that AIC was liable for age discrimination under the ADEA, it determined that the rehire policy resulted in a disparate impact, reserving for trial the determination on whether AIC had reasonable factors other than age to support the rehire policy. AIC is also defending a certified class action filed by former employee agents who terminated their employment prior to the agency program reorganization. These plaintiffs have asserted breach of contract and ERISA claims. Former employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA, including a worker classification issue, have also filed a putative nationwide class action. These plaintiffs are challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and are seeking to have exclusive agent independent contractors treated as employees for benefit purposes. This matter was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court, was the subject of further proceedings on appeal, and was reversed and remanded to the trial court in April 2005. In all of these various matters, plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, and equitable relief. AIC has been vigorously defending these lawsuits and other matters related to its agency program reorganization. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Ariz. Court Stays Proceedings in "Haritos" ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted joint stipulation to stay the purported class action filed against American Express Financial Advisors, Inc. The suit, now captioned "Haritos et al. v. American Express Financial Advisors Inc.," was filed in November 2002 by plaintiffs who purport to represent a class of all persons that have purchased financial plans from the Company's advisors from November 1997 through July 2004. Plaintiffs allege that the sale of the plans violates the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages, rescission of the investment advisor plans and restitution of monies paid for such plans. On Jan. 3, 2006, the court granted the parties joint stipulation to stay the action pending the approval of the proposed settlement in the putative class action "In re American Express Financial Advisors Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv- 01773-DAB," according to Ameriprise Financial, Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. The suit is "Haritos, et al. v. American Express Financial Advisors, Inc., Case No. 2:02-cv-02255-PGR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Paul G. Rosenblatt. Representing plaintiffs are: (1) Robert C. Moilanen, Carolyn G. Anderson, Anne T. Regan, Zimmerman Reed PLLP, 651 Nicollet Mall, Ste 501, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: (612) 341-0400; (2) Barry Grant Reed, Hart Lawrence Robinovitch, Zimmerman Reed PLLP, 14646 N Kierland Blvd, Ste 145 Scottsdale, AZ 85254-2762, Phone: (480) 348-6400; and (3) Jon E. Drucker, Moss Gropen, Law Offices of Jon E Drucker, 8306 Wilshire Blvd, #638 Beverly Hills, CA 90211, Phone: (323) 931-6363. Representing the defendants are: (i) Eric Mogilnicki, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, 2445 M St NW, Washington, DC 20037-1420, Phone: (202) 663-6000; (ii) Robert S Stern, Esq, James P Maniscalco, Joseph T Hahn, Morrison & Foerster LLP, 555 W 5th St, Ste 3500, Los Angeles, CA 90013-1024, Phone: (213) 892-5200; (iii) Peter K Vigeland, David W Bowker, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, 399 Park Ave, 31st Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 230-8800; and (iv) William J Maledon, Esq, Jeffrey Bryan Molinar, Osborn Maledon PA, PO Box 36379, Phoenix, AZ 85067-6379, Phone: (602) 640-9000. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Mulls Remand Motions in "Beer," "You" ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in two lawsuits making similar allegations as in the soon to be settled consolidated securities class action, "In re American Express Financial Advisors Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-01773-DAB," moved to remand both cases pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to state court. The court's decision on the remand motion is pending. The suits in question are: -- "Beer v. American Express Company and American Express Financial Advisors," and -- "You v. American Express Company and American Express Financial Advisors." In October 2005, the company reached a comprehensive settlement regarding the consolidated securities class action filed against the company, its former parent and affiliates in October 2004 called. The settlement, under which the company denies any liability, includes a one-time payment of $100 million to the class members. The class members include individuals who purchased mutual funds in the company's Preferred Provider Program, Select Group Program, or any similar revenue sharing program, purchased mutual funds sold under the American Express or AXP brand; or purchased for a fee financial plans or advice from the company between March 10, 1999 and through April 1, 2006. The settlement will be submitted to the court for approval, according to Ameriprise Financial, Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. The suit "In re American Express Financial Advisors Securities Litigation (1:04-cv-01773-DAB)," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Deborah A. Batts. Representing the plaintiffs is Michael Robert Reese of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-631-8696, Fax: 212-629-0307, E-mail: mreese@milberg.com. Representing the Company is Peter Kristian Vigeland of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (NYC), 399 Park Avenue, 30th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-230-8800, Fax: 212-230-8888, E-mail: Peter.Vigeland@wilmer.com. AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Accused of Miscalculating Advisors' Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss a purported class action filed against Ameriprise Financial, Inc., which accuses it of miscalculating advisors' fees. The lawsuit, "Good, et al. v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. et al. Case No. 00-cv-01027," was filed in March 2006. It has been brought as a putative class action and plaintiffs purport to represent all of the company's advisors who sold shares of Real Estate Investment Trusts and tax credit limited partnerships between March 22, 2000 and March 2006. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and restitutionary damages as well as injunctive relief, alleging that the company incorrectly calculated commissions owed advisors for the sale of these products. The company's motion to dismiss certain claims in the complaint is pending, according to its Nov. 6, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. The suit is "Good, et al. v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. et al. Case No. 00-cv-01027," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Donovan W. Frank with referral to Judge Susan R. Nelson. Representing the plaintiffs are Bryan L. Crawford, Samuel D. Heins, Stacey L. Mills, Brian L. Williams of Heins Mills & Olson, PLC, 80 S 8th St Ste 3550, Mpls, MN 55402, Phone: 612- 338-4605, Fax: 612-338-4692, E-mail: bwilliams@heinsmills.com, sheins@heinsmills.com, smills@heinsmills.com, magarian.edward@dorsey.com, bcrawford@heinsmills.com. Representing the defendant is by Edward B. Magarian of Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, 50 S 6th St Ste 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498, Phone: 612-340-7873, Fax: 612-340-2807, E-mail: magarian.edward@dorsey.com. ARCHDIOCESE OF PENNSYLVANIA: Suit by Sex Abuse Victims Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Legrome D. Davis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed a lawsuit filed against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia in relation to sexual abuses by its priests, the Philadelphia Daily News reports. Archdiocese attorney C. Clark Hodgson Jr. had asked a federal court to dismiss the lawsuit that alleges defendants violated federal anti-racketeering laws by trying to cover up the alleged priest abuse. He said federal conspiracy and anti-racketeering laws do not cover personal injury. The suit was filed in June by 12 people claiming they had been abused by various Catholic priests from 1956 to 1985. Plaintiffs claim their civil rights were violated and that the priests named in the suit engaged in a "massive conspiracy to cover up and effectively perpetuate" the abuses. They are seeking unspecified damages for "severe mental and physical injuries" and class-action status for the lawsuit. The suit names as defendants the archdiocese, Cardinals Justin Rigali and Anthony Bevilacqua, and the estate of Cardinal John Krol. Six plaintiffs have filed their suit in Philadelphia Common Pleas court. In a Nov. 19 ruling, Judge Davis said the plaintiffs failed to show claims of injury to business or property as demanded by a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act civil suit. They also failed to show that their injuries were "proximately caused" by the alleged racketeering activity. The suit is "Magnum et al. v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02589-LDD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Legrome D. Davis. Representing the plaintiffs is Stewart j. Eisenberg at Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler, Eisenberg & Jeck P.C., 1634 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-546-6610, Fax: 215-546-0118, E-mail: Stewart@erlegal.com. Representing the defendant is C. Clark Hodgson, Jr. at Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, LLP, 2600 One Commerce Sq. Phila., PA 19103-7098, Phone: 215-564-8000, Fax: 215-564-8120. ASTORIA FINANCIAL: N.Y. Court Certifies Mortgage Loan Fees Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York certified a suit filed against Astoria Financial Corp., claiming that the company's charging of attorney document preparation fees, recording fees and facsimile fees for mortgage loans violate state laws. In 2004, David McAnaney and Carolyn McAnaney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated filed a suit against Astoria Financial Corp., and other defendants. The action, commenced as a punitive class action, alleges that in connection with the satisfaction of certain mortgage loans made by Astoria Federal, The Long Island Savings Bank, FSB, which was acquired by Astoria Federal in 1998, and their related entities, customers were charged attorney document preparation fees, recording fees and facsimile fees allegedly in violation of: -- the federal Truth in Lending Act, -- the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, -- the Fair Debt Collection Act, and -- the New York State Deceptive Practices Act The suit also alleges unjust enrichment and common law fraud. Astoria Federal previously moved to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion was granted in part and denied in part, dismissing claims based on violations of RESPA and FDCA. The Court further determined that class certification would be considered prior to considering summary judgment. On Sept. 19, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. Astoria Federal has denied the claims set forth in the complaint. The suit is "McAnaney et al v. Astoria Financial Corporation et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-01101-JFB-WDW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge Joseph F. Bianco with referral to Judge William D. Wall. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) G. Oliver Koppell, 99 Park Avenue, Suite 800, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-368-0400, Fax: 212-973-9494, E- mail: okoppell@koppellaw.com; and (2) Joseph S. Tusa at Whalen & Tusa, P.C., 90 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-786-7377, Fax: 212-658- 9685, E-mail: joseph@whalen-tusa.com. Representing the defendants are: (1) Alfred W.J. Marks at Day, Berry & Howard, LLP, 875 Third Avenue, 28th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-829-3634, Fax: 212-829-3601, E-mail: awjmarks@dbh.com; and (2) Lisa Pepe Whittaker at Day Berry & Howard LLP, 875 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, US, Phone: 212-829- 3600, Fax: 212-829-3601, E-mail: lpwhittaker@dbh.com. BODISEN BIOTECH: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- Bodisen Biotech, Inc. was named as a defendant in a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging claims under the federal securities law. The suit, "Tabor v. Bodisen Biotech, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-13220-VM," was filed on Nov. 15, 2006 by Stephanie Tabor, a purported shareholder of Bodisen Biotech. In addition to the company, the complaint names as defendants Karen Qiong Wang, Bo Chen, New York Global Group, Inc. and Benjamin Wey a/k/a Benjamin Wei. Ms. Wang is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Mr. Chen is the President of the Company. The complaint charges that Bodisen Biotech and certain of its officers, along with Benjamin Wey a/k/a Benjamin Wei and his company New York Global Group, Inc., (NYGG) violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by causing the issuance of materially false and misleading information about the company's performance, business prospects, and failing to disclose material relationships the company had with Benjamin Wey and his related companies (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2006). The complaint alleges that on Nov. 12, 2006 the company issued a press release that it received a letter from the AMEX "warning that it is out of compliance with certain listing standards." A later press release issued by the AP states that AMEX "believes Bodisen made insufficient or inaccurate disclosure in public filings on its relationship with, and payments to, New York Global and its affiliates both prior to and subsequent to its listing on the exchange." The later press release also states that the AMEX "expressed concern that Bodisen has internal control issues related to its accounting and financial reporting obligations in the context of this relationship with the company." The complaint also asserts that the Nov. 12, 2006 announcement followed numerous reports by nationally prominent journalists that revealed the company had hired stock promoter Benjamin Wey, an individual with prior securities violations that ultimately led to fines and suspension of Mr. Wey's securities license. These news reports revealed that Mr. Wey, through his company New York Global, issued analyst reports and other statements to the investing public touting the company's stock without disclosing that they were being paid by the company. News reports also indicate that during this time, millions of shares of the company stock were sold by or through persons who were affiliated with NYGG and its related entities. The complaint asserts that these adverse disclosures have caused the company's stock price to decline. The company understands that other purported shareholders may have filed substantially similar lawsuits in the same court, although it has not been able to confirm any additional filings. The suit is "Tabor v. Bodisen Biotech, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-13220-VM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Victor Marrero. Representing the plaintiffs is Phillip Kim, Esq., The Rosen Law Firm, PA, Phone: 1-866-767-3653, (212) 686-1060 and (917) 797- 4425, Fax: (212) 202-3827, E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com, Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com. Representing the defendants is Judd Burstein of Burstein & McPherson, L.L.P., 1790 Broadway, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 974-2400, Fax: 212-974-2944, E-mail: jburstein@burlaw.com. BRINKER INT'L: Calif. Judge Certifies Class in Labor Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action against restaurant operator Brinker International, Inc. that was filed San Diego County Superior Court. Certain current and former hourly restaurant employees filed the suit, alleging violations of California labor laws with respect to meal and rest breaks. The suit seeks penalties and attorney's fees and was certified as a class action in July 2006 by Judge Patricia A.Y. Cowett. The class consists of 63,000 current and former employees of the company who are alleging violations of California law mandating workers' meal and rest breaks (Class Action Reporter, July 19, 2006). Discovery is under way and the company intends to vigorously defend its position, according to its Nov. 6, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 27, 2006. Based in Dallas, Texas, Brinker -- http://www.brinker.com-- owns, operates, develops, and franchises restaurants in the U.S. It operates restaurants under the names of Chili's Grill & Bar, Romano's Macaroni Grill, Maggiano's Little Italy, On The Border Mexican Grill & Cantina, and Corner Bakery Cafe restaurant concepts. CALIFORNIA: Asian Women Sue City of Oakland for Cop Harassment -------------------------------------------------------------- The City of Oakland faces a purported federal class action that was filed by five women of Asian descent who claim their civil rights were violated when they were stopped and harassed by an Oakland police officer. Plaintiffs in the suit, who were not identified, claim that the city should have done more to prevent former Officer Richard Valerga from pulling them over for no reason, touching them inappropriately and asking them personal questions. The women also claim that they were targeted because of their race. According to the suit, Mr. Valerga, also named as a defendant, would motion the women to sit in the front seat of his patrol car -- where they felt they could not leave -- and then sexually harass them. Filed on Nov. 20, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the suit claims that the actions by Mr. Valerga "created fear, anxiety and uncertainty," and affected the women's safety and security as well as their "right to move freely about the public streets." In regards to the City of Oakland the suit also claims that it "encouraged, authorized, condoned and/or acquiesced in sexual harassment and other unlawful conduct by members of the Oakland Police Department." Oakland civil rights attorney John Burris and Berkeley lawyer Jim Chanin filed the suit on behalf of the unnamed women. They said the conduct by Mr. Valerga, including improper touching, "was outrageous" and accused the Oakland Police Department of ignoring and even condoning his actions over a long period of time. Messrs. Burris and Chanin are hoping to have their case certified as a class action so as other women who may have been victimized by Mr. Valerga can join. Oakland police hired Mr. Valerga in 1999. He worked as a swing shift patrol officer in the neighborhood just east of Lake Merritt and also worked on a beat in the Redwood Heights, Laurel and Diamond neighborhoods along MacArthur Boulevard between Fruitvale Avenue and High Street. Mr. Valerga already resigned from the department before pleading no contest in November 2005 to four misdemeanors, including two charges of violating the civil rights of five victims and two counts of false imprisonment. All of the victims were immigrants. In January 9, 2006, Mr. Valerga was sentenced to three years probation, including six months in jail. Investigators linked the victims to Mr. Valerga after discovering that their license plate and driver's license information had been checked using the computer in his patrol car. According to the suit, Mr. Valerga pulled over the plaintiffs in late 2004 or early 2005 in East Oakland and asked them to sit with him in his patrol car. Though only five plaintiffs are named in the suit, it says that since Mr. Valerga had been an Oakland officer since 1999 and because of his repeated pattern and practice of misconduct, the membership of the class (of victims) is likely to be numerous. The suit seeks actual and punitive damages as well as a court order stopping the city from engaging in or encouraging sexual harassment. The suit is "Jane Smith No. 1 et al v. City of Oakland, et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-07171-PJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) John L. Burris of The Law Offices of John L. Burris, 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120, Oakland, CA 94621, Phone: 510-839-5200, Fax: 510-839-3882, E-mail: john.burris@johnburrislaw.com; and (2) James B. Chanin of The Law Offices of James B. Chanin, 3050 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94705, Phone: 510- 848-4752, Fax: 510-848-5819, E-mail: jbcefiling@aol.com. CBCL INC: Lawsuit Against Owners of Great Falls Mill Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Brooks Goldsmith of the Chester County in South Carolina dismissed one of two lawsuits filed against owners of the J.P. Stevens Mill No. 3 building that caught fire in June, The Herald reports. John and Margaret Tibbs, who owned the mill, are primary defendants in the suit filed by Great Falls resident Jacqueline Dye against the mill owners and CBCL Inc., the plastics recycling company that operates inside the building. The suit was filed on June 20, 2006, in the Court of Common Pleas in Chester County by lawyer Robert Dodson (Class Action Reporter, June 23, 2006). Another suit was filed against the defendants on behalf of Clare Dawkins and Donald Johnson. Both suits are seeking class-action status. They allege that the business was not properly safeguarded against fire. One suit accuses the company and the county of negligence in not preventing the fire; the other suit accuses the company and the property owners of negligence, according to the report. Judge Goldsmith dismissed the suit saying plaintiffs' lawyers failed to show how or why the couple was responsible for the fire. The second suit against the plastics operator is to go ahead, according to Robert Dodson, the Columbia attorney for several dozen families involved in the lawsuit. Representing CBCL Inc. is Hemphill Pride of 1401 Gregg St. Columbia, South Carolina (Lexington & Richland Cos.). Robert Dodson is with Dodson & Dodson, L.L.P., 2005 Moores Lane, P.O. Box 1877, Texarkana, Texas 75504 (Bowie Co.), Phone: 903-794- 3121, Fax: 903-793-4801, Web site: http://www.dodsondodson.net. DE BEERS: "Null" Litigation in Ill. Transferred to JPMDL in N.J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class action originally filed in Illinois against international diamond giant De Beers has now been transferred to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, according to Steve Gonzalez of The Madison County Record. Court documents show that attorneys Stephen Tillery, Donald Flack and Eugene Barash of Korein Tillery of St. Louis filed suit against defendants the day before President George W. Bush signed the Class Action Fairness Act into law on February 17 (Class Action Reporter, May 13, 2005). The suit alleges De Beers has a monopoly on the diamond market and in addition accuses the Swiss company of restraining trade, increasing prices, controlling inventory, limiting supply, restricting purchase and falsely advertising the scarceness of diamonds. According to the complaint, "These actions have caused both the price and demand for diamonds to remain artificially high and thus have caused diamond purchasers actual damages." The suit, originally filed in Madison County Circuit Court, was brought on behalf of Emert and Katie Null of Madison County, who are claiming that for more than a century the De Beers "cartel" dominated the market for rough diamonds in the United States and worldwide controlling as much as 80 percent of the world diamond supply (Class Action Reporter, May 13, 2005). The class action names DB Investments of Luxembourg, which owns De Beers S.A., De Beers S.A. of Luxembourg, which owns Consolidated Mines, Consolidated Mines of South Africa, De Beers Centenary A.G. of Switzerland, and Diamond Trading Company, the marketing arm of the De Beers Group of the United Kingdom. It was brought on behalf of diamond purchasers to recover damages for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act and for unjust enrichment. Currently, De Beers controls 50 percent of the world's diamond supply, and an even greater percentage of the world's supply of two-carat and larger rough diamonds, according to the suit. The Nulls claim that in 2003 alone, De Beers sold $5.52 billion worth of rough diamonds, and used its market dominance to raise the price of rough diamonds three times during the year, allegedly creating a 10 percent hike in rough diamond prices. They also claim that in October of 1999, De Beers chairman Nicky Oppenheimer, speaking at a gathering of Harvard alumni, went so far as to boast about De Beers' illegal monopolistic behavior. Mr. Oppenheimer allegedly stated in the gathering that De Beers "likes to think of itself as the world's longest running monopoly.and seeks to manage the diamond market, to control supply, to manage prices and to act collusively with our partners in the business." On May 3, 2005, former Judge George Moran of Madison County Circuit Court entered a default judgment order against diamond giants De Beers Centenary A.G. and DB Investments after the companies failed to respond to a the class action. On May 22, 2005, Judge Moran certified the suit as a class action. The judge also appointed the Nulls as class representative and appointed Korein Tillery as class counsel and gave them 14 days to coordinate with the clerk regarding a hearing date for a plan of notice to class members and regarding a hearing on damages. On July 26, 2005, Patrick Foppe and Robert Schultz, Jr. of Heyl Royster in Edwardsville, who represent DeBeers Centenary A.G., removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the southern District of Illinois where it was assigned to Judge Michael J. Reagan. On Oct. 3, 2005, Judge Reagan transferred the case to the U.S. District Court of New Jersey after De Beers filed a motion to transfer the case. The judges stated that the transfer to New Jersey "will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the interest of justice." The Nulls did not oppose De Beers' motion, and now the case is part of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation pending in New Jersey under the caption, "Null v. DB Investments Inc., et al." The suit is "Null v. DB Investments Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05- cv-04849-SRC-CCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with referral to Judge Claire C. Cecchi. Representing the plaintiffs is John A. Maher, 450 Springfield Avenue, Summit, NJ 07901, Phone: (908) 277-2444, E-mail: maherlaw@gmail.com. DOMINION BRIDGE: Jan. 2007 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will hold a fairness hearing on Jan. 22, 2007 at 10 a.m. regarding the $750,000 settlement of a class action, "Dominion Bridge Corp. Securities Litigation." The hearing will be before the Honorable Lowell A. Reed, Jr., at the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 601 Market Street, Courtroom 4-B, Philadelphia, PA 19106. The class consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Dominion Bridge from April 20, 1995 through May 18, 1996, inclusive. Proofs of claim are due March 3, 2007. Deadline for exclusion is Jan. 8, 2007. Claims Administrator Dominion Bridge Corp. Securities Litigation c/o Berdon Claims Administration LLC P.O. Box 9014 Jericho, NY 11753-8914 Phone: (800) 766-3330 Fax: (516) 931-0810 Web site: http://www.berdonllp.com/claims Counsel Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. For Representative Plaintiff Zev B. Zysman, Esq. and Settlement Class Weiss & Lurie 10940 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (310) 208-2800 DYNEGY INC: Settles Natural Gas Antitrust Cases in California ------------------------------------------------------------- A state court in San Diego, California granted preliminary approval to the settlement by Dynegy, Inc. of class action claims in the natural gas anti-trust cases filed against it. On June 28, 2006, Dynegy executed a term sheet agreeing in principle to settle the class action claims in the natural gas anti-trust cases consolidated and pending in state court in San Diego, California. West Coast Power (Generation) Holdings, Inc., owned by Dynegy, and some of its subsidiaries are named defendants and Dynegy's settlement would include full releases for these entities. The settlement resolves claims by core and non-core California consumers of natural gas for damages arising from or relating to allegations of misreporting of natural gas transactions or wash trading. The settlement was finalized in September 2006 and preliminarily approved by the court. It, however, excludes similar cases filed by individual plaintiffs, which Dynegy continues to defend. Dynegy, Inc. on the Net: http://www.dynegy.com. DYNEGY INC: Settles Nevada Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- Dynegy, Inc., settled claims filed against it in the Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation pending in Nevada. In August 2006, Dynegy entered into an agreement to settle class action claims by California natural gas resellers and cogenerators. These claims are pending in Nevada federal district court in "In Re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation," which names as defendants West Coast Power (Generation) Holdings, Inc., owned by Dynegy, and WCP's subsidiaries. Dynegy's settlement would include full releases for these entities. The settlement is expected to be submitted to the court for approval by the end of 2006. Plaintiffs in the suit allege that defendants engaged in anticompetitive behavior during the California Energy Crisis of 2000-2001. They claim the defendant gas providers reported false trades and exaggerated trading volumes to the publishers of gas pricing indices, by which the market sets prices, and otherwise conspired to manipulate the natural gas market, resulting in artificially inflated prices. Dynegy, Inc. on the Net: http://www.dynegy.com. ENESCO GROUP: Recalls Turtle Sprinklers for Laceration Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- Enesco Group Inc., of Itasca, Illinois, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 2,600 units of Heartwood Creek turtle sprinklers. The company said that when connected to a garden hose, under normal household water pressure, the sprinkler can break or shatter, presenting a laceration hazard to consumers. There have been eight reported incidents of the sprinkler breaking apart during use, including one report of a minor laceration. This recall involves the Heartwood Creek turtle sprinkler. The lawn sprinkler is made of resin with a decorative turtle shell and stands about 5 1/2-inches tall and 10-inches long. The bottom of the sprinkler is printed with the item number 4005179 and the Heartwood Creek logo. These recalled turtle sprinklers were manufactured in China and are being sold at specialty gift stores nationwide from January 2006 through June 2006 and through QVC from April 2006 through June 2006 for about $30. QVC purchasers of this item have already received direct notice from QVC notifying them of this recall. Pictures of the recalled turtle sprinklers: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07028.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using the sprinkler immediately, and contact Enesco for a product exchange or return it to the place of purchase for a refund. For additional information, consumers can contact Enesco toll- free at (888) 443-8669 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the Enesco's Web site: http://www.enesco.com. HEALTH NET: N.J. Court Certifies Suit by Employer Group Plans ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued a new certification order in a class action filed against Health Net, Inc. in relation to its reimbursement of claims for services provided by out-of-network providers. Initially two lawsuits were filed: -- "McCoy v. Health Net, Inc. et al," and -- "Wachtel v. Guardian Life Insurance Co." Both are styled as nationwide class actions and are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a class of subscribers in a number of the company's large and small employer group plans. The Wachtel complaint initially was filed as a single plaintiff case in New Jersey State court on July 23, 2001. Subsequently, the company removed the Wachtel complaint to federal court, and plaintiffs amended their complaint to assert claims on behalf of a class of subscribers in small employer group plans in New Jersey on Dec. 4, 2001. The McCoy complaint was filed on April 23, 2003 and asserts claims on behalf of a nationwide class of Health Net subscribers. These two cases have been consolidated for purposes of trial. Plaintiffs allege that Health Net, Inc., Health Net of the Northeast, Inc. and Health Net of New Jersey, Inc. violated ERISA in connection with various practices related to the reimbursement of claims for services provided by out-of-network providers. They seek relief in the form of payment of benefits, injunctive and other equitable relief, and attorneys' fees. During 2001 and 2002, the parties filed and argued various motions and engaged in limited discovery. On April 23, 2003, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification seeking to certify nationwide classes of Health Net subscribers. The company opposed that motion and the Court took it under submission. On June 12, 2003, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case, which was ultimately denied. On August 8, 2003, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, adding Health Net, Inc. as a defendant and expanding the alleged violations. On Dec. 22, 2003, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether Health Net utilized an outdated database for calculating out-of-network reimbursements, which the company opposed. That motion, and various other motions seeking injunctive relief and to narrow the issues in this case, are still pending. On Aug. 5, 2004, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification and issued an Order certifying two nationwide classes of Health Net subscribers who received medical services or supplies from an out-of-network provider and to whom Defendants paid less than the providers' actual charge during the period from 1997 to 2004. Company Appeals Class Certification On Aug. 23, 2004, the company requested permission from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to appeal the district court's class certification Order pursuant to Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On Nov. 14, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted the company's motion for leave to appeal. On March 4, 2005, the Third Circuit issued a briefing and scheduling order for the company's appeal. Briefing on the appeal was completed on June 15, 2005. The Third Circuit heard oral arguments on Dec. 15, 2005. On June 30, 2006, the Third Circuit ruled in Health Net's favor on the appeal. The court held that the district court's class certification opinion failed to properly define the claims, issues and defenses to be treated on a class basis. The Third Circuit thus vacated the certification order and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. The Scharfman Lawsuit On Jan. 13, 2005, counsel for the plaintiffs in the McCoy/Wachtel actions filed a separate class action against: -- Health Net, Inc., -- Health Net of the Northeast, Inc., -- Health Net of New York, Inc., -- Health Net Life Insurance Co., and -- Health Net of California, Inc. The suit is captioned "Scharfman v. Health Net, Inc., 05-CV- 00301 (FSH)(PS)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of the same parties who would have been added to the McCoy/Wachtel action as additional class representatives had the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint in that action. This new action contains similar allegations to those made by the plaintiffs in the McCoy/Wachtel action. Discovery has concluded and a final pre-trial order was submitted to the District Court in McCoy/Wachtel on June 28, 2005. Both sides have moved for summary judgment, and briefing on those motions has been completed. In their summary judgment briefing, plaintiffs also sought appointment of a monitor to act as an independent fiduciary to oversee the administration of the company's Northeast health plans (including claims payment practices). The company has opposed the appointment of a monitor. Despite the then pending Third Circuit appeal of the district court's class certification order, a trial date was set for Sept. 19, 2005. Motion to Stay On July 29, 2005, the company filed a motion in the district court to stay it and the trial in light of the pending Third Circuit appeal. On Aug. 4, 2005, the district court denied the company's motion to stay and instead adjourned the September 19 trial date and ordered that the parties be prepared to go to trial on seven days' notice as of Sept. 19, 2005. The company immediately filed a request for a stay with the Third Circuit seeking an order directing the district court to refrain from holding any trial or entering any judgment or order that would have the effect of resolving any claims or issues affecting the disputed classes until the Third Circuit rules on the class certification order. Plaintiffs cross-moved for dismissal of the class certification appeal. On Sept. 27, 2005, the Third Circuit granted the company's motion for a stay and denied plaintiffs' cross-motion. Plaintiffs have not specified the amount of damages being sought in this litigation and, although these proceedings are subject to many uncertainties, based on the proceedings to date, the company believes the amount of damages ultimately asserted by plaintiffs could be material. Motions Seeking Sanctions Against Firm On Aug. 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion with the district court seeking sanctions against the company for a variety of alleged acts of serious misconduct, discovery abuses and fraud on the district court. The sanctions sought by plaintiffs and being considered by the court include, among others, entry of a default judgment, monetary sanctions, including a substantial award for plaintiffs' legal fees and either the appointment of a monitor to oversee the company's claims payment practices and the company's dealings with state regulators or the appointment of an independent fiduciary to replace the company as a fiduciary with respect to the company's claims adjudications for members. Plaintiffs also are seeking the appointment of a discovery special master to oversee any further document production. On Sept. 12, 2005, the company responded to plaintiffs' motion denying that any sanctionable misconduct, discovery abuses or fraud had occurred. The district court conducted hearings for 12 days on this issue from October 2005 through March 2006. Throughout the time that the court has held these hearings, the parties have taken additional depositions and have submitted additional briefing on several issues that have arisen. During the course of the hearings, and in their post-hearings submissions, plaintiffs also have alleged that some of the company's witnesses engaged in perjury and obstruction of justice. The company has denied all such allegations. The record for the sanctions hearing has now closed. Following the conclusion of the sanctions hearings, the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court has taken these proposals under advisement and the company is awaiting a decision. Order to Procure Documents While the sanctions proceedings were progressing, the court and the Magistrate Judge overseeing discovery entered a number of orders relating, inter alia, to production of documents. On March 9, 2006, the Magistrate Judge ordered that all e-mails of Health Net and all of its subsidiaries be searched for documents responsive to all of plaintiffs' document requests. The practical effect of this order would be to require the company to restore all e-mails from back-up tapes and to review them along with e-mails on all current servers for all associates. Defendants appealed the March 9, 2006 order based upon the undue burden associated with such an expansive and expensive restoration and review of backed up emails. In an order dated May 5, 2006, the court limited the scope of the restoration, search and review of backed up emails to 59 current and former associates. The May 5 order set a deadline of July 15, 2006 to complete the restoration, search and production of emails, which deadline was extended until Sept. 30, 2006 by the court. The company is in the process of restoring back-up tapes and identifying emails to comply with the court's May 5 Order. This restoration process is complex, time consuming and expensive. On July 14, 2006, in light of the Third Circuit Ruling, the company filed a motion seeking relief from the obligation to search and produce documents pursuant to the May 5 Order on the basis that the cases are no longer class actions and, in the event that the cases are subsequently certified for class treatment, the search for documents should be guided by issues that remain in the class action. The court denied that motion and on Sept. 22, 2006, the company sought additional time for the production. On Sept. 27, 2006, the court denied the company's request and ordered that the company pay a fee to be determined at a later date for every day that the production is not completed and that the company may face other sanctions or consequences for failure to complete the production on time. The company continues to work diligently to complete the production. The May 5 Order also set forth certain findings regarding Plaintiffs' argument that the "crime-fraud" exception to the attorney-client privilege should be applied to certain documents for which the company have claimed a privilege. In this ruling, the court made preliminary findings that a showing of a possible crime or fraud was made with respect to Health Net's interactions with NJ DOBI, the payment of a second restitution in New Jersey and discovery abuses, including delaying discovery and failing to properly preserve documents. In this opinion and in earlier orders, the court explained that a multi-step process must occur before determining whether a claim of privilege can be pierced by the "crime-fraud" exception to the attorney-client privilege. The May 5 Order is not a final decision on this issue, but rather one step in the multi- step process. The Magistrate Judge held hearings on Sept. 27-29, 2006 on plaintiffs' request that certain documents for which Defendants asserted the attorney-client privilege should be produced as a result of the "crime-fraud" exception to the privilege. At these hearings, Defendants presented evidence and arguments, mostly in camera, as to why no crime or fraud had been committed and why the documents should not be produced. The Magistrate Judge has yet to rule on the issues presented. On May 11, 2006, the court issued another opinion ruling on the "fiduciary" exception to the attorney-client privilege. In this ruling, the Court held, among other things, that the fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege should apply to this litigation, and that the decision of which year's database to apply is a fiduciary function and not a "plan design" function for ERISA purposes. The court also held that functions Health Net, Inc. performs related to medical reimbursement determinations are fiduciary functions, therefore making Health Net, Inc. potentially liable to plaintiffs as a fiduciary under ERISA. On June 12, 2006, the company filed a notice of appeal of this order. All briefing is now complete, and oral argument is scheduled for Dec. 14, 2006. New Class Certification Order Pursuant to the June 30, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, on July 25, 2006, the district court ordered the parties to submit statements of the legal issues that each believed were common to the classes (as previously defined by the court on Aug. 5, 2004) and those that were individual in nature. After receiving these submissions, on Sept. 25, 2006, the court entered an order directing that 19 specified legal issues should be treated on a class basis and, referring to the initial class certification order of Aug. 5, 2004, deciding that class issues predominate over individual issues such that the cases should proceed as class actions. On Oct. 10, 2006, the company sought permission to appeal this new class certification order to the Third Circuit on the question of whether classes were properly certified. The parties are awaiting a decision on whether the Third Circuit will accept the appeal and, if so, the establishment of a briefing schedule. The suit is "Wachtel, et al. v. Health Net, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:01-cv-04183-FSH-PS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg with referral to Patty Shwartz. Representing the plaintiffs is Barry M. Epstein at Sills, Cummis, Epstein & Gross PC, One Riverfront Plaza, Newark, NJ 07102-5400, Phone: (973) 643-7000, E-mail: bepstein@sillscummis.com. Representing the defendants are: (1) John J. Gibbons at Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, PC, One Riverfront Plaza, Newark, NJ 07102-5496, Phone: (973) 596-4500, E-mail: jgibbons@gibbonslaw.com; and (2) Herve Gouraige at Epstein Becker & Green, PC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-5003, Phone: (973) 642-1900, E-mail: hgouraige@ebglaw.com. HEALTH NET: Tag-Along Actions in Managed Care Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Joint motions to dismiss the remaining tag-along actions in the case in "In Re Managed Care Litigation, MDL 1334" have been filed in with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Various class actions against managed care companies, including Health Net Inc., were transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings as, "In re Managed Care Litigation, MDL 1334." This proceeding was divided into two tracks, the subscriber track, comprising actions brought on behalf of health plan members, and the provider track, comprising actions brought on behalf of health care providers. On Aug. 19, 2003, the court dismissed the final subscriber track action involving the company, "The State of Connecticut v. Physicians Health Services of Connecticut, Inc.," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on Aug. 7, 2000, on grounds that the State of Connecticut lacked standing to bring the ERISA claims asserted in the complaint. That same day, the court ordered that the subscriber track be closed "in light of the dismissal of all cases in the Subscriber Track." The State of Connecticut appealed the dismissal order to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and on Aug. 10, 2004, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal. On Feb. 22, 2005, the Supreme Court of the U.S. denied plaintiffs' Petition for Writ of Certiorari on the Eleventh Circuit's decision to uphold the dismissal. The provider track includes these actions involving: -- "Shane v. Humana, Inc., et al., including Health Net, Inc., filed in the Southern District of Florida on Aug. 17, 2000 as an amendment to a suit filed in the Western District of Kentucky; -- "California Medical Association v. Blue Cross of California, Inc., PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc., PacifiCare Operations, Inc. and Foundation Health Systems, Inc." filed in the Northern District of California in May 2000; -- "Klay v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, et al., including Foundation Health Systems, Inc., filed in the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 22, 2001 as an amendment to a case filed in the Northern District of California; -- "Connecticut State Medical Society v. Physicians Health Services of Connecticut, Inc.," filed in Connecticut state court on Feb. 14, 2001; -- "Lynch v. Physicians Health Services of Connecticut, Inc." filed in Connecticut state court on Feb. 14, 2001; -- "Sutter v. Health Net of the Northeast, Inc." filed in New Jersey state court on April 26, 2002; -- "Medical Society of New Jersey v. Health Net, Inc., et al.," filed in New Jersey state court on May 8, 2002; -- "Knecht v. Cigna, et al.," including Health Net, Inc., filed in the District of Oregon in May 2003; -- "Solomon v. Cigna, et al.," including Health Net, Inc. filed in the Southern District of Florida on Oct. 17, 2003; -- "Ashton v. Health Net, Inc., et al." filed in the Southern District of Florida on Jan. 20, 2004; and -- "Freiberg v. UnitedHealthcare, Inc., et al., including Health Net, Inc., filed in the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 24, 2004)" These actions allege that the defendants, including the company, systematically underpaid providers for medical services to members, have delayed payments to providers, imposed unfair contracting terms on providers, and negotiated capitation payments inadequate to cover the costs of the health care services provided and assert claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and several state common law doctrines and statutes. "Shane," the lead physician provider track action, asserts claims on behalf of physicians and seeks certification of a nationwide class. The "Knecht," "Solomon," "Ashton" and "Freiberg" cases all are brought on behalf of health care providers other than physicians and seek certification of a nationwide class of similarly situated health care providers. Other than "Shane," all provider track actions involving the company have been stayed. On May 3, 2005, the company and the representatives of approximately 900,000 physicians and state and other medical societies announced that the company had signed an agreement settling Shane, the lead physician provider track action. The settlement agreement requires the company to pay $40 million to general settlement funds and $20 million for plaintiffs' legal fees. Deadline for class members to submit claim forms in order to receive a portion of the settlement funds was Aug. 21, 2005. This deadline was extended by agreement to Nov. 21, 2005 for class members who reside or practice in a county declared as a disaster area as a result of Hurricane Katrina. During the three months ended March 31, 2005, the company recorded a pretax charge of approximately $65.6 million in connection with the settlement agreement, legal expenses, and other expenses related to the MDL 1334 litigation. The settlement agreement also includes a commitment that the company institute a number of business practice changes. Among the business practice changes the company have agreed to implement are: -- enhanced disclosure of certain claims payment practices; -- conforming claims-editing software to certain editing and payment rules and standards; -- payment of electronically submitted claims in 15 days (30 days for paper claims); -- use of a uniform definition of "medical necessity" that includes reference to generally accepted standards of medical practice and credible scientific evidence published in peer-reviewed medical literature; -- establish a billing dispute external review board to afford prompt, independent resolution of billing disputes; -- provide 90-day notice of changes in practices and policies and implement various changes to standard form contracts; -- establish an independent physician advisory committee; and, -- where physicians are paid on a capitation basis, provide projected cost and utilization information, provide periodic reporting and not delay assignment to the capitated physician. The settlement agreement requires the company to implement these business practice changes by various dates, and to maintain them for a four-year period thereafter. On Aug. 26, 2005, the District Court issued an order granting its final approval of the settlement agreement and directing the entry of final judgment. Four physicians appealed the order approving the settlement, but each of the physicians moved to dismiss their appeals, and all of the appeals were dismissed by the Eleventh Circuit by June 20, 2006. On July 19, 2006, joint motions to dismiss were filed in the District Court with respect to all of the remaining tag-along actions filed on behalf of physicians, the California Medical Association, Klay, Connecticut State Medical Society, Lynch, and Sutter actions. As a result of the physician settlement agreement, the dismissals of the various appeals, and the filing of the agreed motions to dismiss the tag along actions involving physician providers, all cases and proceedings relating to the physician provider track actions against the company have been resolved. Various cases brought by certain non-physicians against other managed care companies and the company are still pending but have been stayed in the multi-district proceeding. On Sept. 12, 2006, Judge Moreno dismissed one of those cases, the "Ashton" action, on grounds that the Ashton plaintiffs failed to file a status report. The Ashton plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to vacate the dismissal in which they contend that they did file a status report. The company intends to defend itself vigorously in the remaining Knecht, Solomon, and Freiberg non-physician cases. KENNETH COLE: Plaintiffs in Calif. Labor Suit Dismiss Complaints ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a class action filed against Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. by a store supervisor in a California have agreed to dismiss the suit. In April 2005, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the company in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego. The individual plaintiff was a floor supervisor in one of the company's retail stores who purported to bring suit on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former floor supervisors. Among other claims, the plaintiff alleged that he and other floor supervisors worked hours for which they were entitled to receive, but did not receive, overtime compensation under California law. The lawsuit sought damages, penalties, restitution, equitable relief, interest and attorneys' fees and costs. In September 2006, counsel for the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the purported class action. In October 2006, the individual plaintiff and the Company executed a settlement agreement, for a nominal amount, for his individual claims. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. in the Net: http://www.kencole.com/. KENNETH COLE: Calif. Court Approves Settlement of Managers' Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles entered a final judgment in the settlement of a class action filed against Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. by former store managers or assistant managers. In September 2004, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. The individual plaintiffs were current or former store managers or assistant managers who brought a suit on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated store managers and assistant managers. Among other claims, the plaintiffs alleged that they worked hours for which they were entitled to receive, but did not receive, overtime compensation under California law. The lawsuit sought damages, penalties, restitution, reclassification and attorneys' fees and costs. In January 2006, the company reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter, and the parties filed a fully executed stipulation of class settlement and release. On June 21, 2006, the court entered final judgment in the case, which settlement included the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees as well as court and claims administration costs. All amounts due under the final judgment have now been paid and the period for any appeal has now been exhausted. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. in the Net: http://www.kencole.com/. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Seeks 11th Circuit Review of "Williams" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Mohawk Industries, Inc., has filed a motion requesting review by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit of a decision in the purported class action, "Shirley Williams, et al. v. Mohawk Industries, Inc." The suit was filed by four plaintiffs filed in January 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging that they are former and current employees of the company and that the actions and conduct of the company, including the employment of persons who are not permitted to work in the U.S., have damaged them and the other members of the purported class by suppressing the wages of the company's hourly employees in Georgia. Plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including: -- treble damages; -- return of any allegedly unlawful profits; and -- attorney's fees and costs of litigation. According to the original complaint, the company sent its employees "to the U.S. border, including areas near Brownsville, Texas, to recruit undocumented aliens that recently entered the U.S. in violation of federal law" and transport them to North Georgia, (Class Action Reporter, December 22, 2005). The suit also alleges that Mohawk employees and other recruiters provided these illegal immigrants with housing and found them jobs with the company. It even charges that although some of the illegal workers were arrested, Mohawk's supervisors helped others evade detection. Additionally, the suit claims that even though the company fired several illegal immigrants after discovering them among its work force during internal audits, it soon rehired them under different names. It claims that the company destroyed documents in an effort to conceal the fact that it employed illegal workers. One of the company's objectives, the suit alleges, was to inflate the size of the pool from which it hires hourly workers, thereby depressing wages. Another was to reduce the number and expense of workers' compensation claims, since "illegal employees are unlikely to file," the suit states. In February 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was denied by the court in April 2004. The company then sought and obtained permission to file an immediate appeal of the court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. In June 2005, the 11th Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part the lower court's decision (Williams v. Mohawk Industries, Inc., 411 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2005)). In June 2005, the company filed a motion requesting review by the full 11th Circuit, which was denied in August 2005. In October 2005, the company filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which petition was granted in December of 2005. The case was argued before the Supreme Court on April 26, 2006. The case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court is titled, "Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams, No. 05-465." Previously pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the suit was titled, "Williams v. Mohawk, No. 04- 13740," (Class Action Reporter, April 25, 2006). On June 5, 2006, the Supreme Court vacated the 11th Circuit ruling and ordered the 11th Circuit to reconsider its vacated ruling. On Sept. 27, 2006, the 11th Circuit issued a second decision reversing in part and affirming in part the lower court's decision. On Oct. 18, 2006, the company filed a motion requesting review of the decision by the full 11th Circuit, according to its Nov. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Nov. 3, 2006. The original suit is "Williams, et al. v. Mohawk Industries, Case No. 4:04-cv-00003-HLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Georgia under Judge Harold L. Murphy. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Bobby Lee Cook of Cook & Connelly, P.O. Box 370, Summerville, GA 30747-0370, Phone: 706-857-3421, E- mail: LisaDodd@alltel.net; (2) Ronan P. Doherty, John Earl Floyd, Nicole G. Iannarone and Joshua F. Thorpe of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, 1201 West Peachtree St., N.W., 3900 One Atlantic Center, Atlanta, GA 30309-3417, Phone: 404-881-4100, E-mail: doherty@bmelaw.com, floyd@bmelaw.com, iannarone@bmelaw.com and thorpe@bmelaw.com; (3) Howard Foster of Johnson & Bell, 55 East Monroe St., Suite 4100, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: 312-372-0770, E- mail: fosterh@jbltd.com; and (4) Matthew Daniel Thames of Goddard Thames Hammontree & Bolding, Suite 209, P.O. Box 399, 101 N. Thornton Ave., Dalton, GA 30722-0399, Phone: 706-278-0464, E-mail: mattatty@alltel.net. Representing the defendants are: (i) Steven Thomas Cottreau, Juan P. Morillo and Virginia A. Seitz of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, 1501 K. St., NW Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-736-8000, E-mail: scottreau@sidley.com; and (ii) R. Carl Cannon and Rosemary C. Lumpkins of Constangy Brooks & Smith, 230 Peachtree St., N.W., 2400 Peachtree Center Tower, Atlanta, GA 30303-1557, Phone: 404-525- 8622, E-mail: ccannon@constangy.com. NEW YORK: Ulster County Continues to Face Discrimination Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The County of Ulster, New York remains a defendant in a purported class action, claiming that gay and lesbian county employees do not enjoy the same health-care benefits as their heterosexual colleagues, Katie Young of the DailyFreeman.com reports. Three employees from the Mental Health Department, as well as the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) filed the lawsuit against the county, which is represented by attorney Joshua Koplovitz. CSEA, licensed social workers Maureen Ford and Natalie Korniloff, and Cheyl Qamar, a program supervisor and Local Government Unit for Children's Services filed the suit on the basis of the state's Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act. Plaintiffs, represented by attorney Jennifer Middleton, call for an extension of benefits as well as payment of damages since 2003. For more details, contact: (1) [Plaintiffs] Jennifer Middleton of The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, 120 Wall Street, Suite 1500, New York, NY 10005-3904, Phone: 212-809-8585, Fax: 212-809-0055, Web site: http://www.lambdalegal.org;and (2) [Defendants] Joshua N. Koplovitz of Wapner, Koplovitz & Futerfas, PLLC, 239 Wall Street, Kingston, New York 12402, (Ulster Co.), Phone: 845-331-0100, Fax: 845-331- 0427, Web site: http://www.lawyers.com/wkandfpllc. OLD REPUBLIC: Faces Title Insurance Suits in Conn., N.J., Ohio -------------------------------------------------------------- Old Republic National Title Insurance Co. (ORNTIC), a principal title insurance subsidiary of Old Republic International Corp., faces several purported class actions in state courts in Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey and Ohio. Generally, plaintiffs allege that, pursuant to rate schedules filed by ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the state insurance regulators, ORNTIC was required to, but failed to give consumers reissue credits on the premiums charged for title insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions. Substantially similar lawsuits have been filed against other unaffiliated title insurance companies in these and other states as well. The actions seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. ORNTIC has reached a tentative settlement in Florida for an amount not to exceed $1.2, exclusive of attorneys' fees and costs, according to its Nov. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 27, 2006. Old Republic International Corp. (NYSE: ORI) on the Net: http://www.oldrepublic.com/. PUTNAM GENERAL: Patients Accuse W.Va. Hospital of Negligence ------------------------------------------------------------ The former Putnam General Hospital is facing a class action filed by two Kanawha Valley attorneys alleging the hospital does not properly disinfect its instruments, the West Virginia Record reports. Local attorneys Frank M. Armada and Anthony J. Majestro on behalf of residents Roseann McFerran and Kathleen A. Wilson filed the suit in Putnam Circuit Court. Plaintiffs intend to represent all West Virginia residents who underwent endoscopic procedures at the hospital between March 1, 2003, and Sept. 30, 2004. The complaint is seeking compensatory damages, medical monitoring expenses for diagnostic and preventative treatment and for treatment of injuries in relation to the alleged negligent, careless, and reckless conduct by the company. It is also seeking attorney fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, other relief. The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge O.C. "Hobby" Spaulding. Putnam General Hospital was renamed CAMC Teays Valley Hospital recently after its disposal to Charleston Area Medical Center. For more details, contact Anthony J. Majestro of Powell & Majestro PLLC, 405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200, P.O. Box 3081, Charleston, West Virginia 25331 (Kanawha Co.), Phone: 304-346- 2889, Fax: 304-346-2895. REPUBLIC MORTGAGE: Faces Private Mortgage Insurance Suit in S.C. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Republic Mortgage Insurance Co. (RMIC), a wholly owned mortgage guaranty insurance subsidiary of Old Republic International Corp., is a defendant in a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Filed on March 15, 2004, the suit against RMIC seeks certification of a nationwide class of consumers who were allegedly required to pay for private mortgage insurance at a cost greater than RMIC's "best available rate." The action alleges that the decision to insure their loans at a higher rate was based on the consumers' credit scores and constituted an "adverse action" within the meaning, and in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, that requires notice, allegedly not given, to the consumers. The action seeks statutory and punitive damages, as well as other costs. RMIC is proceeding with its defense, according to its Nov. 3, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 27, 2006. The suit is "Brantley, et al v. Republic Mortgage, Case No. 2:04-cv-00805-PMD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina under Judge Patrick Michael Duffy. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Charlie Bridgmon of McCutchen Blanton Rhodes and Johnson, PO Box 11209, Columbia, SC 29211-1209, Phone: 803-252-4050, Fax: 803-253-6084, E-mail: cbridgmon@mbjb.com; (2) Mario A. Pacella of The Strom Law Firm, 2110 Beltline Boulevard, Suite A, Columbia, SC 29204, Phone: 803-252- 4800, Fax: 803-252-4801, E-mail: mpacella@stromlaw.com; and (3) Tamra Carsten Givens of James Hoyer Newcomer and Smiljanich, 4830 W. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 550, Tampa, FL 33609, Phone: 813-286-4100, E-mail: tgivens@jameshoyer.com. Representing the defendant is Benjamin Rush Smith, III of Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, PO Box 11070, Columbia, SC 29211, Phone: 803-799-2000, Fax: 803-256-7500, E-mail: rush.smith@nelsonmullins.com. TARGET STORES: Recalls Toys Due to Lead, Laceration Hazards ----------------------------------------------------------- Target Stores, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 190,500 units of various "Kool Toyz" children's products, which were manufactured by Toy Century Industrial Ltd., of Hong Kong. The company said some of these toys contain lead paint, which is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects. Also, some of the toys have sharp points, posing laceration or puncture wound hazards. Target has received four reports of toys breaking apart, exposing sharp points. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves "Kool Toyz" brand toys, including sets containing die-cast cars, playground set, doll house set, dinosaurs, trucks, boats and planes. The packaging is primary blue and has the "Kool Toyz" logo is on the upper left corner of the packaging. The following chart lists the toys involved in the recall, their item numbers written on the upper right corner of the packaging, and the specific hazards they pose: Product Name Item Number Hazard Truck Carry Case 087/01/0050 Lead Paint and Sharp Points Tiny Playground Set 086/10/0048 Lead Paint and Sharp Points Dream House Play Set 086/10/0048 Lead Paint and Sharp Points Discovery Dinosaur 087/01/0011 Lead Paint Habitat Command Center 087/01/0034 Sharp Points Action Figure Play Set Aircraft Carrier 087/01/0034 Sharp Points Action Figure Play Set Air, Land and Sea 087/01/0036 Lead Paint Defender Play Set Tank Action Figure 087/01/0040 Lead Paint Play Set Helicopter Action 087/01/0040 Lead Paint Figure Play Set Remote Control Trucks 087/01/0042 Sharp Points Pictures of the recalled "Kool Toyz" children's products: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07035a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07035b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07035c.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07035d.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07035e.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07035f.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07035g.jpg These recalled "Kool Toyz" children's products were manufactured in China and are being sold by Target Stores nationwide from July 2006 through September 2006 and on Target.com from August 2006 through September 2006 for between $10 and $20. Consumers are advised to take the products away from children and return the item to the nearest Target Store for a full refund. For additional information, please contact Target at (800) 440- 0680 between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.target.com VERIZON COMMS: Faces Suit Over Intelligence-Gathering Activities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Verizon Communications, Inc., and a number of other telecommunications companies, faces a consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, concerning alleged participation in intelligence- gathering activities. Originally, defendants faces multiple class actions over activities allegedly carried out by the federal government, at the direction of the President of the U.S., as part of the government's post-September 11 program to prevent terrorist attacks. Plaintiffs generally allege that Verizon 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 violate federal and/or state constitutional and statutory law. Relief sought in the cases includes injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and statutory and punitive damages. 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 case is consolidated as: "In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation, MDL- 1791." The Panel subsequently ordered that a number of "tag along" actions also be transferred to the U.S. District Court for 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 has not answered or otherwise responded to any of the complaints. Verizon believes that these lawsuits are without merit, according to its Nov. 6, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. 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. VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Suit Over May 2006 AGM Proposals Junked --------------------------------------------------------------- The Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a class action filed against Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. over its proposal to authorize new common stock and two amend its charter. On April 11, 2006, a class action complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Vishay and the members of its Board of Directors. The complaint opposed Vishay's proposals to be presented at its May 11, 2006 annual meeting of stockholders to authorize a new Class C common stock and to amend Vishay's charter to give the directors the exclusive right to determine the size of the board. The plaintiff asked the court to enjoin the annual meeting, to invalidate the authorization of the Class C shares and the charter amendment, and to enjoin any issuance of Class C shares. Vishay's Board of Directors decided to withdraw the two charter amendment proposals prior to the meeting. In light of the foregoing events, the parties agreed that the complaint is moot. The plaintiff claimed that his attorneys were entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses on the grounds that their litigation efforts had a material causal relationship to the Vishay Board of Directors' conduct which ultimately mooted the claims asserted in the complaint. Without Vishay conceding that the litigation efforts of plaintiff's counsel had any impact on the withdrawal of the two charter amendment proposals, the plaintiff and Vishay have engaged in arm's length negotiations to compromise the plaintiff's claim for attorneys' fees and expenses. In resolution of the plaintiff's claim, Vishay agreed to pay plaintiff's counsel the sum of $537,500 for such fees, inclusive of expenses. The Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed the complaint as moot on Sept. 25, 2006. VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Del. High Court Mulls Injunction Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Delaware has yet to rule on an appeal by a purported former shareholder of Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. against the anti-suit injunction issued by the Delaware Court of Chancery in the Proctor litigation filed against the company. On May 12, 2005, Vishay successfully completed a tender offer for shares of Siliconix not owned by Vishay. Following the March 3, 2005 announcement of Vishay's intention to make the tender offer for the remaining shares of Siliconix that Vishay did not already own, several purported class-action complaints were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Vishay, Siliconix, and the Siliconix directors, alleging, among other things, that the intended offer was unfair and a breach of fiduciary duty, and seeking, among other things, to enjoin the transaction. The Delaware actions were consolidated into a single class action. The parties to the Delaware consolidated action subsequently entered into a settlement agreement, which was approved by the court on Oct. 25, 2005. Class Action by Non-Vishay Stockholders In January 2005, an amended class action complaint was filed in the California Superior Court on behalf of all non-Vishay stockholders of Siliconix against: -- Vishay, -- Ernst & Young LLP (the independent registered public accounting firm that audits the Company's financial statements), and -- Dr. Felix Zandman, chairman and chief technical and business development officer of Vishay, and, as a nominal defendant, Siliconix. The suit purports to state various derivative and class claims against the defendants including: -- the purported taking by Vishay of Siliconix sales subsidiaries and the profits of those subsidiaries; -- the purported taking by Vishay of Siliconix's SAP software system without compensation to Siliconix; -- the alleged use by Vishay of Siliconix's assets as security for Vishay loans without compensation to Siliconix; -- the purported misappropriation by Vishay of Siliconix's identity; -- the alleged taking by Vishay of Siliconix testing equipment; -- the alleged use by Vishay of Siliconix to save Vishay certain credits made available by an Israeli business development agency; -- the alleged misuse by Vishay of Siliconix's patents to help Vishay acquire General Semiconductor; and -- the allegedly improper identification of Dr. Zandman as a co-inventor on certain Siliconix patents. The action seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. On April 1, 2005, Vishay: -- demurred to the class action claim in the amended complaint, on the ground that plaintiffs lack standing to bring a direct claim; -- moved to strike some of the allegations in the derivative cause of action as barred by the applicable statutes of limitation; and -- moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs failed to prosecute their claims in a timely manner. Also on April 1, 2005, defendant Ernst & Young moved to dismiss the claims against it and, in the alternative, for a stay of the litigation so that the causes of action asserted against Ernst & Young may first be arbitrated. On June 10, 2005, Vishay and Ernst & Young separately demurred to the derivative claim on the ground that as a consequence of the merger of Siliconix with a subsidiary of Vishay, plaintiffs no longer had standing to pursue a derivative claim. At a hearing on Aug. 2, 2005, the court sustained the parties' demurrers to the direct and the derivative claims and granted plaintiffs leave to replead both claims. An amended complaint was filed in November 2005. On March 7, 2006, the California Superior Court rejected Vishay's demurer motion and required Vishay to answer the complaint. On May 25, 2006, Vishay filed its answer to the complaint, denying the allegations of the amended complaint and asserting various defenses. On June 13, 2006, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an anti- suit injunction based on the settlement agreement that was reached in connection with the tender offer litigation filed by the Siliconix minority shareholders in Delaware. The injunction prevents the Proctor litigation from continuing. On July 10, 2006, a purported former shareholder filed a notice of appeal of the injunction order with the Supreme Court of Delaware. On Sept. 1, 2006, Vishay moved to affirm the Chancery Court decision. That motion was denied on Sept. 11, 2006. The appeal has now been briefed and is awaiting a decision by the court. XEROX CORP: Conn. Court OKs Start of Discovery in ERISA Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted plaintiffs' motion to commence formal discovery in the consolidated class action, "In Re Xerox Corp. ERISA Litigation." On Jul. 1, 2002, a class action complaint "Patti v. Xerox Corp. et al.," was filed, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Three additional class actions -- Hopkins, Uebele and Saba -- were subsequently filed in the same court making substantially similar claims. On Oct. 16, 2002, the four actions were consolidated as "In Re Xerox Corp. ERISA Litigation." On Nov. 15, 2002, a consolidated amended complaint was filed. A fifth class action (Wright) was filed in the District of Columbia. It has been transferred to Connecticut and consolidated with the other actions. The purported class includes all persons who invested or maintained investments in the Xerox Stock Fund in the Xerox 401(k) Plans (either salaried or union) during the proposed class period, May 12, 1997 through Nov. 15, 2002, and allegedly exceeds 50,000 persons. The defendants include the company and these individuals or groups of individuals during the proposed class period: -- Plan Administrator; -- Board of Directors; -- Fiduciary Investment Review Committee; -- Joint Administrative Board; -- Finance Committee of the Board of Directors; and -- Treasurer. The complaint claims that all the foregoing defendants were fiduciaries of the Plan under ERISA and, as such, were obligated to protect the Plan's assets and act in the interest of Plan participants. The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to do so and thereby breached their fiduciary duties. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that the defendants failed to provide accurate and complete material information to participants concerning company stock, including accounting practices which allegedly artificially inflated the value of the stock, and misled participants regarding the soundness of the stock and the prudence of investing their retirement assets in company stock. Plaintiffs also claim that defendants failed to invest Plan assets prudently, to monitor the other fiduciaries and to disregard Plan directives they knew or should have known were imprudent, and failed to avoid conflicts of interest. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought. However, it asks that the losses to the Plan be restored, which it describes as "millions of dollars." It also seeks other legal and equitable relief, as appropriate, to remedy the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, as well as interest, costs and attorneys' fees. The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for class certification and a motion to commence discovery. Defendants have opposed both motions, contending that both are premature before there is a decision on their motion to dismiss. In the fall of 2004, the court requested an updated briefing on the company's motion to dismiss and update briefs were filed in December of that year. On Mar. 31, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to postpone consideration of class certification pending disposition of the company's motion to dismiss, and granted plaintiffs motion to commence formal discovery, according to its Oct 27, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. The suit is "In Re Xerox Corp. ERISA Litigation, Case No. 3:02- cv-01138-AWT," filed in the U.S. District Court in Connecticut under Judge Alvin W. Thompson. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Gary A. Gotto of Keller Rohrback, 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 900, Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2600, Phone: 602-230-6322, Fax: 602-248-2822, E-mail: ggotto@kellerrohrback.com; and (2) Charles R. Watkins of Susman & Watkins, Two First National Plaza, Suite 600, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: 312-346-3466, Fax: 312-346-2829, E-mail: chuckwatkins@ameritech.net. Representing the defendants are: (i) William H. Boice of Kilpatrick Stockton, 1100 Peachtree St., Ste. 2800, Atlanta, GA 30309-4530, Phone: 404-815- 6464, Fax: 404-541-3134, E-mail: bboice@kilpatrickstockton.com; and (ii) William J. Egan of Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner, City Place II, 185 Asylum Street, 10th Floor, Hartford, CT 06103, Phone: 860-275-6400, Fax: 860-275- 6410, E-mail: wegan@brownraysman.com. XEROX CORP: Court Mulls Appeal on N.Y. Apartheid Suit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York of the class action, "Digwamaje et al. v. IBM et al." The suit, filed against Xerox Corp. and several other corporations, alleges that defendants provided material assistance to the apartheid government in South Africa from 1948 to 1994, by engaging in commerce in South Africa and with the South African government and by employing forced labor, thereby violating both international and common law. Filed on Sept. 27, 2002, the First Amended Complaint on the company was deemed effective as of Dec. 6, 2002. On March 19, 2003, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint that eliminated a number of corporate defendants but was otherwise identical in all material respects to the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs claim violations of the Alien Tort Claims Act, the Torture Victims Protection Act and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. They also assert human rights violations and crimes against humanity. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in excess of $200 billion and punitive damages in excess of $200 billion. The foregoing damages are being sought from all defendants, jointly and severally. The company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Oral argument of the motion was heard on Nov. 6, 2003. By Memorandum Opinion and Order filed Nov. 29, 2004, the court granted the motion to dismiss. A clerk's judgment of dismissal was filed on Nov. 30, 2004. On Dec. 27, 2004, the company received a notice of appeal dated Dec. 24, 2004. On Feb. 16, 2005, the parties filed a stipulation withdrawing the Dec. 24, 2004 appeal on the ground that the Nov. 30, 2004 judgment of dismissal was not appealable. On March 28, 2005, plaintiffs submitted a letter requesting permission to file a motion for leave to file an amended and consolidated complaint. By Summary Order filed April 6, 2005, the court denied the request. In a second Summary Order filed the same day, the court amended its Nov. 29, 2004, Opinion and Order, which dismissed the action, so as to render the Opinion and Order appealable and plaintiffs filed a new appeal on May 3, 2005. On Aug. 19, 2005, plaintiffs-appellants filed their brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On Oct. 4, 2005, defendants-appellates filed their brief in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument in the Second Circuit was held on Jan. 24, 2006. The company denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously defending the action, according to its Oct 27, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. The suit is "Digwamaje, et al. v. IBM Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-06218-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge John E. Sprizzo. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Kweku J. Hanson, 487 Main Street, Harford, CT 06106, Phone: (860) 728-5454, Fax: (860) 548-9660; (2) Medi Moira Mokuena, 268 Jubilee Avenue, Halfway House 1685, Extension 12, Republic of South Africa; and (3) Paul M. Ngobeni, 914 Main Street, Suite 206, East Hartford, CT 06108, Phone: (860) 289-3155 and (508) 620-4798. Representing the defendants are: (i) Kristin M. Heine of Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP, 500 Campus Drive, Florham Park, NJ 07932-1047, Phone: (973) 549-7338, Fax: (973) 360-9831, Web site: http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/;and (ii) Kristin Michele Heine of Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP, 140 Broadway, 39th Flr., New York, NY 10005, Phone: (973) 549-7338, Fax: (973) 360-9831, E-mail: kristin.heine@dbr.com. XEROX CORP: Discovery Continues in "Carlson" Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery proceedings are still ongoing in the consolidated securities class action, "Carlson v. Xerox Corp., et al.," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Initially consisting of 21 cases, the consolidated securities class action, also names as defendants KPMG LLP, Paul A. Allaire, G. Richard Thoman, Anne M. Mulcahy, Barry D. Romeril, Gregory Tayler, and Philip Fishbach. On Sept. 11, 2002, the court entered an endorsement order granting plaintiffs' motion to file a third consolidated amended complaint. The defendants' motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint was denied, as moot. According to the third consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs purport to bring this case as a class action on behalf of an expanded class consisting of all persons and/or entities who purchased the company's common stock and/or bonds between Feb. 17, 1998 and June 28, 2002 and who were purportedly damaged thereby. The third consolidated amended complaint sets forth two claims: -- each of the company, KPMG, and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 thereunder; and -- the individual defendants are also allegedly liable as "controlling persons" of the company pursuant to Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act. Plaintiffs claim that the defendants participated in a fraudulent scheme that operated as a fraud and deceit on purchasers of the company's common stock and bonds by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts relating to various of the company's accounting and reporting practices and financial condition. Plaintiffs further allege that this scheme deceived the investing public regarding the true state of the company's financial condition and caused the plaintiffs and other members of the alleged class to purchase the company's common stock and bonds at artificially inflated prices, and prompted a SEC investigation that led to the April 11, 2002 settlement which, among other things, required the company to pay a $10 penalty and restate its financials for the years 1997-2000, including restatement of financials previously corrected in an earlier restatement which plaintiffs contend was improper. The third consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the other class members against all defendants, jointly and severally, including interest thereon, together with reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. On Dec. 2, 2002, the company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 13, 2005, the court denied the motion. On Oct. 31, 2005, the defendants answered the complaint. On Jan. 19, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class ratification. That motion has not been fully briefed or argued before the court. The parties are engaged in discovery, according to its Oct 27, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. The suit is "Carlson, et al. v. Xerox Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:00-cv-01621-AWT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Alvin W. Thompson. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Francis P. Karam and Keith M. Fleischman of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th St., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-779-1414, Fax: 212-779-3218, E- mail: karam@bernlieb.com; (2) Eliot B. Gersten and John Joseph Robaczynski of Gersten & Clifford, 214 Main Street, Hartford, CT 06106, Phone: 860-527-7044, Fax: 860-527-4968, E-mail: egersten@gcrlaw.net and jrobacynski@gcrlaw.net; (3) Dennis J. Johnson and Jacob B. Perkinson of Johnson & Perkinson, 1690 Williston Rd., South Burlington, VT 05403, Phone: 802-862-0030, Fax: 802-862-0060, E-mail: djohnson@jpclasslaw.com and jperkinson@jpclasslaw.com; (4) Abigail Romeo of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo-MA, One Liberty Square, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-542-8300, Fax: 617-542-1194, E-mail: aromeo@bermanesq.com; and (5) Cary L. Talbot of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 4915, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-5300. Representing the defendants are: (i) Michael Gruenglas and Jay B. Kasner of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Four Times Square, New York, NY 10036-3897, Phone: 212-735-3000; (ii) Timothy W. Blakely, Evan R. Chesler, Karin A. DeMasi and Sandra C. Goldstein of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, 825 8Th Ave., Worldwide Plaza, New York, NY 10019-7415, Phone: 212-474-1000, Fax: 212-474-3700, E-mail: echesler@cravath.com, kdemasi@cravath.com and sgoldstein@cravath.com; and (iii) Thomas D. Goldberg of Day, Berry & Howard, One Canterbury Green, Stamford, CT 06901-2047, Phone: 203- 977-7383, Fax: 203-977-7301, E-mail: tdgoldberg@dbh.com. XEROX CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Conn. Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery proceedings are still ongoing in the class action, "In re Xerox Corporation Securities Litigation," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against Xerox Corp. and other defendants. Initially consisting of seventeen cases, the consolidated action named as defendants: -- the company, -- Barry Romeril, -- Paul Allaire, and -- G. Richard Thoman The suit purports to be a class action on behalf of the named plaintiffs and all other purchasers of common stock of the company between Oct. 22, 1998 and Oct. 7, 1999. The amended consolidated complaint in the action alleges that in violation of Section 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder, each of the defendants is liable as a participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of the company's common stock during the class period by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material facts relating to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose the material negative impact that the April 1998 restructuring had on the company's operations and revenues. The amended complaint further alleges that the alleged scheme: -- deceived the investing public regarding the economic capabilities, sales proficiencies, growth, operations and the intrinsic value of the company's common stock; -- allowed several corporate insiders, such as the named individual defendants, to sell shares of privately held common stock of the company while in possession of materially adverse, non-public information; and -- caused the individual plaintiffs and the other members of the purported class to purchase common stock of the Company at inflated prices. The amended consolidated complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the other members of the purported class against all defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of defendants' alleged wrongdoing, including interest thereon, together with reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action, including counsel fees and expert fees. On Sept. 28, 2001, the court denied the defendants' motion for dismissal of the complaint. On Nov. 5, 2001, the defendants answered the complaint. On or about Jan. 7, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The company and the individual defendants filed their opposition to that motion on June 28, 2005. The motion has been fully briefed, but has not been argued before the court. The court has not issued a ruling. On or about Nov. 8, 2004, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Welfare Fund of Local Union No. 164 filed a motion to intervene as a named plaintiff and class representative. Separately, on June 8, 2005, IBEW and Robert W. Roten moved to substitute as lead plaintiffs and proposed class representatives. On May 12, 2006, the court denied, without prejudice to refiling, plaintiffs' motion for class certification, IBEW's motion to intervene and serve as named plaintiff and class representative, and IBEW and Mr. Roten's joint motion to substitute as lead plaintiffs and proposed class representatives. The court also ordered the parties to submit to it a notice to certain putative class members to inform them of the circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of several lead plaintiffs, and to advise them of the opportunity to express their desire to serve as a representative of the putative class. On July 25, 2006, the court so-ordered a form of notice. The parties are currently engaged in discovery, according to its Oct 27, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. The suit is "In Re Xerox Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:99-cv-02374-AWT," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Alvin W. Thompson. Representing the for the plaintiffs are: (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com; (2) Hurwitz & Sagarin, 147 North Broad St., Po Box 112, Milford, CT, 06460-0112, Phone: 203.877.8000; (3) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119, Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail: info@milbergweiss.com; (4) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York, NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065, Phone: 212.594.5300; (5) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com; (6) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, 35 East State Street, Media, PA, 19063, Phone: 877.891.9880, E-mail: jshah@classactioncounsel.com; (7) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax: 310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com; and (8) Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY), The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY, 10126, Phone: 212.682.3025, Fax: 212.682.3010, E-mail: info@wyca.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Alfred U. Pavlis, Daly & Pavlis, LLC, 107 John St., Southport, CT 06890, Phone: 203-255-6700, Fax: 203-255- 1953, E-mail: apavlis@dalypavlis.com; and (ii) Andrew N. Vollmer, Gordon Pearson and Heather A. Jones, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, 2445 M St., NW, Washington, DC 20037-1420, Phone: 202-663-6000. XEROX CORP: Mediation Results in N.Y. Title VII Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the class action, "Warren, et al. v. Xerox Corp." reached a settlement in the case after a private mediation session in mid-May 2006. On Mar. 11, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered an order certifying a nationwide class of all black salespersons employed by Xerox from Feb. 1, 1997 to the present under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Six black sales representatives commenced the suit on May 9, 2001. Plaintiffs allege that the company engaged in a pattern or practice of race discrimination against them and other black sales representatives by assigning them to less desirable sales territories, denying them promotional opportunities, and paying them less than their white counterparts. Although the complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought, plaintiffs do seek, on behalf of themselves and the classes they seek to represent, front and back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. Fact discovery recently concluded and expert reports were exchanged. The parties participated in private mediation in mid-May 2006. Fact discovery was concluded and expert reports have been exchanged. Following three days of mediation with a private mediator, a tentative agreement was reached. The company said terms of the agreement were not material to it. Counsels for the parties are working on drafting mutually acceptable language for a settlement agreement and release. The agreement will be subject to a fairness hearing and court approval, according to its Oct 27, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. The suit is "Warren, et al. v. Xerox Corp., Case No. 1:01-cv- 02909-JG-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge John Gleeson with referral to Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto. Representing the plaintiffs is Barry Alan Weprin of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th floor, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (212) 946-9312, Fax: 212-868-1229, E-mail: bweprin@milbergweiss.com. Representing the defendant are Eugene D. Ulterino and Amy Laura Ventry of Nixon Peabody, LLP, Phone: 585-263-1580 and (516) 832- 7500, Fax: 585-263-1600 and (516) 832-7555, E-mail: eulterino@nixonpeabody.com and aventry@nixonpeabody.com. New Securities Fraud Cases SFBC INTL: Bernstein Litowitz Files N.J. Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, LLP, a consolidated class action complaint has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of Lead Plaintiff Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and all similarly situated purchasers of SFBC International, Inc. now securities during the period between Aug. 4, 2003 and Dec. 15, 2005. The case is "In re SFBC International, Inc. Securities & Derivative Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv-00165," and is assigned to the Honorable Stanley R. Chesler. SFBC provides clinical drug development services to pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device companies. Its primary services are clinical tests of development-stage drugs in human subjects who are paid to participate in the experiments. The complaint alleges that during the class period, SFBC and its senior officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading periodic filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and making other false and misleading statements to investors. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants: -- misrepresented the condition of the company's primary Miami facility and failed to disclose that this facility -- which was responsible for approximately 30% of the company's operating profit -- was in violation of numerous occupancy, zoning and other regulations such that Miami Dade County authorities have since ordered the facility to be demolished; -- misrepresented and failed to disclose numerous unethical and dangerous clinical testing practices and conflicts of interest that threatened the company's reputation; -- misrepresented and failed to disclose related-party transactions during the Class Period; and -- misrepresented the qualifications of SFBC's senior management team. Based on these allegations, the complaint asserts that Defendants SFBC, former President Lisa Krinsky, former CEO Arnold Hantman, and former Vice President of Clinical Operations Greg Holmes violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Krinsky, Hantman and Holmes violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint also asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933 against certain defendants based upon untrue and misleading statements contained in registration statements filed by SFBC with the SEC in connection with a February 2005 registration of 2.25% Convertible Senior Notes Due 2024; and a March 2005 secondary offering of approximately 3.5 millions shares of SFBC common stock. With respect to the March 2005 Secondary Offering, the complaint alleges that defendants SFBC, Krinsky, Hantman, David Natan, Jack Levine, David Lucking, Leonard Weinstein, UBS Securities LLC, Jefferies & Company, Inc., Advest, Inc., Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc., Jesup & Lamont Securities Corp., and Wunderlich Securities, Inc. are liable to the class for violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act, and defendants SFBC, Krinsky, Hantman and the Stock Underwriters are liable to the class for violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and defendants Krinsky, Hantman and Holmes are liable to the Class for violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1589 For more details, contact Erik Sandstedt, Esq., John C. Browne, Esq., and Alexander Coxe, Marketing Director of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, LLP, Phone: (212) 554-1400, (212) 554-1400 and (212) 554-1423, E-mail: erik@blbglaw.com, johnb@blbglaw.com, and alex@blbglaw.com. WARNER CHILCOTT Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, filed a class action in the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York, against Warner Chilcott Limited and certain officers, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of the company during the period from Sept. 20, 2006 through Sept. 26, 2006. The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Warner Chilcott is engaged in the development, manufacture, sale and marketing of branded prescription pharmaceutical products in women's healthcare and dermatology, primarily in the U.S. The company is organized under the laws of Bermuda. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement issued in connection with the initial public offering (IPO) of Warner Chilcott common stock, which took place on or about Sept. 20, 2006, contained untrue statements of material facts and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing its preparation. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Registration Statement failed to disclose that at the time of the IPO, the Company had stopped shipping one of its key products, Ovcon 35, a birth control pill, and began the process of transitioning to Ovcon 35 FE or Ovcon Chewable. As a result, following the IPO, the company would not be selling Ovcon 35 in meaningful quantities and revenues from sales revenue immediately decline. On Sept. 26, 2006, Warner Chilcott announced developments in a lawsuit brought against it by the Federal Trade Commission and filed a supplement to the Registration Statement in which it disclosed that, among other things, it had ceased shipments of Ovcon 35 in September 2006 when it launched Ovcon Chewable. In response to these disclosures the price of Warner Chilcott common stock dropped from $15.00 per share to $12.60 per share on extremely heavy trading volume. Interested parties have until Jan. 2, 2007 to ask the court for appointment as lead plaintiff for the class. For more details, contact Teresa Webb and Carolyn S. Moskowitz of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, Phone: (888) 476-6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com and csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com. XETHANOL CORP: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, has filed a class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Xethanol Corp. between Jan. 31, 2006 and Aug. 8, 2006. The complaint charges Xethanol and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: -- that its Hopkinton, Iowa Permeate Refining plant was not being refurbished; rather the plant laid vacant and uninhabited with its doors locked; -- that the company lacked credible management personnel; -- that Xethanol engaged in an alarmingly high number of related party transactions (such that the company used a reverse merger into a shell corporation to avoid disclosing these facts); -- that the company materially underreported the true cost of completing a biomass to ethanol production facility and failed to take proper adjustments, which enabled defendants to materially overstate its profitability; -- that, because the company lacked the necessary personnel and controls to issue accurate financial reports and projections, the company's financial statements were presented in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and -- that, as a result, the company's statements regarding its prospects for biomass ethanol production were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. On Aug. 7, 2006, while the market was open, ShareSleuth.com, a forensic securities investigations website, published a report which criticized Xethanol and its management. Specifically, the report questioned Xethanol's position that it could achieve commercialization of ethanol and noted that many of Xethanol's financiers had been disciplined by regulatory agencies. The report also claimed that defendant Christopher d'Arnaud- Taylor, Xethanol's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, had falsified his work experience and qualifications on his resume. Interested parties have no later than Dec. 26, 2006 to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in the class. For more details, contact Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP Bradley P. Dyer (800) 497-8076 (212) 682-1818 Fax: (212) 682-1892, Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.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 * * *