/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/061129.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, November 29, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 237 Headlines AIRLINES: B.C. Suit Alleges Price Fixing on Air Cargo Prices APPLE COMPUTER: Feb. 17 Hearing Set for Studio Display Suit Deal ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI: Settlement Hearing Set Jan. 31, 2007 BANK OF MONTREAL: Debtor's Consultants to Request Class Status BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: N.J. Stock Suit Plaintiffs Dismiss Claims BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Denies Culpability in Rice Contamination BELFOR USA: Continues to Face Unfair Labor Practices Complaints BELL ATLANTIC: Court Hears Oral Arguments in N.Y. Antitrust Case CALIFONIA: Parties Reach $40M Settlement in San Diego Sewer Case CANADA: Ontario Disabled Suit Reversed, High Court Appeal Sought CONSECO INC: Ind. Court Mulls Nixing of Consolidated Stock Suit COOPER CAMERON: Settlement Reached in Tex. Pollution Lawsuit ENTROPIN INC: Jan. Trial Set for Securities Lawsuit in Calif. ESS TECHNOLOGY: Court Has Yet to Approve Stock Suit Stipulation FORD MOTOR: Recalls Volvos Over Defective Speed Control Systems GOOGLE INC: Court Mulls Dismissal of KinderStart Antitrust Suit HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Blackjack Player Files Suit in Calif. HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Phones Plus Files ERISA Litigation in Conn. INFORMATICA CORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Deal JDS UNIPHASE: Hearing Date for "Zelman" Securities Suit Unsure LAZARD LTD: Seeks Nixing of Amended Complaint in N.Y. Stock Suit LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Faces Penn. Antitrust Suit by OSB Purchasers MERCURY INSURANCE: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Automated Database MILBERG WEISS: Jan. 8, 2008 Trial Slated for Calif. Indictment NATURAL HEALTH: Continues to Face Stock Fraud Claims in Tex. NAVARRE CORP: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in Minn. NORTEL NETWORKS: Tenn. Court Dismisses Part of ERISA Complaints OFFICEMAX INC: Ill. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Complaint PRECISION BRAND: Ill. Court Approves Pollution Suit Settlement TEPPCO PARTNERS: TEPPCO Unit Holder Sues Over Business Proposal TOYOTA MOTOR: Calif. Court Approves Racial Bias Suits Settlement TOYOTA MOTOR: N.J. Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Act Lawsuit WELDING LITIGATION: Plaintiffs Lose Ill., Tex. Welding Fume Suit ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Claims in Hip, Knee Implant Suit Exceeds 4,000 ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Faces Several Suits Over Alleged Price Fixing Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Goldman Scarlato Announces Stock Suit Filing ********* AIRLINES: B.C. Suit Alleges Price Fixing on Air Cargo Prices ------------------------------------------------------------ Grand Folks, B.C. resident Karen McKay filed a purported class action that accuses several airlines worldwide of fixing their prices on airfreight, Terri Theodore of The Canadian Press reports. The suit, filed in British Columbia Supreme Court, focuses on the fuel and security surcharges customers paid dating back to January 2001. Ms. McKay, according to the suit, paid the charges to ship dogs between Canada, the U.S. and Australia. It claims that almost three-dozen airlines, ranging from Air Canada to Virgin Atlantic, "agreed to act in concert to one another in demanding surcharges." Airlines started charging a fuel surcharge in January 2000 and added a security surcharge after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, which according to the suit was the catalyst for more charges. Ms. McKay, who is represented by attorney J.J. Camp, claims that the airlines agreed to fix, maintain, and increase their surcharge prices and attempted to hide those practices from their customers. The suit seeks several remedies, including awarding damages for conspiracy and interference with economic interests and a declaration that the defendants hold the surcharges in trust for the class members. Earlier this year antitrust investigators from the Canadian Competition Bureau, European commission, the U.S. Department of Justice and many other world authorities raided the offices of numerous airlines in a global investigation into the so-called surcharge conspiracy. About 80 very similar class actions over price fixing on air cargo are now ongoing in the U.S. In September, Lufthansa reached an $85-million agreement for the U.S. cases. For more details, contact J.J. Camp, QC, Camp Fiorante Matthews, 4th Floor, 555 W. Georgia St., Vancouver BC V6B 1Z6, Phone: (604) 689-7555, Fax: (604) 689-7554. APPLE COMPUTER: Feb. 17 Hearing Set for Studio Display Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The California Superior Court For The County Of Los Angeles will hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 15, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. for the proposed settlement in the matter, "Allen et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., Case No. BC 328000." The settlement covers all U.S. customers who purchased one of company's 17-inch Studio Displays, beginning in May 2001, unless they submit a request for exclusion postmarked on or before Jan. 19, 2007. Under the settlement, the company will provide a cash refund to those customers who paid for a repair related to the inverter board and who send in a valid claim form. The amount of the cash refund will vary depending on who performed the repair, how much the customer paid for the repair, and how old the display was when the repair was performed. In essence the settlement stipulates that: -- customers who had their 17-inch Studio Display repaired by the company during the second year of ownership will be entitled to a $400 refund, while those who had their unit repaired in the third year will receive $350; and -- customers who had repairs done by a party other than the company will receive the actual amount they paid up to $150 during the second year and $75 thereafter. However, in order to receive the refund, customers who had their 17-inch Studio Display repaired on or before Nov. 13, 2006 must mail a claim form postmarked on or before Feb. 12, 2007. If the repair occurs after Nov. 13, 2006, a claim form must be mailed and postmarked within 90 days after the date the covered repair occurred or by Aug. 31, 2007, which ever is the earlier. Case Background The purported nationwide class action, which was filed in Jan. 28, 2005, initially alleged that a defect in the company's 17" Studio Display monitors results in dimming of half of the screen and constant blinking of the power light (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 13, 2006). An amended complaint in the case was filed on Oct. 24, 2005, adding additional named plaintiffs and expanding the alleged class to include purchasers of the 20-inch Apple Cinema Display and the 23-inch Apple Cinema HD Display. The amended complaint alleges that the displays have a purported defect that causes dimming of one-half of the screen, and that the company misrepresented the quality of the displays and/or concealed the purported defect. Generally, the suit alleged that the inverter board of the display, manufactured since May 2001, was faulty, causing gradient dimming of the top or bottom half of the screen and a power light to constantly blink on and off in a short-short-long pattern (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2006). Plaintiffs assert claims under: -- California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition); -- California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false advertising); and -- Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The amended complaint seeks remedies including damages and equitable relief. On Nov. 14, 2005, the company filed an answer to the amended complaint as to the allegations regarding the 17-inch display and a demurrer/motion to strike as to the allegations regarding the 20-inch and 23-inch displays on the ground that plaintiffs failed to allege that they purchased those displays. At a status conference on Nov. 21, 2005, the court ordered Plaintiffs to amend their complaint. The company's demurrer is off calendar pending this amendment. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Dec. 12, 2005, and the company answered on Jan. 5, 2006 denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. For more details, contact: (1) The Settlement Administrator, Phone: 1-888-826-3082, Web site: http://www.Apple17inchLCDdisplay.com;and (2) Scott R. Shepherd of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, 35 E. State Street, Media, PA 19063-2917 Phone: (610) 891-9880 and (877) 891-9880, Fax: (610) 891-9883, E-mail: sshepherd@classactioncounsel.com, Web site: http://classactioncounsel.com/. ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI: Settlement Hearing Set Jan. 31, 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold on Jan. 31, 2007, 10:30 a.m., a final approval of the settlement of the class action "In re: Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A. Holocaust Insurance Litigation, No 1374." The class consists of all individuals or their ancestors who purchased Generali insurance between 1920 and 1945 and who owned a policy or were a beneficiary of a policy that was in force immediately prior to their persecution by the Nazis or their allies are eligible. The hearing will be in Courtroom 15D of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, USA. Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is January 15, 2007. Deadline to file claims is March 31, 2007. "This will be an opportunity for many people to finally receive funds that are owed to them and their families," said Robert Swift who has served as one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs who have been engaged in several class action lawsuits against Generali for more than nine years. Mr. Swift continued, "Many of these people were persecuted due to their religion, ethnic background, sexual orientation, or political beliefs. They include but are not limited to Jews, Romani, Jehovah's Witnesses, Political Prisoners, and Homosexuals." One important limitation is that if Generali has already compensated an individual for their policy, they are not eligible for further compensation in connection with this Settlement. This class action lawsuit alleges, among other things, that: -- Generali (and its related companies) withheld the value and/or proceeds of insurance policies sold to the Holocaust era victims prior to and during the Holocaust era; and -- after the Holocaust, Generali refused to pay on the policies, did not disclose the nature and scope of its unpaid policies, and refused to identify or disgorge the value or proceeds of such policies. The settlement was filed in August. It requires the insurer to pay the claims currently pending before the U.K.-based commission set up to deal with Holocaust-era insurance claims (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 10, 2006). The court decided that everyone who fits the following description is a Class member: -- All persons worldwide who: (1) were: (i) Holocaust Victims as defined, infra; and (ii) during the Class Period were: (a) named in or were parties to any Insurance Policies as defined infra, including, but not limited to, the insureds, beneficiaries and owners under such Insurance Policies; or (b) persons who succeeded to their rights by operation of law or otherwise, including but not limited to heirs, distributees, legatees, and the like; or (2) persons claiming by, through, or in the right of any one or more of the foregoing persons (including but not limited to heirs, distributees, legatees, and the like), whether or not such claimants in this clause (2) are Holocaust Victims; provided however that "Generali Settlement Class" and "Releasors" shall not include persons: (i) who timely elect to be excluded from the "Generali Settlement Class"; or (ii) who for any reason previously released any one or more of the Generali Group from liability in respect to the claims being compromised (whether such previous release was provided in connection with receiving compensation in respect of an Insurance Policy or for any other reason). The class period is Jan. 1, 1920, through Dec. 31, 1945. A "Holocaust Victim" means any person who was persecuted by the Nazis (or their allies or by persons acting in concert with them or pursuant to their direction) at any time on account of religion, sexual orientation, racial background, or political views, including but not limited to Jews, Romani, homosexuals, and Jehovah's Witnesses. Important terms of the proposed Settlement are as follows: -- Generali will process and fund Claim Forms under valuation and eligibility standards established by ICHEIC, including all pending and unpaid claims already received by ICHEIC. -- Generali will process and fund new Claim Forms made as a result of this Notice that are postmarked on or before March 31, 2007. -- Generali will process new Claim Forms, with Court supervision, with the same eligibility standards as used in ICHEIC and with valuation criteria described in the Settlement Agreement that are similar (but not identical) to the criteria used in processing and paying claims through ICHEIC. Generali will bear the cost for reviewing and processing Claim Forms and Court supervision. -- Validated Claim Forms will be paid based on a formula that takes into consideration amounts due on policies, currency conversion and interest, among other factors. The minimum payment for any valid claim is 1,000 USD. -- Generali will be released as to all Holocaust era insurance claims, and the class action Litigation will be dismissed with prejudice. -- Generali will pay incentive awards to each of the four (4) Named Plaintiffs up to 5,000 USD, as the Court may award. -- Generali will pay counsel fees and costs, but the payment thereof will not diminish the compensation available to Class Members with valid Claim Forms. At the Settlement Hearing, Class Counsel will apply to the Court for payment of fees and reimbursement of costs in the amount of 3,250,000 USD. Generali Holocaust Insurance Settlement on the net: http://www.nazierainsurancesettlement.com/default.aspx For more information, contact the Law Firm Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C. c/o Anya Verkhovskaya Senior Vice President A.B. Data, Ltd. Notice Administrator, Phone: 414-963-6441, E-mail: info@abdatalawserve.com. BANK OF MONTREAL: Debtor's Consultants to Request Class Status -------------------------------------------------------------- Two men who worked as consultants for defunct Trent Rubber will seek class-action status for a suit they that filed against the company's largest creditor, Bank of Montreal, myKawartha.com reports. According to the report, Peter Parik said in an e-mail message that he and Roberto Siqueira plan to apply for class certification either at or shortly after a Dec. 22 court appearance before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in relation to a motion by the bank to have the suit dismissed. Mr. Parik and Mr. Siqueira filed the suit in June seeking $5.5 million in damages plus interest and legal costs. They claim the bank was negligent in not accepting their offers to purchase Trent Rubber, and was in breach of fiduciary duty to Trent Rubber's employees when they placed the company in receivership. BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: N.J. Stock Suit Plaintiffs Dismiss Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud suit filed against Barrier Therapeutics Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey have voluntarily dismissed the case. In October 2005, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the company and certain of its officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired securities of Barrier Therapeutics, Inc. between April 29, 2004 and June 29, 2005. At least four additional putative class action lawsuits have also been filed against the company and certain of its officers, all pleading essentially the same allegations. In an order entered on Dec. 19, 2005, the court consolidated these cases. By Order dated March 2, 2006, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and approved co-lead counsel. On May 22, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint for violations of federal securities laws. The complaint brings claims against: -- the company, -- certain of its officers and a director (collectively Barrier) and Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. and J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., -- underwriters for the company's initial public offering in 2004 and secondary offering in 2005, as well as -- Pacific Growth Equities, LLC, an underwriter for the company's secondary offering in 2005 (collectively the underwriters). The complaint asserts that Barrier and the underwriters violated Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, that Barrier violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that the individual defendants are liable for controlling person liability under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint is based upon purported misstatements relating to Vusion and Hyphanox. The company filed a motion to dismiss the claims on Aug. 25, 2006. On Nov. 8, 2006, counsel for the lead plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit, in its entirety and with prejudice, by filing a stipulation of dismissal, in which the Company, the individual defendants and the underwriters joined, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, without any payment by the company or any of the defendants to the plaintiffs or their counsel. The suit is "Midtown Partners, Inc. v. Barrier Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-04926-SRC-JJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with referral to Judge John J. Hughes. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Peter S. Pearlman of Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf, LLP, Park 80 Plaza West One, Saddle Brook, NJ 07663, Phone: 201-845-9600, E-mail: PSP@njlawfirm.com; (2) Laurence M. Rosen of The Rosen Law Firm, PA, 236 Tillou Road, South Orange, NJ 07079, Phone: (973) 313-1887, E- mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com; and (3) Joseph J. Depalma of Lite, Depalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102- 5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail: jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com. Representing the defendants is Robert Alan White of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 502 Carnegie Center, Princeton, NJ 08540, Phone: (609) 919-6600, E-mail: rwhite@morganlewis.com. BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Denies Culpability in Rice Contamination ----------------------------------------------------------- Bayer CropScience is blaming rice farmers and an "Act of God" for the inadvertent release of the experimental variety of genetically engineered rice that contaminated the U.S. rice supply, Rick Weiss of The Washington Post reports. The Research Triangle Park, North Carolina-based firm made the assertion in a 30-page response that it issued in one of several class actions filed by farmers, who allege that they stand to lose millions of dollars because of the contamination. The response came in a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by Don Downing of Gray Ritter & Graham PC. This case is deemed to be the largest of the lawsuits that were filed over the rice foul-up. In denying any culpability, company's response variously blames the escape of its gene-altered variety of long-grain race, LL601, on: -- "unavoidable circumstances, which could not have been prevented by anyone"; -- "an act of God"; and -- farmers' "own negligence, carelessness, and/or comparative fault." Bayer conducted field tests of LL601 from 1999 to 2001 in Louisiana and then dropped the project without seeking government approval to market it. In January 2006, LL601 rice was detected in rice that was to be exported. The variety has not been approved for human consumption anywhere in the world. Currently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is investigating how the variety escaped from test plots into farmers' fields, where it was quietly amplified for years until its discovery. The day the contamination was announced in August, Bayer asked the government to approve the variety. However, a decision is still pending. Meanwhile, aside from Missouri, lawsuits have also been filed on behalf of rice farmers in such states as Arkansas and Louisiana. The company's response to the largest of these suits, the one by Mr. Downing, asserts that Bayer's test plots were in full compliance with USDA rules. The suit is "Bell, et al. v. Bayer CropScience LP, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00128-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court f Missouri under Judge Rodney W. Sippel. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Don M. Downing of Gray & Ritter, P.C., 701 Market Street, Suite 800, St. Louis, MO 63101-1826, Phone: 314-241-5620, Fax: 314-241-4140, E-mail: ddowning@grgpc.com; and (2) Jim S. Green, 114 W. North Street, P.O. Box 545, Sikeston, MO 63801-0545, Phone: 573-471-7794, Fax: 573- 471-7839, E-mail: jimsgreen@sbcglobal.net. BELFOR USA: Continues to Face Unfair Labor Practices Complaints --------------------------------------------------------------- Birmingham, Michigan-based Belfor USA Group continues to face a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana involving more than 1,000 predominantly immigrant workers, the New Orleans CityBusiness reports. Plaintiffs contend they worked 12 hours a day, seven days a week restoring and cleaning buildings contaminated with mold, floodwater and smoke. They said Belfor employed them as "unskilled manual laborers by using the subcontractor system and unintentionally misclassifying plaintiffs as independent contractors and/or supervisors in an effort to circumvent the overtime provisions of the FLSA." The case filing said the defendant did not keep a record of hours worked by the plaintiffs or any records required under the FLSA. The suit is "Xavier et al v. Belfor USA Group Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-00491-JCZ-DEK," filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Jay C. Zainey, with referral to Judge Daniel E. Knowles. Representing defendants are: (1) Brian M. Ballay, Steven F. Griffith, Jr. and Michael David Kurtz all of Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3600, New Orleans, LA 70170, Phone: 504-566-5200, Fax: 504-636- 4000, E-mail: bballay@bakerdonelson.com or sgriffith@bakerdonelson.com or dkurtz@bakerdonelson.com; and (2) Elizabeth Skelly Cordes, Howard Carter Marshall, Robert D. Peyton and Kevin Richard Tully all of Christovich & Kearney, LLP, Pan American Life Center, 601 Poydras St., Suite 2300, New Orleans, LA 70130-6078, Phone: (504) 561-5700, E-mail: escordes@christovich.com or hcmarshall@christovich.com or rdpeyton@christovich.com or krtully@christovich.com. Representing plaintiffs are: (1) Mary C. Bauer and Jennifer Rosenbaum both of the Immigrant Justice Project Southern Poverty Law Center, 400 Washington Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36104, Phone: 334-956-8200, E-mail: mbauer@splcenter.org or jennifer.rosenbaum@splcenter.org; and (2) Barry James Gerharz and Hector A. Linares both of Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana, 1600 Oretha Castle Haley Blvd., New Orleans, LA 70113, Phone: 504- 522-5437. BELL ATLANTIC: Court Hears Oral Arguments in N.Y. Antitrust Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the "Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 05-1126," antitrust case, the Jurist reports. The case addresses whether a complaint under the Sherman Act must allege specific facts showing that the defendants participated in a conspiracy, or whether a conspiracy may be inferred from their "parallel conduct." William Twombly filed a class action against Bell Atlantic for violating Section One of the Sherman Antitrust Act, found in 15 U.S.C. Section 1. He complained that the companies created by the breakup of AT&T agreed not to compete with each other and to hinder other companies from entering the local telephone service market. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the case, stating that Mr. Twombly needed to establish at least one "plus-factor" in his complaint, which requires a reason why individual self-interest is an unlikely explanation for the companies' behavior. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court's decision, remanding the case to the district court. The court of appeals held that all that is necessary in an antitrust complaint is an allegation of a conspiracy and sufficient facts that establish the conspiracy, and that plus- factors are not necessary. But Mr. Twombly's lawyers argued that a higher pleading standard would defeat meritorious claims by plaintiffs who can obtain evidence of conspiracy only through discovery. The defendants contended that a lower standard encourages companies to settle meritless cases - a position echoed by Justice Stephen Breyer, who said that a lax standard would allow plaintiffs to "sue half the firms in the economy." CALIFONIA: Parties Reach $40M Settlement in San Diego Sewer Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- San Diego's City Council is considering a tentative settlement for a purported class action filed by a consumer advocate against the city on allegations that residential sewer users were subsidizing large businesses' wastewater bills, according to Evan McLaughlin of Voice of San Diego. Filed by Michael Shames in San Diego Superior Court, the suit was to be settled for $40 million. In the suit, Mr. Shames claimed that single-family residences were overcharged by about $200 million over a 10-year period beginning in 1994. Under the settlement, $35 million would be refunded to the residential customers of the system, 12.5 percent of the settlement -- or $5 million -- would be awarded to the attorneys for the class-action plaintiffs, and $20,000 will be set aside for a nonprofit group to serve as a watchdog over the city's sewer dealings. Aside from the presiding judge, the State Water Control Resources Board must also have to approve the terms of the settlement. CANADA: Ontario Disabled Suit Reversed, High Court Appeal Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In an appeal by the government against a ruling that certified the purported class action, "Larcade v. Ontario," the Ontario Court of Appeal has sided with the defendants and ruled that the case cannot go forward, The Canadian Press reports. Back in May 2005, the Ontario Divisional Court certified the case, which was launched in May of 2001 with Huntsville resident, Anne Larcade as the representative plaintiff (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 12, 2006). Mrs. Larcade's son, Alexandre, has multiple disabilities, and was, allegedly, systematically denied a wide range of services and benefits. She was supposedly told that the only way she could obtain necessary services was to give up custody of her son to Children's Aid. Thousands of other disabled children in the period beginning in 1997 suffered the same fate. The Ontario Child and Family Services Act impose an obligation on the province to promote the best interests and well being of children and families in Ontario. It provides for "Special needs Agreements" as a safety net for profoundly disabled children whose needs cannot be met through the normal range of community services. Although the law was not changed, in 1997 a decision was made by the government of the day to terminate "Special Needs Agreements." Thus, it became a common practice for families to relinquish custody of their child in order to access necessary services and care. The lawsuit, which was certified in 2005, alleges that the Ontario government was negligent and failed to meet its legal obligation to provide services for severely disabled children that ought to have been provided through Special Needs Agreements (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 3, 2006). As a result of the Ontario government's negligence, families were allegedly forced to personally fund services for their children and, in some cases, relinquish custody of their children to the government in order to obtain life-saving services. The claim seeks damages of $500 million for the class. Despite the recent court decision, Mrs. Larcade, who was forced to temporarily surrender custody of her disabled son so he could receive specialized care, vowed to take her case to the Supreme Court. CONSECO INC: Ind. Court Mulls Nixing of Consolidated Stock Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for the consolidated securities class action filed against Conseco, Inc., and some of its former officers. After the company's predecessor (Conseco, Inc., incorporated in Indiana) announced its intention to restructure on Aug. 9, 2002, eight purported securities fraud class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. These suits were filed on behalf of persons or entities that purchased its Predecessor's common stock on various dates between Oct. 24, 2001 and Aug. 9, 2002. The plaintiffs allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and allege material omissions and dissemination of materially misleading statements regarding, among other things, the liquidity of Conseco and alleged problems in Conseco Finance Corp.'s manufactured housing division, allegedly resulting in the artificial inflation of the company's Predecessor's stock price. On March 13, 2003, all of these cases were consolidated into one case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, captioned, "Franz Schleicher, et al. v. Conseco, Inc., Gary Wendt, William Shea, Charles Chokel and James Adams, et al., Case No. 02-CV-1332 DFH-TAB." The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages. The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint with respect to the individual defendants on Dec. 8, 2003. A motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of defendants Messrs. Shea, Wendt and Chokel and on July 14, 2005, this matter was dismissed. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on Aug. 24, 2005. The company has filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on Nov. 7, 2005. The suit is "Schleicher, et al. v. Wendt, et al., Case No. 1:02- cv-01332-DFH-TAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under Judge David Frank Hamilton with referral to Judge Tim A. Baker. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Kwasi Abraham Asiedu, 3858 Carson Street, Suite 204, Torrance, CA 90503, Phone: (310) 792-3948, Fax: (310) 792-0600, E-mail: laskido@hotmail.com; and (2) Brian Joseph Barry of Law Offices Of Brian Barry, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 307, Los Angeles, CA 90046, Phone: (310) 788-0831, Fax: (310) 788-0841, E-mail: bribarry1@yahoo.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Steven Kenneth Huffer of Huffer & Weathers, 151 North Delaware Street, Suite 1850, Indianapolis, IN 46204, Phone: (317) 822-8010, Fax: (317) 822-8088, E-mail: steve_huffer@hufferandweathers.com; and (ii) Robert J. Kopecky of Kirkland & Ellis, 200 East Randolph Drive, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 861- 2084, Fax: (317) 660-0412, E-mail: rkopecky@kirkland.com. COOPER CAMERON: Settlement Reached in Tex. Pollution Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Cooper Cameron Corp. countinues to work on resolving a Texas state court class action regarding contaminated underground water in a residential area adjacent to a former manufacturing site of one of the company's predecessors, according to its Nov. 7, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. In "Valice v. Cooper Cameron Corporation," filed in the 80th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas on Jun. 21, 2002, the plaintiffs claim that the contaminated underground water reduced property values and threatens the health of the area residents. The complaint seeks an analysis of the contamination, reclamation and recovery of actual damages for the loss of property value. The company is of the opinion that there is no health risk to area residents and that the lawsuit essentially reflects concerns over possible declines in property value. Counsel for the company, its insurer and the Valice plaintiffs reached general agreement on the terms and structure of a possible settlement under which homeowners in the affected area would be indemnified for a loss of property value, if any, due to the contamination upon any sale within a limited timeframe. However, there remain significant unresolved issues relating to a settlement of this matter including the methodology of quantifying and allocating damages, attorneys' fees for plaintiffs' attorneys, all interested parties' agreement on the settlement and the actual wording thereof, a fairness opinion rendered by the court and the ability of the plaintiffs to obtain approval of the members of the putative class. ENTROPIN INC: Jan. Trial Set for Securities Lawsuit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- A Jan. 9, 2007 trial is scheduled for a securities fraud lawsuit pending against Entropin, Inc. and two of its former officers and/or directors, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are a class of shareholders who purchased Entropin securities in the Company's March 15, 2000 public offering. In the lawsuit, Entropin is accused of violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements in the company's March 15, 2000 registration statement regarding the scientific and regulatory development of its developmental drug, Esterom. Specifically, the company and the individual defendants are accused of making false and misleading statements regarding: -- the results of its Phase II clinical study of Esterom; -- the Phase III clinical study of Esterom; and -- Entropin's intention to file a new drug application for Esterom in early 2001. A trial date has been set for Jan. 9, 2007. Contact information for Entropin, Inc. Securities Litigation Claims Administrator: c/o FRG Information Systems Corp., P.O. Box 4059, Grand Central Station, New York, New York 10163-4059, Phone: (800) 556-9955, Fax: (212) 490-5709. Contact information for class counsel: Kenneth J. Catanzarite, Esq., Jim Travis Tice, Esq., Catanzarite Law Corporation, 2331 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California 92801, Phone: (714) 520-5544, Fax: (714) 520-0680. ESS TECHNOLOGY: Court Has Yet to Approve Stock Suit Stipulation --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery in the class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against ESS Technology, Inc., and certain of its present and former officers and directors is slated for early 2007 has been stayed, by stipulation, pending the court's resolution of plaintiff's motion, according to the company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. On Aug. 12, 2002, following the company's downward revision of revenue and earnings guidance for the third fiscal quarter of 2002, a series of putative federal class actions were filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Complaints alleged that the company and certain of its present and former officers and directors made misleading statements regarding the company's business and failed to disclose certain allegedly material facts during an alleged class period of Jan. 3, 2002 through Aug. 12, 2002, in violation of federal securities laws. These actions were consolidated and are proceeding under the caption, "In re ESS Technology Securities Litigation." Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of the putative class. They later amended their consolidated complaint on Nov. 3, 2003, which the company then moved to dismiss on Dec. 18, 2003. On Dec. 1, 2004, the court granted in part and denied in part the company's motion to dismiss, and struck from the complaint allegations arising prior to Feb. 27, 2002. On Dec. 22, 2004, based on the court's order, the company moved to strike from the complaint all remaining claims and allegations arising prior to Aug. 10, 2002. On Feb. 22, 2005, the court granted the company's motion in part and struck all remaining claims and allegations arising prior to Aug. 1, 2002 from the complaint. In an order filed on Feb. 8, 2006, the court certified a plaintiff class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's publicly traded securities during the period beginning Aug. 1, 2002, through and including Aug. 12, 2002. On March 24, 2006, plaintiff moved for leave to amend his operative complaint, seeking to extend the beginning of the class period back to April 24, 2002 and to re-allege that certain public statements the company made during that expanded time period that the court previously found to be inactionable were false and misleading. The company believes that plaintiff's motion is improper and is opposing it. A hearing on the motion was held May 19, 2006. Trial in the consolidated securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is slated for early 2007 (Class Action Reporter, June 14, 2006). The suit is "In re ESS Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-4497," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 206.749.5544, Fax: 206.749.9978, E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com; (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA), 100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA, 94111, Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534; and (3) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, E-mail: support@milberg.com. Representing the Company are Meredith N. Landy and Joshua D. Baker of O'Melveny & Myers, 2765 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025-7019, Phone: 650.473.2600, Fax: 650.473.2601, E-mail: mlandy@omm.com or jbaker@omm.com. FORD MOTOR: Recalls Volvos Over Defective Speed Control Systems --------------------------------------------------------------- Ford Motor Co., in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, issued a recall of 360,000 Volvos because the vehicle speed control systems can cause the engine to lose power without warning, the ConsumerAffairs.com reports. Volvo reports a problem inside the electronic throttle control module in cars built between 1999 and 2002, which could cause the vehicle to shift into a "limp home" mode limiting the maximum speed to roughly 15 miles per hour. The "limp home" setting is a safety feature in Volvo cars intended to prevent unintended acceleration in case of a throttle malfunction. The recall applies to Volvo C70 and V70 models built between 1999 and 2002, S60 models built between 2001 and 2002, and S70 and V70X models built between 1999 and 2000. Volvo has already repaired the speed control problem in about 165,000 vehicles of the recall total after sending out notices to owners in March. Earlier this month, NHTSA informed Volvo that the agency was making the recall mandatory. Volvo owners who bring their cars to dealerships will have new software reinstalled for the throttle control unit. GOOGLE INC: Court Mulls Dismissal of KinderStart Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jeremy Fogel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California indicated in an Oct. 27, 2006 hearing for the purported class action, "Kinderstart.Com, LLC v. Google, Inc.," that he might not issue a written ruling until early next year on a motion to dismiss the case. In that hearing Judge Fogel heard arguments on whether the antitrust lawsuit by KinderStart.com LLC against Google Inc. should proceed to discovery phase or be dismissed (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2006). Case Background On March 17, 2006, KinderStart filed a civil complaint, asking to represent owners of all Web sites blacklisted by Google's search engine since January 2001 (Class Action Reporter, July 4, 2006). In its complaint, KinderStart alleged that Google wrongfully banned some Web sites. It also said that these Web sites could no longer be restored, since Google does not disclose its procedures from striking them out (Class Action Reporter, June 26, 2006) Claiming that it was dropped from Google's index a year ago without being informed, KinderStart also alleged that the practice is anti-competitive and that Google misled the public by positioning its search engine as an objective source for finding Internet content. The suit is seeking class-action status, citing that many other companies suffered by getting left out of Google search results. It seeks unspecified financial damages and a court order that would require Google to change its practices (Class Action Reporter, July 17, 2006). In recent months, Judge Fogel allowed KinderStart.Com to amend its complaint against Google before it decides whether to dismiss the case. The KinderStart complaint is available free of charge at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?dc3 The suit is "Kinderstart.Com, LLC v. Google, Inc., Case No. 5:06-cv-02057-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to Judge Richard Seeborg. Representing the plaintiffs is Gregory John Yu of the Global Law Group, 2015 Pioneer Ct., Suite P-1, San Mateo, CA 94403, Phone: 650-570-4140, Fax: 650-570-4142, E-mail: glgroup@inreach.com. Representing the defendant are Colleen Bal, David H. Kramer and Bart Edward Volkmer, Esq. of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone: 650-493-9300 and (650) 565-3508, Fax: 650-493-6811, E-mail: cbal@wsgr.com, dkramer@wsgr.com and bvolkmer@wsgr.com. HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Blackjack Player Files Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- Harrah's Entertainment is named defendant in a class action complaint filed in a California Superior Court, alleging violation of consumer and business laws by barring successful blackjack players from its hotel-casinos under threat of arrest, while continuing to advertise its gambling dens to the public, the Courthouse News reports. The suit, filed by Attorney Ernest Franceschi, Jr., for himself and the public, claims Harrah's bars skillful blackjack players by policy, but still sends them ads inviting them back. According to the complaint, "if defendants consider a blackjack player to be sufficiently skillful to achieve regular wins, that player would be barred from the premises under the threat of arrest, photographed without consent, and the player's name, image and likeness placed in a database, book or other repository which would be disseminated or shared with other casinos, thereby resulting in that player's exclusion not just from Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.'s properties but from all casinos who receive said information." Mr. Franceschi claims he was barred from playing blackjack at five Harrah's joints in 2005, but received "invitations" from Harrah's after it barred him. He wants Harrah's barred from advertising in California unless it posts in all its casinos and all its come-ons a disclaimer explaining its policy to bar skillful players. For more details, contact Ernest J. Franceschi, Jr., 445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2600, Los Angeles, CA 90071-1630, Phone: (310) 594-8838. HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Phones Plus Files ERISA Litigation in Conn. --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hartford Financial Services, Inc., Hartford Life Insurance Company and Neuberger Berman Management, Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Connecticut, alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act. On Nov. 14, 2006, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, filed a class-action complaint on behalf of its client, Phones Plus, Inc., and for the benefit of other similarly situated 401k and retirement plans and trustees. The class action complaint is brought under the ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq., and seeks to recover, for the benefit of the plaintiff's 401(k) plan and all other similarly situated retirement plans, payments from mutual funds and/or mutual fund advisors to defendants and similar payments between defendants, which plaintiff believes were made in violation of ERISA. According to the complaint, defendants have entered into revenue sharing agreements and arrangements with various mutual funds as well as between themselves, pursuant to which defendants receive payments for their own benefit in violation of, inter alia, ERISA's prohibited transaction rules, and ERISA's fiduciary rules. It seeks to recover the following relief: -- A declaratory judgment holding that the acts of the defendants described are in violation of ERISA and applicable law; -- A permanent injunction against defendants prohibiting the practices described; -- Disgorgement and/or restitution of all revenue sharing payments received by defendants and/or their subsidiaries and affiliates, or alternatively, the difference between the revenue sharing payments and the reasonable fair market value of any services provided by defendants to the mutual funds for which the revenue sharing payments purportedly constituted payment; -- Attorneys' fees, costs and other recoverable expenses of litigation; and -- Such other and additional legal or equitable relied that the court deems appropriate and just under all of the circumstances. The complaint is available free of charge at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?15e6 The suit is "Phones Plus, Inc. v. Hartford Fin Svc Inc., et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-01835-AVC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Connecticut under Judge Alfred V. Covello. Representing the plaintiffs is James E. Miller of Sheperd Finkelman Miller & Shah-Chester, 65 Main St., Chester, CT 06412, Phone: 860-526-1100, Fax: 860-526-1120, E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com, Web site: http://www.sfmslaw.com/. INFORMATICA CORP: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of the settlement of a consolidated securities class action filed against Informatica Corp., according to the company's Nov. 6, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. On Nov. 8, 2001, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case is entitled, "In re Informatica Corporation Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9922 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)," related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)." Plaintiffs' amended complaint was brought purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock from April 29, 1999 through Dec. 6, 2000. It names as defendants Informatica Corp., two of the company's former officers, and several investment banking firms that served as underwriters of the company's April 29, 1999 initial public offering and Sept. 28, 2000 follow-on public offering. The complaint alleges liability as to all defendants under Sections 11 and/or 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the registration statements for the offerings did not disclose that: -- the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and -- the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices. The complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were issued. No specific damages are claimed. Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over 300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000. The cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes. On Feb. 19, 2003, the court ruled on all defendants' motions to dismiss. The court denied the motions to dismiss the claims under the Securities Act of 1933. The court denied the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim against Informatica and 184 other issuer defendants. The court denied the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims against the Informatica defendants and 62 other individual defendants. The company accepted a settlement proposal presented to all issuer defendants. In this settlement, plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against the Informatica defendants, in exchange for a contingent payment by the insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all of the IPO cases and for the assignment or surrender of control of certain claims the company may have against the underwriters. The Informatica defendants will not be required to make any cash payments in the settlement, unless the pro rata amount paid by the insurers in the settlement exceeds the amount of the insurance coverage, a circumstance which the company does not believe will occur. The settlement will require approval of the court, which cannot be assured, after class members are given the opportunity to object to the settlement or opt out of the settlement. At the hearing on April 24, 2006, the judge took the approval of the settlement under submission. For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/. JDS UNIPHASE: Hearing Date for "Zelman" Securities Suit Unsure -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has yet to be decided in the purported securities fraud class action, "Zelman v. JDS Uniphase Corp., Case No. 02-4656," according to the company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. The suit was purportedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of debt securities that were allegedly linked to the price of the company's common stock. The Zelman complaint states that an investment bank issued the debt securities during the period from March 6, 2001 through July 26, 2001. It names the company and several of its former officers and directors as defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, and seeks unspecified damages. On Aug. 26, 2005, defendants answered the complaint. On Nov. 16, 2005, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which defendants had not opposed. At a case management conference on Nov. 18, 2005, the court ordered that discovery in the Zelman action proceed according to the same schedule as discovery, "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities Litigation, C-02-1486," which is pending in the same court. On Jan. 9, 2006, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for approval of their proposed form and method of class notice, which defendants had not opposed (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 22, 2006). Accordingly, the deadline for fact discovery in the Zelman action, except for depositions and discovery arising from new information obtained at depositions, was Sept. 29, 2006, and the closing date for completion of depositions and discovery arising from new information obtained at depositions is Dec. 1, 2006. The closing date for expert discovery is March 19, 2007. No trial date has been set. The suit is "Zelman v. JDS Uniphase Corp., et al., Case No. 4:02-cv-04656," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Claudia Wilken. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Susan G. Kupfer of Glancy & Binkow, LLP, 455 Market Street, Suite 1810, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-972-8160, Fax: 415-972-8166, E-mail: skupfer@glancylaw.com; and (2) Ira M. Press of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-371-6600, Fax: 212-751-2540, E-mail: ipress@kmslaw.com. Representing the defendants is Holly H. Tambling of Morrison & Foerster, LLP, 425 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-2482, Phone: 415 268-7000, Fax: 415-268-7522, E-mail: Htambling@mofo.com. LAZARD LTD: Seeks Nixing of Amended Complaint in N.Y. Stock Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lazard, Ltd. seeks the dismissal of an amended complaint in the consolidated securities class action filed against it and certain other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The company and Goldman Sachs & Co., the lead underwriter of the company's equity public offering of its common stock, as well as several members of the company's management and board of directors, have been named as defendants in several putative class actions. Plaintiffs in the putative class actions later filed a consolidated amended complaint, and the defendants have filed a motion to dismiss that complaint. The suit was brought on behalf of persons who purchased securities of the company in connection with an equity public offering or in the open market. It alleges various violations of the federal securities laws and seek, inter alia, compensatory damages, rescission or rescissory damages and other unspecified equitable, injunctive or other relief. Plaintiffs have filed a consolidated amended complaint, and the defendants have filed a motion to dismiss that complaint, according to its Nov. 7, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. The first identified suit in this litigation is "Arlette Miller, et al. v. Lazard Ltd., et al., case no. 05-CV-05630," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Victor Marrero. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910, New York, NY, 10119, Phone: 212.279.5050, Fax: 212.279.3655, E-mail: JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com; (2) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, e-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com; (3) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO, 80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E- mail: info@dyershuman.com; (4) Law Offices of Marc Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.660.8000, Fax: 610.660.8080, E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com; (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (Melville), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com; (6) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com; (7) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com; (8) Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail: info@whhf.com; (9) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail: newyork@whafh.com; and (10) Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10022, phone: 212-223-3900, Fax: 212-371- 5969, E-mail: inquiry@zsz.com. LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Faces Penn. Antitrust Suit by OSB Purchasers --------------------------------------------------------------- Louisiana-Pacific Corp. is named as one of a number of defendants in multiple class-action complaints filed on or after Feb. 26, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. These complaints have been dismissed or consolidated into two complaints as: "In Re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 06-CV-00826 (PD)." The first complaint is a consolidated amended class action complaint filed on March 31, 2006 in which plaintiffs seek to certify a class consisting of persons and entities who directly purchased OSB from the defendants from May 1, 2002 through the date the complaint was filed (the direct purchaser complaint). The second complaint is a consolidated amended class action complaint, filed on June 15, 2006, in which the plaintiffs seek to certify a class consisting of persons and entities who indirectly purchased OSB from the defendants from May 1, 2002 through the date the complaint was filed (the indirect purchaser complaint). The plaintiffs, in both amended and consolidated complaints described above, seek treble damages in unspecified amounts alleged to have resulted from a conspiracy among the defendants to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices at which OSB is sold in the U.S., in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, Rules 15 of the U.S. Civil Code. The plaintiffs in the indirect purchaser complaint also seek similar remedies under individual state anti-trust and competition laws as well as consumer protection laws. MERCURY INSURANCE: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Automated Database -------------------------------------------------------------- Mercury Insurance Co. continues to face a suit filed by Marissa Goodman challenging the company's use of certain automated database vendors to assist in valuing claims for medical payments. Plaintiff filed the suit on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated in Los Angeles Superior Court on June 16, 2002. She has filed a motion seeking class action certification to include all of the company's insureds from 1998 to the present who presented a medical payments claim, had the claim reduced using the computer program and whose claim did not reach the policy limits for medical payments. The hearing on this motion, previously set for June 2, 2006, was continued until Aug. 17, 2006, and then continued to Sept. 21, 2006. The court heard oral argument, requested further briefing and took the motion under submission. Plaintiff alleges that these automated databases systematically undervalue medical payment claims to the detriment of insureds. Thus, she is seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages. Similar lawsuits have been filed against other insurance carriers in the industry. The case has been coordinated with two other similar cases, and also with 10 other cases relating to total loss claims. The court denied the company's motion for summary judgment holding that there is an issue of fact as to whether Ms. Goodman sustained any damages as a result of the company's handling of her medical payments claim. The original trial date has been vacated by the court and not rescheduled. MILBERG WEISS: Jan. 8, 2008 Trial Slated for Calif. Indictment -------------------------------------------------------------- The trial of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, a prominent class-action law firm, and two of its top partners, will start on Jan. 8, 2008 in U.S. District Court, Central District of California, The Wall Street Journal reports. Previously, Judge John Walter did not set a date for the trial, but said he was considering fall of next year. He set a case meeting to take place Nov. 27, when a trial date will likely be set (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 27, 2006). The setting of the trial date came amid further questions from defense lawyers about whether government prosecutors would file additional indictments, a subject that has been a sticking point in setting a firm trial date. Prosecutors had been aiming for a trial date in October 2007, while defendants were seeking a February 2008 setting. Case Background Milberg Weiss, and partners David J. Bershad and Steven G. Schulman were indicted in May 2006 by a federal grand jury for allegedly paying kickbacks to plaintiffs in more than 150 class actions and shareholder derivative lawsuits. The indictment alleges that the firm received well over $200 million in attorneys' fees from these lawsuits over the past 20 years. The first superseding indictments against them were for alleged conspiracy, racketeering conspiracy, mail fraud, money laundering conspiracy, money laundering, subscribing to false tax return, obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting and causing an act to be done, and criminal forfeiture. A copy of the indictment is at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?dfc. Also charged in the indictment are Seymour M. Lazar, who is alleged to have served as a paid plaintiff and attorney Paul T. Selzer, who is alleged to have been one of the intermediary lawyers who laundered illegal kickback payments for the benefit of Mr. Lazar. The indictment also names as co-conspirators, paid plaintiff Steven G. Cooperman of Connecticut, and Howard J. Vogel of Aventura, Florida. In July, Milberg Weiss, Mr. Schulman and Mr. Bershad pleaded not guilty to the charges filed against them. Mr. Lazar and Paul T. Selzer also pleaded not guilty. In May, Los Angeles, California attorney Richard R. Purtich pled guilty to a felony tax offense in connection with his participation in an alleged kickback scheme. NATURAL HEALTH: Continues to Face Stock Fraud Claims in Tex. ------------------------------------------------------------ Natural Health Trends Corp. continues to face putative class suits filed against it and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, according to the company's Nov. 9, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. In September, the Rosen Law Firm P.A. filed the suit purportedly on behalf of certain purchasers of the company's common stock from March 31, 2003 through Aug. 11, 2006 to recover damages caused by alleged violations of federal securities laws (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 15, 2006). The complaint charges that Natural Health and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act by issuing materially false and misleading statements about key characteristics of the company's multi-level marketing business model, violations of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and the company's financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class period the company: -- reported revenues and earnings were artificially inflated due to phantom sales; -- internal controls and procedures were inadequate and enabled and assisted the defendants in engaging in improper transactions; -- earnings were significantly impacted from returns by its distributors which reflected the true market penetration and acceptance of the company's products; and -- the company's financial statements filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission were not prepared in accordance with GAAP. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1191 The suit is "Zagami v. Natural Health Trends Corp et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-01654," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Thomas E. Bilek of Hoeffner & Bilek, 1000 Louisiana St., Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713/227- 7720, Fax: 713/227-9404, E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com; (2) Christopher S. Hinton of The Hinton Law Firm, 350 Fifth Ave., Suite 5508, New York, NY 10118, Phone: 646/723- 3377, Fax: 212/202-3827; and (3) Phillip Kim and Laurence Rosen both of The Rosen Law Firm, 350 Fifth Ave., Suite 5508, New York, NY 10118, Phone: 212/686-1060, Fax: 214/202-3827. NAVARRE CORP: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in Minn. -------------------------------------------------------------- Navarre Corp. remains a defendant in consolidated class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, which alleges securities fraud by the company and certain of its officers and directors, according to the company's Nov. 9 Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ending Sept. 30, 2006. Early this year, two groups filed lead plaintiff motions for the consolidated class action litigation against Navarre Corp., which were initially commenced in June 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaints allege that these accounting irregularities benefited company insiders including the individual defendants. It further alleged that the company failed to properly recognize executive deferred compensation and improperly recognized a deferred tax benefit as income. Plaintiffs sought compensatory but unspecified damages allegedly sustained as a result of the alleged wrongdoing, plus costs, counsel fees and experts fees. The actions are identified as: -- "AVIVA Partners, Ltd. v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case No. 05-1151 (PAM/RLE);" -- "Vivian Oh v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case No. 05-01211 (MJD/JGL);" and -- "Matthew Grabler v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case No. 05- 1260 (DWF/JSM)." Defendants entered into a stipulation with counsel for plaintiffs in each of these cases to postpone the time for bringing a motion to dismiss until after a lead plaintiff and lead counsel are appointed by the court, and an amended consolidated complaint is filed. By memorandum opinion and order dated Dec. 12, 2005, the court appointed "The Pension Group," comprised of the Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund and Ms. Grace W. Lai, as Lead Plaintiff, and appointed the Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield law firm as liaison counsel and the Lerach, Coughlin law firm as lead counsel. The court also ordered that the cases be consolidated under the caption In re Navarre Corp. Securities Litigation, and further ordered that a consolidated amended complaint be filed. On Feb. 3, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint with the court. This consolidated amended complaint reiterates the allegations made in the individual complaints and extends these allegations to the company's restatements of its previously issued financial statements that were made in November 2005. A hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss was held on May 10, 2006. And by an order dated June 27, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed the amended class action brought against Navarre Corp. which alleges securities fraud by the company and certain of its officers and directors (Class Action Reporter, June 29, 2006). The dismissal by the court was without prejudice, meaning that the plaintiffs were granted 30 days if so desired to amend their complaint to cure its deficiencies. If not, the complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. On July 28, 2006 Plaintiffs filed their second consolidated amended complaint against defendants. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the renewed complaint on Sept. 22, 2006, asserting, among other things, that plaintiffs had not sufficiently cured the defects present in the original consolidated amended complaint. Oral argument in connection with defendant's motion to dismiss was scheduled for Nov. 16, 2006. The consolidated suit is "In re Navarre Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 0:05-cv-01151-PAM-RLE," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Paul A. Magnuson with referral to Judge Raymond L. Erickson. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Laura M Andracchio, Amber L Eck and Trig R Smith all of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP - SD, 655 W Broadway Ste 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-338-3829 or 619-231-1058 or 619-338-3858, E-mail: lauraa@lerachlaw.com or ambere@lerachlaw.com or trigs@lerachlaw.com; (2) Frances E Baillon of Halunen & Associates, 220 South Sixth Street, Suite 2000, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: 612-605-4098, Fax: 612-605-4099, E-mail: baillon@halunenlaw.com; (3) Garrett D Blanchfield, Jr of Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, 332 Minnesota St Ste E-1250, St Paul, MN 55101, Phone: 651-287-2100, E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com; (4) Richard B Brualdi of The Brualdi Law Firm, 29 Broadway 24th Floor, New York, NY 10006, Phone: 212-952-0602, E- mail: rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com; (5) Gregg M Fishbein, Richard A Lockridge and Gregory J Myers all of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, 100 Washington Ave S Ste 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179, Phone: (612) 339-6900, Fax: (612)339-0981, E-mail: gmfishbein@locklaw.com or lockrra@locklaw.com or myersgj@locklaw.com; and (6) Andrei V Rado, Steven G Schulman and Peter E Seidman all of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119- 0165, Phone: 212-946-4474 or 212-946-9356 or 212-631- 8625, E-mail: arado@milbergweiss.com or sschulman@milbergweiss.com or pseidman@milbergweiss.com. Representing the defendants are David A Davenport, Geoffrey P Jarpe, Kyle J Kaiser, and William A McNab all of Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, 225 S 6th St Ste 3500 Mpls, MN 55402-4629, Phone: 612-604-6716 or 612-604-6697 or 612-604-6735 or 612-604-6652, Fax: 612-604-6816 or 612-604-6897 or 612-604-6835 or 612-604- 6852, E-mail: ddavenport@winthrop.com or gjarpe@winthrop.com or kkaiser@winthrop.com or wmcnab@winthrop.com. NORTEL NETWORKS: Tenn. Court Dismisses Part of ERISA Complaints --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee issued an order granting in part and denying in part a new motion to dismiss an amended class action complaint in the lawsuit against Nortel Networks Ltd. by members of its Long-Term Investment Plan. A purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on Dec. 21, 2001, on behalf of: -- participants and beneficiaries of the Nortel Long-Term Investment Plan at any time during the period of March 7, 2000 through the filing date; and -- who made or maintained Plan investments in Nortel Networks Corp. (NNC) common shares, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) for Plan-wide relief. The suit alleges material misrepresentations and omissions to induce Plan participants to continue to invest in and maintain investments in NNC common shares in the Plan. A second purported class action lawsuit, on behalf of the Plan and Plan participants for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased NNC common shares during the period from Oct. 27, 2000 to Feb. 15, 2001 and making similar allegations, was filed in the same court on March 12, 2002. A third purported class action lawsuit, on behalf of persons who are or were Plan participants or beneficiaries at any time since March 1, 1999 to the filing date and making similar allegations, was filed in the same court on March 21, 2002. The first and second purported class actions were consolidated by a new purported class action complaint, filed on May 15, 2002 in the same court and making similar allegations, on behalf of Plan participants and beneficiaries who directed the Plan to purchase or hold shares of certain funds, which held primarily NNC common shares, during the period from March 7, 2000 through Dec. 21, 2001. A fourth purported class action lawsuit, on behalf of the Plan and Plan participants for whose individual accounts the Plan held NNC common shares during the period from March 7, 2000 through March 31, 2001 and making similar allegations, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 12, 2003. On March 18, 2003, plaintiffs in the fourth purported class action filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer all the actions to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1407. On June 24, 2003, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a transfer order transferring the Southern District of New York action to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Consolidated ERISA Action). On Sept. 12, 2003, the plaintiffs in all the actions filed a consolidated class action complaint. On October 28, 2003, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and a motion to stay discovery pending disposition of the motion to dismiss. On March 30, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of a class consisting of participants in, or beneficiaries of, the Plan who held shares of the Nortel Stock Fund during the period from March 7, 2000 through March 31, 2001. On April 27, 2004, the court granted the defendants' motion to stay discovery pending resolution of defendants' motion to dismiss. On June 15, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated class action complaint that added additional current and former officers and employees as defendants and expanded the purported class period to extend from March 7, 2000 through to June 15, 2004. Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint On June 17, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint that added additional current and former directors, officers and employees as defendants and alleged breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of the Plan and as a purported class action on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Plan who held shares of the Nortel Networks Stock Fund during the period from March 7, 2000 through June 17, 2005. On July 8, 2005, the defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended consolidated class action complaint. On July 29, 2005, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion, and defendants filed a reply memorandum on Aug. 12, 2005. On March 30, 2006, the defendants filed an additional motion to dismiss raising the jurisdictional challenge that all former plan participants, including one of the named plaintiffs, lack standing to assert a claim under ERISA. On April 17, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to strike this motion to dismiss. On May 5, 2006, the defendants filed a reply brief in support of this motion to dismiss. On Oct. 11, 2006, the court issued a memorandum order granting in part and denying in part the renewed motion to dismiss plaintiff's second amended consolidated class action complaint. The suit is "In re Nortel Networks Corp. 'ERISA' Litigation, 3:03-md-01537," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Tennessee under Judge John T. Nixon with referral to Judge Juliet Griffin. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Laurie B. Ashton of Keller Rohrback, P.L.C., 3101 N. Central Avenue, Suite 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012, Phone: (602) 248-0088; (2) George Edward Barrett of Barrett, Johnston & Parsley, 217 Second Avenue, N. Nashville, TN 37201, Phone: (615) 244-2202, E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com; (3) Paul Kent Bramlett of Bramlett Law Offices, P.O. Box 150734, Nashville, TN 37215-0734, Phone: (615) 248- 2828, Fax: (615) 254-4116, E-mail: pknashlaw@aol.com; (4) Clifton David Briley of Briley Law Group, PLLC, 511 Union Street, Suite 1610, Nashville, TN 37219, Phone: (615) 986-2684, E-mail: david@brileylaw.com; (5) Todd S. Collins of Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (215) 875-3040, Fax: (215) 875-5715, E-mail: tcollins@bm.net; (6) Kenneth A. Elan of The Law Office of Kenneth A. Elan, 217 Broadway, Suite 606, New York, NY 10007, Phone: (212) 619-0261. (7) Robert Izard of Schatz & Nobel, 1 Corporate Center, Suite 1700, Hartford, CT 06103-3202, Phone: (860) 493- 6292, E-mail: firm@snlaw.net; and (8) Edwin J. Mills of Stull, Stull & Brody, Six East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 687-7230, Fax: (212) 490-2022, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Aubrey B. Harwell, Jr. and Gerald David Neenan of Neal & Harwell, 150 Fourth Avenue, N. 2000 First Union Tower, Nashville, TN 37219-2498, Phone: (615) 244-1713, E-mail: aharwell@nealharwell.com and gneenan@nealharwell.com; and (ii) Stuart J. Baskin and Tai H. Park of Shearman & Sterling, 599 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022- 6069, Phone: (212) 848-4000. OFFICEMAX INC: Ill. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois granted the motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the consolidated securities class action, "Roth v. OfficeMax Inc., et al.," according to its Nov. 7, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. The company and several former officers and/or directors of the company or its predecessor are defendants in a consolidated class action proceeding, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges, in summary, that the company failed to disclose: -- that vendor income had been improperly recorded, -- that the company lacked internal controls necessary to ensure the proper reporting of revenue and compliance with generally accepted accounting principles, and -- that the company 's 2004 and later results would be adversely affected by the company's allegedly improper practices. The relief sought includes unspecified compensatory damages, interest and costs, including attorneys' fees. On Sept. 21, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which is pending. On Sept. 12, 2006, the court granted the defendant group's joint motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiffs have 60 days from the date of the order within which to seek leave to file an amended complaint. The suit is "Roth v. Officemax Inc, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv- 00236," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Joan B. Gottschall. Representing the plaintiffs are William J. Doyle and William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058. Representing the defendants are: (1) Phillip M. Goldberg of Foley & Lardner, 321 North Clark Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: 312-832- 4500; (2) John William Rotunno of Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, LLC, 70 West Madison Street, Suite 3300, Chicago, IL 60602- 4207, Phone: (312) 372-1121, E-mail: jrotunno@bellboyd.com; and (3) Patrick Thomas Stanton of Schwartz, Cooper, Greenberg & Krauss, 180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2700, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 516-4489, E-mail: pstanton@scgk.com. PRECISION BRAND: Ill. Court Approves Pollution Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has preliminarily approved a $15,750 settlement in a suit filed against Precision Brand Products, Inc. over alleged contamination of soil and groundwater. Precision Brand Products (PBP), Precision Steel, and other parties have been named in several civil lawsuits brought by and on behalf of area residents relating to alleged contamination of soil and groundwater with trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene. "Muniz v. Precision Brand Products, Inc., et al.," filed in April 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, is a class action alleging that PBP and the other defendants caused diminution in property values of nearby homes and put the residents at an increased risk of contracting cancer. The court has granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class on liability issues, but not on damages. Plaintiffs have recently agreed, in arbitration, to a group settlement aggregating $15,750, following which each of the 13 plaintiffs, including PBP, deposited $1,211 into an escrow account. The court has approved the agreement on a preliminary basis with finalization expected to occur early in the fourth quarter of 2006, after which the funds are to be released to the plaintiffs. Each defendant's $1,211 payment is subject to reallocation among the group based on each defendant's relative responsibility for the contamination, to be determined by arbitration, if possible, or otherwise, by sampling and analysis of the soils and groundwater. Although PBP's and Precision Steel's insurers had undertaken their defense of this matter, PBP and Precision are involved in negotiations with the insurers as to amounts ultimately to be collected from them. The suit is "Muniz, et al. v. Rexnord Corp., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-02405," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge John W. Darrah. Representing the plaintiffs is Myron Milton Cherry of Myron M. Cherry & Associates, 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 372-2100, E-mail: mcherry@cherry-law.com. Representing the defendants is Alan Bruce White of Karaganis, White & Magel, Ltd., 414 North Orleans, Suite 810, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: (312) 836-1177. TEPPCO PARTNERS: TEPPCO Unit Holder Sues Over Business Proposal --------------------------------------------------------------- Texas Eastern Products Pipeline Co., LLC, the general partner of TEPPCO Partners, L.P. (Parent Partnership) is facing a suit filed by a TEPPCO unitholder in the Court of Chancery of New Castle County in the State of Delaware. On Sept. 18, 2006, Peter Brinckerhoff, a purported unitholder of TEPPCO Partners, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of New Castle County in the State of Delaware, in his individual capacity, as a putative class action on behalf of: -- Parent Partnership's other unitholders, and -- derivatively on its behalf. It concerns proposals made to its unit holders in its definitive proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Sept. 11, 2006 and other transactions involving the Parent Partnership and Enterprise or its affiliates. The complaint names as defendants: -- Texas Eastern Products Pipeline; -- the Board of Directors of Texas Eastern Products; -- the parent companies of Texas Eastern Products, including EPCO Inc., a privately held company controlled by Dan L. Duncan; -- Enterprise Products Partners L.P. and certain of its affiliates; and -- Mr. Duncan. The Parent Partnership is named as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that certain of the transactions proposed in the proxy statement, including a proposal to reduce the Texas Eastern Products's maximum percentage interest in the Parent Partnership's distributions in exchange for limited partner units, are unfair to its unit holders and constitute a breach by the defendants of fiduciary duties owed to its unit holders and that the Proxy Statement fails to provide its unit holders with all material facts necessary for them to make an informed decision whether to vote in favor of or against the proposals. The complaint further alleges that, since Mr. Duncan acquired control of Texas Eastern Products in 2005, the defendants, in breach of their fiduciary duties to the Parent Partnership and its unit holders, have caused the Parent Partnership to enter into certain transactions with Enterprise or its affiliates that are unfair to it or otherwise unfairly favored Enterprise or its affiliates over the Parent Partnership. These transactions are alleged to include the Jonah Gas Gathering Company joint venture entered into by the Parent Partnership and an Enterprise affiliate in August 2006, the sale by the Parent Partnership to an Enterprise affiliate of the Pioneer plant in March 2006 and the impending divestiture of our interest in MB Storage in connection with an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission. As more fully described in the Proxy Statement, the Audit and Conflicts Committee of the Board of Directors of Texas Eastern Products recommended the Issuance Proposal for approval by the Board of Directors of Texas Eastern Products. The complaint also alleges that Richard S. Snell, Michael B. Bracy and Murray H. Hutchison, constituting the three members of the Audit and Conflicts Committee of the Board of Directors of Texas Eastern Products, cannot be considered independent because of their alleged ownership of securities in Enterprise and its affiliates and their relationships with Mr. Duncan. The complaint seeks relief: -- requiring the Parent Partnership to issue a proxy statement that corrects the alleged misstatements and omissions in the Proxy Statement; -- enjoining the Oct. 26, 2006 meeting of unitholders provided for in the Proxy Statement; -- rescinding transactions in the complaint that have been consummated, or awarding rescissory damages in respect thereof, including the impending divestiture of our interest in MB Storage; -- awarding damages for profits and special benefits allegedly obtained by defendants as a result of the alleged wrongdoings in the complaint; and -- awarding plaintiff costs of the action, including fees and expenses of his attorneys and experts. On Sept. 22, 2006, the plaintiff in the action filed a motion to expedite the proceedings, requesting the Court to schedule a hearing on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the Oct. 26, 2006 special meeting of unit holders. On Sept. 26, 2006, the defendants advised the court that the Parent Partnership would provide to its unitholders specified supplemental disclosures, which were included in the Form 8-K and supplemental proxy materials the Parent Partnership filed with the SEC on Oct. 5, 2006. In light of the foregoing, the Parent Partnership believes that the plaintiff's motion requesting the court to schedule a hearing to consider his motion to enjoin the special meeting is moot. The special meeting was convened on Oct. 26, 2006, and adjourned, without voting on the proposals, to Nov. 30, 2006 by Texas Eastern Products for lack of a quorum. TOYOTA MOTOR: Calif. Court Approves Racial Bias Suits Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California approved an agreement entered by Toyota Motor Credit Corp. to settle suits alleging that its pricing practices discriminate against African-Americans and Hispanics. An alleged class action, "Baltimore v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for Central District of California in November 2000. Two additional cases in the state courts in California were also filed that contained similar allegations claiming discrimination against minorities, these are: -- "Herra v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp.," and -- "Gonzales v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp.," "Herra" was filed in the Superior Court of California Alameda County on April 2003, while "Gonzales" was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California on August 2003, respectively. Various individuals brought the cases. Injunctive relief was sought in all three cases and the cases also included a claim for actual damages in an unspecified amount. The parties reached an agreement to settle these cases. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California approved the settlement on Nov. 6, 2006. Under the settlement, TMCC agreed to stop purchasing contracts with markups greater than amounts approved under the settlement and to include disclosures on TMCC's contracts that explain that the finance charge may be negotiable and that the dealer may keep part of the finance charge. TMCC also agreed to: -- offer 850,000 pre-approved offers of credit (that cannot be marked up) to African-American and Hispanic consumers; -- contribute $750,000 to non-profit entities for consumer education purposes with a focus on minorities; -- pay $95,000 in damages; -- pay up to $10,600,000 in attorneys' fees and costs; and -- on submission of a valid claim, provide eligible class members with either a certificate of credit applicable to their next financing with TMCC in amounts ranging from $50 to $400 or a check in amounts ranging from $25 to $225, depending upon the amount of their payment over the applicable buy rate or, in certain circumstances, the time their contracts were assigned to TMCC. There are also non-class action cases making similar claims in other jurisdictions. The suit is "Baltimore, et al. v. Toyota Motor Credit, et al., Case No. 2:01-cv-05564-NM-Mc," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Nora M. Manella with referral to Judge James W. McMahon. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Daniel L. Berger, Hannah E. Greenwald, Hannah E. Greenwald, Marcus Jackson, Seth R. Lesser, Samera Syeda Ludwig, Blair A. Nicholas, Alan Schulman and Darnley D. Stewart of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Fl., New York, NY 10019, Phone: 212-554-1400; and (2) Wyman O Gilmore, Jr. of Wyman O Gilmore Law Offices, 115 Court St., P.O. Box 729, Grove Hill, AL 36451, Phone: 251-275-3115, Fax: 251-275-3847. Representing the defendants are: (i) Brandon A. Block of Buchalter Nemer, 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, 15th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone: 213-891-5108, E-mail: bblock@buchalter.com; and (ii) Lisa M. Simonetti and Julia B. Strickland of Stroock Stroock & Lavan, 2029 Century Park E, 18th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086, Phone: 310-556-5800, Fax: 310- 556-5959. TOYOTA MOTOR: N.J. Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Act Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The New Jersey Superior Court vacated its order to grant class action status to a suit filed against Toyota Motor Insurance Services (TMIS), challenging its Gold Plan Vehicle Service Agreement. The suit was filed in November 2002, claiming that the TMIS Gold Plan Vehicle Service Agreement is unconscionable on its face and violates the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. In September 2004, the case was certified as a class action consisting of all New Jersey consumers who purchased a TMIS Gold Plan VSA. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief as well as actual damages and treble damages in an unspecified amount. In an opinion dated Aug. 1, 2006, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey issued a decision vacating the trial court's certification of the class and reversing the denial of TMIS' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Appellate Division remanded the matter to the trial court for the entry of judgment in favor of TMIS. On Sept. 8, 2006, upon direction of the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court, the trial Court vacated its ruling granting class-action status to the lawsuit and further dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. Torrance, California-based Toyota Motor Insurance Services -- http://www.toyotafinancial.com/-- offers credit insurance, extended service contracts, and other vehicle protection plans. It is part of the worldwide financial services operations for Toyota Financial Services Corp., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Toyota Motor Corp. of Japan. WELDING LITIGATION: Plaintiffs Lose Ill., Tex. Welding Fume Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juries in Madison County, Illinois, and the other in Galveston County, Texas, have each decided in favor of welding rod manufacturers in suits filed by welders alleging welding rod fumes could cause Parkinson's Disease, the Insider reports. Michael Haskell, a welder in Madison County, filed the Illinois suit against, among others: -- The Lincoln Electric Co., -- Airco/BOC Group, -- The ESAB Group, Inc., -- Hobart Brothers Co., -- Illinois Tool Works, Inc., and -- J.W. Harris Co. The Texas suit, known as the Godwin case, was filed against: -- The Lincoln Electric Co., -- Hobart Brothers Co., -- The ESAB Group, Inc., -- Praxair, -- Union Carbide Corp., and -- Miller Electric Manufacturing Co., Inc. Lead defense trial counsel in the Godwin case were Bruce Hurley and Reagan Simpson of King & Spalding LLP -- http://www.kslaw.com/-- John Bissell of Strong, Pipkin, Bissell & Ledyard, LLP -- http://www.strongpipkin.com/-- and Ernest J. Blansfield, Jr., Attorney at Law. ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Claims in Hip, Knee Implant Suit Exceeds 4,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- The claims administrator in the settlement of a suit over defective hip and knee implant produced by Centerpulse AG, which Zimmer Holdings, Inc. acquired, received more than 4,000 claims as of October. As a result of the Centerpulse transaction, Zimmer acquired the entity involved in Centerpulse's hip and knee implant litigation matter. The litigation was a result of a voluntary recall of certain hip and knee implants manufactured and sold by Centerpulse. On March 13, 2002, a U.S. class action settlement agreement was entered into by Centerpulse, which resolved U.S. claims related to the affected products, and a settlement trust was established and funded for the most part by Centerpulse. The court approved the settlement arrangement on May 8, 2002. Under the terms of the settlement, the company will reimburse the settlement trust a specified amount for each revision surgery over 4,000 and revisions on reprocessed shells over 64. As of Oct. 2, 2006, the claims administrator has received 4,133 likely valid claims for hips (cut-off date June 5, 2003) and knees (cut-off date Nov. 17, 2003) and 200 claims for reprocessed shells (cut-off date Sept. 8, 2004). ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Faces Several Suits Over Alleged Price Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- Zimmer Holdings, Inc. is facing several class actions brought by direct and indirect purchasers of the company's orthopedic products. Following the commencement of the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division's investigation, Zimmer Holdings and several other major orthopaedic manufacturers have been named as defendants in six putative class action lawsuits as of October 27, 2006. Direct and indirect purchasers of orthopedic products, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws and certain state consumer protection statutes, brought these lawsuits. In each of these lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices of orthopedic implant devices. The direct purchaser cases are: -- "South Central Surgical Center, LLC v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc. et al." and -- "Chaiken DDS, P.C. v. Biomet, Inc. et al." Theses cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on July 13, 2006 and in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana on July 26, 2006, respectively. The indirect purchaser cases: -- "Morganti v. Johnson & Johnson et al.," -- "Thomas v. Biomet, Inc. et al.," -- "Kirschner v. Biomet, Inc. et al.," and -- "Williams v. Biomet, Inc. et al." These cases filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 19, 2006 (Morganti) and in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on July 18, 2006, July 24, 2006 and July 27, 2006, respectively. In all of these cases, the plaintiffs seek damages of unspecified amounts, in some cases to be trebled under applicable law, attorneys' fees and injunctive or other unspecified relief. Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- November 30-December 1, 2006 ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY ALI-ABA New Orleans Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 December 4-5, 2006 ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 4-5, 2006 BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 5, 2006 MTBE Mealeys Seminars The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 7-8, 2006 COPYRIGHT - FROM TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS TO THE DIGITAL AGE Mealeys Seminars The Argent Hotel, San Francisco Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 7-8, 2006 SECURITIES LITIGATION CONFERENCE: STOCK OPTION BACKDATING AND EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION Mealeys Seminars The Four Seasons Hotel Silicon Valley, East Palo Alto, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 8, 2006 NITA'S COPYRIGHT ENFORCEMENT: ARGUING THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Mealeys Seminars The Argent Hotel, San Francisco Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 11-12, 2006 CALIFORNIA BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Miramar Hotel, Santa Monica, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 11-12, 2006 VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Key Biscayne, FL Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 13-15, 2006 DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 January 22-23, 2007 MEALEY'S 5TH ANNUAL ADVANCED INSURANCE COVERAGE CONFERENCE: TOP 10 ISSUES Mealeys Seminars The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com March 2007 MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR Mass Torts Made Perfect Loews Hotel, Miami, Florida Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678 May 3-4, 2007 Accountants' Liability CM076 ALI-ABA Boston Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 * Online Teleconferences ------------------------ November 1-30, 2006 HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com November 1-30, 2006 CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com November 1-30, 2006 HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com November 1-30, 2006 IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS: CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY? CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com November 1-30, 2006 BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE -- FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE & CONSUMER LAW UPDATES CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com November 1-30, 2006 HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND TORT CASES IN TEXAS" CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com November 1-30, 2006 CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com November 28, 2006 EMERGING DRUGS SERIES #2 - FOSAMAX Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 28, 2006 WHITE COLLAR CRIME Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 29, 2006 RETAIL IN-HOUSE PERSPECTIVES Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 4, 2006 IMMIGRATION Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 5, 2006 EMERGING DRUGS SERIES #3 - SSRI's Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 5, 2006 AMERICA'S HEALTH CARE CRISIS Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 6, 2006 CLIENT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 12, 2006 EMERGING DRUGS SERIES #4 - CONTACT LENS SOLUTION Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 12, 2006 E-DISCOVERY - HOW TO CREATE AN E-DISCOVERY PRACTICE TEAM AT YOUR FIRM Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 13, 2006 ELIMINATION OF BIAS IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 14, 2006 DETERMINING WHAT EXPENSES MAY BE CHARGED TO A CONTINGENT FEE CLIENT Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN DISCOVERY CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com PAXIL LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION? LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE LawCommerce.Com Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO SALES AND ADVERSTISING American Bar Association Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org ________________________________________________________________ The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. New Securities Fraud Cases TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Goldman Scarlato Announces Stock Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., announces that a lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Tier Technologies, Inc. between Nov. 29, 2001 and Oct. 25, 2006. The lawsuit was filed against Tier and certain officers and directors. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Tier issued a series of false and misleading financial statements by overstating company earnings and underreporting company losses. On Dec. 14, 2005, Tier announced that its financial statements for the fiscal years ended Sept. 30, 2002 through Sept. 30, 2004 and quarterly periods through June 30, 2005 should no longer be relied upon as a restatement of these financial results would be necessary. On October 25, 2006, the company finally restated its financial statements indicating that the company had over reported its net income and underreported losses for approximately five years. Interested parties may move the court no later than Jan. 9, 2007 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the class. For more details, contact Mark S. Goldman, Esq. of The Law Firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-668-4130, E-mail: info@gsk-law.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 * * *