/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070103.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, January 3, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 2 Headlines APPLE COMPUTER: April Class Status Hearing Set For "Charoensak" APPLE COMPUTER: Continues to Faces Calif. Trade Practices Suit APPLE COMPUTER: Lawsuit Over Faulty iPod Hard Drives Dismissed APPLE COMPUTER: Settles Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit Over Monitors APPLE COMPUTER: Settles Suit Over Memory Defects in G4 Computers APPLE COMPUTER: Still Faces Consumer Suit for Wireless Products APPLE COMPUTER: Still Faces Suits Over Alleged iPod Hearing Loss AT&T CORP: Privacy Group Files Suit Over NSA Wiretap Support BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Recalls Catheters for Embolization Risks CALIFORNIA: Skid Row Resident Sues City Over Police Searches DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP: N.J. Deal Over Faulty Brakes Gets Approval DOBSON COMMS: Mar. 20 Hearing Set for $3.4M Stock Suit Deal EMERSON ELECTRIC: Falling Blades Prompt Ceiling Fans Recall IPEX INC: Nev. Homeowners File Lawsuit Over Defective Plumbing MERRILL LYNCH: Exchange Rates Suit Gets High Court Certification MURPHY OIL: La. Judge Mulls Oil Spill Suit Settlement Approval PROGRESS LIGHTING: Recalls Light Fixtures for Falling Parts Risk RADIO ONE: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Obtain Court Approval TERAYON COMM: Court Considers Approval for $15M Suit Settlement TERAYON COMM: Still Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Calif. TOP TANKERS: Glancy Binkow Sets Feb. 9 Lead Plaintiff Deadline ZURICH FINANCIAL: Judge Dismisses Fraud Claims in Converium Suit UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces 401(k) Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit UNITED WESTERN: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal Order in "Munoz" VISA: Merchants' Counsel Updates Antitrust Litigation Settlement * Federal Shareholder Class Lawsuits Dramatically Down in 2006 * Securities Fraud Class Suits Tumble to All-Time Low in 2006 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases WHITNEY INFORMATION: Brodsky & Smith Files Fla. Securities Suit ********* APPLE COMPUTER: April Class Status Hearing Set For "Charoensak" --------------------------------------------------------------- An April 16, 2007 class certification hearing is slated for the case, "Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc.," (formerly Slattery v. Apple Computer, Inc.), according to Apple Computer's Dec. 29, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006. Plaintiff filed "Slattery" on Jan. 3, 2005 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music purchased on the iTunes Music Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power. Plaintiff's complaint alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1 and 2), California Business and Professions Code Section 16700 et seq. (the Cartwright Act), California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), common law unjust enrichment and common law monopolization. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The company filed a motion to dismiss on Feb. 10, 2005. A hearing on the motion took place on June 6, 2005. On Sept. 9, 2005, the court denied the motion in part and granted it in part. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Sept. 23, 2005 and the company filed an answer on Oct. 11, 2005. On May 8, 2006, the court heard plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to substitute two new plaintiffs for "Slattery." In August 2006, the court dismissed Slattery without prejudice and allowed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint naming two new plaintiffs (Charoensak and Rosen). On Nov. 2, 2006, the company filed an answer to the amended complaint denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The hearing on class certification is set for April 16, 2007. APPLE COMPUTER: Continues to Faces Calif. Trade Practices Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the class action, "Branning et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc.," which is alleging violations of the California's trade laws, according to Apple Computer's Dec. 29, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006. Plaintiffs originally filed the purported class action in San Francisco County Superior Court on Feb. 17, 2005. The initial complaint alleged violations of California Business Professions Code 17200 (unfair competition) and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) regarding a variety of purportedly unfair and unlawful conduct including, but not limited to, allegedly selling used computers as new and failing to honor warranties. Plaintiffs also brought causes of action for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and violation of the Song Beverly Act. Plaintiffs requested unspecified damages and other relief. On May 9, 2005, the court granted the company's motion to transfer the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court. On May 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding two new named plaintiffs and three new causes of action including a claim for treble damages under the Cartwright Act (California Business and Professions Code 16700 et seq.), and a claim for false advertising. The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, which the court sustained in its entirety on Nov. 10, 2005. The court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend and they filed an amended complaint on Dec. 29, 2005. Plaintiffs' amended complaint adds three additional plaintiffs and alleges many of the same factual claims as the previous complaints such as alleged selling of used equipment as new, alleged failure to honor warranties and service contracts for the consumer plaintiffs, and alleged fraud related to the opening of the Apple Retail stores. Plaintiffs continue to assert causes of action for unfair competition (17200), violations of the CLRA, breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, violations of the Cartwright Act and allege new causes of action for fraud, conversion and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on Jan. 31, 2006, which the court sustained on March 3, 2006 on sixteen of seventeen causes of action. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding one new plaintiff. The company filed a demurrer, which was granted in part on Sept. 9, 2006. Plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint on Sept. 21, 2006. On Oct. 2, 2006, the company filed an answer denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The case is in discovery. APPLE COMPUTER: Lawsuit Over Faulty iPod Hard Drives Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a class action over various problems with Apple Computer, Inc.'s iPod, specifically its hard drive have voluntarily dismissed their case. Filed on May 16, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the suit "Barry et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc.," alleged various problems with the iPod hard drive, including skipping and limited lifespan. Two plaintiffs brought the suit on behalf of a nationwide class of iPod purchasers between May 2002 and the present. Plaintiffs alleged violations of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and breach of warranties. They sought damages and equitable relief. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this case, without prejudice, on Sept. 18, 2006, according to Apple Computer's Dec. 29, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006. APPLE COMPUTER: Settles Calif. Consumer Fraud Suit Over Monitors ---------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the consumer fraud class action "Allen v. Apple Computer, Inc.," have reached a settlement of the case, which is pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court in California, according to Apple Computer's Dec. 29, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006. 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. An amended complaint in the Allen 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. Plaintiffs assert claims under California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false advertising), and the 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. 1, 2005, the court ordered plaintiffs to amend their complaint. 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. The company has reached a settlement in this matter, which was given preliminary approval by the court on Sept. 18, 2006. The final approval hearing is scheduled for Feb. 15, 2007. 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 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 29, 2006). 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. 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/. APPLE COMPUTER: Settles Suit Over Memory Defects in G4 Computers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Computer, Inc. has reached a settlement in several class actions in relation to the defects in the memory of company's PowerBook G4 portable computers. The suits that were settled are: -- "Butzer, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc.;" -- "Wirges v. Apple Computer, Inc.; and -- "Blackwell v. Apple Computer, Inc." Plaintiffs filed the Butzer action on Aug. 23, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported nationwide class of all purchasers of the company's PowerBook G4 portable computers. The complaint alleged defects in the memory of the computers. It also alleged that this purported defect extends to other series of the company's portables and stated that plaintiffs reserved the right to amend the complaint to include these other series. Plaintiffs asserted claims for alleged violations of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The complaint sought remedies including restitution and/or damages and injunctive relief. The Wirges action was filed on Jan. 20, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, also on behalf of a purported nationwide class, and made similar allegations. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of warranties, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act, strict products liability and unjust enrichment. The complaint sought restitution, damages and other remedies. The Blackwell action was filed on Feb. 10, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of a purported nationwide class, and made identical allegations to those made in the Butzer case. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the CLRA, violation of the Song-Beverly Act, false advertising and unfair competition. The complaint sought restitution, an injunction and other remedies. The company filed an answer to the Butzer complaint on Oct. 19, 2005 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The company filed an answer to the Wirges action on Feb. 28, 2006, and also filed a motion to transfer the Wirges case to the Northern District of California. The company filed an answer to the Blackwell complaint on March 15, 2006 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The company has reached a settlement with the named plaintiffs in all three cases and these matters are concluded, according to Apple Computer's Dec. 29, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006. APPLE COMPUTER: Still Faces Consumer Suit for Wireless Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Computer, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class action over the transmission rates of certain of its wireless products, according to Apple Computer's Dec. 29, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006. The case is currently pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Plaintiffs filed this action styled, "Baghdasarian, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc.," on Oct. 31, 2005, on behalf of a purported nationwide class of all purchasers of all Apple wireless products (router, modem, or adaptor) sold at any time. The complaint alleges that the Company misrepresented the transmission rates of these products. The complaint alleges causes of action for breach of express warranty and for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Business Professions Code 17200 (unfair competition) and California Business Professions Code 17500 (false advertising). It seeks damages and equitable remedies. The company filed an answer denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses to the complaint on Dec. 15, 2005. APPLE COMPUTER: Still Faces Suits Over Alleged iPod Hearing Loss ---------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Computer, Inc. faces several lawsuits in the U.S. and in Canada over hearing loss as a result of alleged design defects in the iPod, according to Apple Computer's Dec. 29, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006. Generally, these complaints allege that the company's iPod music players, and the ear bud headphones sold with them, are inherently defective in design and are sold without adequate warnings concerning the risk of noise-induced hearing loss by iPod users. One of these actions is "Birdsong v. Apple Computer, Inc.," which was initially filed on Jan. 30, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on behalf of a purported Louisiana class of iPod purchasers and alleges violations of the Louisiana Products Liability Act, breaches of implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation. Another suit is "Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc.," which was filed on Jan. 31, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class of all iPod purchasers within the four-year period before Jan. 31, 2006. That action alleged breaches of implied and express warranties, violations of California Business & Professions Code 17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code 17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breaches of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. The Birdsong action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the Patterson action was dismissed. An amended complaint was subsequently filed in Birdsong, dropping the Louisiana law-based claims and adding California law-based claims equivalent to those in Patterson. The company filed a motion to dismiss on Nov. 3, 2006. Plaintiffs will not oppose the motion but instead will file a second amended complaint by Jan. 15, 2007. A third action was filed in Canada. The complaint, "Royer- Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc.," was filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on Feb. 1, 2006. It is seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of iPod purchasers in Quebec. A hearing on the motion for class certification is scheduled for Feb. 8 and 9, 2007, although plaintiff counsel has now requested that the hearing be delayed pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss in the U.S. case. The suit is "Birdsong v. Apple Computers Inc., Case No. 6:06-cv- 00159-TLM-MEM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Louisiana under Judge Tucker L. Melancon with referral to Judge Mildred E. Methvin. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) John R. Whaley of Neblett Beard & Arsenault, P.O. Box 1190, Alexandria, LA 71309-1190, Phone: 318-487-9874, Fax: 318-561-2591, E-mail: jwhaley@nbalawfirm.com; (2) Scott Earl Brady of Bohrer Law Firm, 8712 Jefferson Hwy., Ste. B, Baton Rouge, LA 70809, Phone: 225-925- 5297, Fax: 225-231-7000, E-mail: scott@bradylawfirmllc.com; and (3) Christopher K. Jones of Keogh Cox & Wilson, P.O. Box 1151, Baton Rouge, LA 70821, Phone: 225-383-3796, Fax: 225-343-9612, E-mail: cjones@kcwlaw.com. AT&T CORP: Privacy Group Files Suit Over NSA Wiretap Support ------------------------------------------------------------ The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a purported class action in a California court against AT&T Corp., accusing the company of violating its customers' privacy rights by opening its records and systems to secret spying by the National Security Agency (NSA), The New Standard reports. The suit seeks to force the federal court system to consider the legality of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic phone taps. In a statement announcing the legal action, EFF accused the NSA of recklessly snooping on U.S. residents in contravention of existing laws. The privacy-rights group is also accusing AT&T of sharing information from a massive database of calls it maintains. EFF alleges that the company's activity violates both customer privacy and long-standing local telecommunications laws. Thus, they are seeking a jury trial to force AT&T to stop sharing information with government intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The New York Times first broke the domestic NSA surveillance story in December, detailing a 2002 presidential order permitting the NSA to avoid seeking a warrant when eavesdropping on U.S. residents communicating with people overseas during a terrorism investigation. The administration contends that Congress granted Bush the authority to do so when it authorized the "war on terror." It maintains that intelligence agencies must be unencumbered by the warrant requirements in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) when pursuing terrorists. The Act, which established special courts to handle such sensitive information in a timely manner, currently grants agents up to 72 hours after surveillance has begun to secure a warrant. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Recalls Catheters for Embolization Risks ----------------------------------------------------------- Boston Scientific Corporation (NYSE: BSX) is voluntarily recalling certain lots of the Mach 1 Guide Catheter in the United States. The company is initiating this recall because it has determined, through internal inspections, that in some product units, excess strands of resin may exist in the inner lumen near the hub of the guide catheter. If the excess resin is present in the catheter and detaches during a procedure, there is the potential for embolization, in which strands of resin could obstruct a blood vessel. An obstruction of a small blood vessel by an embolism may not cause tissue damage; however, an obstruction of a major blood vessel or multiple small blood vessels could result in serious complications such as stroke, heart attack or kidney problems. To date, no product complaints have been reported to Boston Scientific related to this issue, and there have been no reported injuries. The affected lots of Guide Catheters are 687532, 687586, 687593, 687596, 687654, 687753, 687754, 688035, 687877, 687878, 687879 and 688002. The total number of devices involved in this recall is estimated at 51. The Guide Catheter is a tube that is thread through the body and allows delivery of medical devices to the heart to treat coronary artery disease. The products affected by this recall were distributed only to hospitals in the United States. Boston Scientific is notifying affected hospitals through detailed recall notification letters requesting that use of the product affected by this recall should cease immediately. Instructions on how to return product are included in the notification letters. Replacement product will be available for all affected product. To arrange for return of affected product, please contact Boston Scientific at 1-800-811-3211. The Company has notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of this action. CALIFORNIA: Skid Row Resident Sues City Over Police Searches ------------------------------------------------------------ A man living in Los Angeles' Skid Row neighborhood filed a purported federal class action against the city and its police chief William Bratton over increased police searches of residents in the area. John Quarles claims that he is a victim of these searches. He was allegedly harassed on June 21, 2006, according to a report by The Daily Breeze. Mr. Quarles also claims that in recent months, officers "have initiated police sweeps on Skid Row as they have adopted and pursued an unlawful policy of harassment against plaintiff and others on Skid Row who are perceived to be homeless." He contends that the unlawful practices and tactics amount to a war on the low-income residents of Skid Row. The searches were allegedly a direct result of an initiative by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced this fall to combat crime downtown. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP: N.J. Deal Over Faulty Brakes Gets Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- The New Jersey Superior Court approved a $14.5 million settlement in a national class action alleging defective brakes on Jeep Grand Cherokees that were manufactured by DaimlerChrysler Corp., Mary P. Gallagher of The New Jersey Law Journal reports. The case is known as "Lubitz v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., BER-L- 4883-04," and generally claims that the vehicles allegedly had defective front brake discs or rotors and defective brake housings or calipers, which resulted in uneven disc thickness that caused pulsation when the brakes were applied and sometimes led to brake failure. DaimlerChrysler allegedly stonewalled consumer complaints -- filed during the warranty period -- about the brakes, the suit alleges. The lead co-counsels for the plaintiffs are Gary Graifman, of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman in Chestnut Ridge, N.Y., and Gary Mason of the Mason Law Firm in Washington, D.C. While Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, represented DaimlerChrysler in the case. In a ruling released Dec. 26, 2006, Judge Jonathan Harris certified, for settlement purposes, a class consisting of those who bought or leased 1.2 million 1999 to 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokees. Most of the money, up to $12 million, will go to a subclass of those who bought or leased a 1999 to 2002 vehicle. They are to be reimbursed for the cost of repairing or replacing the brakes within the warranty period. Counsel fees of $2,126,878, plus costs, will also come out of that same $12 million pot. An estimated $2.5 million will pay for inspections for members of two other subclasses who have 2003 to 2004 model year Jeeps. Those who contacted DaimlerChrysler about pulsation while still under warranty, even if it has since expired, are entitled to a free brake inspection, and repairs if a disk thickness variation is found. The others get a free inspection, if they are experiencing pulsation, and a free repair, but only if they are still within the warranty. At the time of the Oct. 30 fairness hearing, more than 1 million class members had been identified, with 1,984 opt-outs, a rate of less than 0.2 percent, Judge Harris noted, and fewer than 70 objectors, which he termed "inconsequential." Thus, in the end the judge gave his final approval to the settlement. The judge's order resolves litigation in New Jersey as well as similar suits in New York, Florida, Ohio, Kansas, Missouri and California. The cases were consolidated in New Jersey, where the first one was filed. DOBSON COMMS: Mar. 20 Hearing Set for $3.4M Stock Suit Deal ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma will hold on March 20, 2007, 9:00 a.m. an approval hearing in the $3.4 million settlement of the class action "In Re: Dobson Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CIV-04-1394-C." The class consists of all persons and their beneficiaries who purchased or acquired publicly traded Dobson Communications, Corp. securities between May 6, 2003 to Aug. 9, 2004. The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma in the courtroom of Judge Robin J. Cauthron. Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is Feb. 14, 2007. Deadline to file claims is March 26, 2007. Beginning on Oct. 22, 2004, securities class actions were filed against the defendants. Most of them allege violations of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages. The suits allege among other things: -- that the company concealed significant decreases in revenues and failed to disclose certain facts about its business, including that the company's rate of growth in roaming minutes was substantially declining, and that the company had experienced negative growth in October 2003; -- that AT&T Wireless, the company's largest roaming customer, had notified the company that it wanted to dispose of its equity interest in the company that it had held since the company's initial public offering, significantly decreasing their interest in purchasing roaming capacity from the company; -- that Bank of America intended to dispose of its substantial equity interest in the company as soon as AT&T Wireless disposed of its equity interest in the company; -- that the company had been missing sales quotas and losing market share throughout the relevant period; and -- that the company lacked the internal controls required to report meaningful financial results. The suits further allege that the company issued various positive statements concerning its financial prospects and subscriber information, the speed of the deployment of its GSM network and the continued growth in its roaming minutes, and that those statements were false and misleading. The court consolidated these actions into "In Re: Dobson Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CIV-04- 1394-C." On July 5, 2005, motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint were filed. Plaintiffs filed their response to the motions to dismiss on Sept. 6, 2005. The company filed its reply briefs on Oct. 3, 2005. In Nov. 2006, Dobson Communications Corp. reached a settlement agreement for a consolidated securities class action pending against it and certain of its officers and directors in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 15, 2006). The company said the $3.4 million settlement, if approved, would settle all claims from investors who bought shares between May 6, 2003 and Aug. 9, 2004. A substantial portion of the settlement amount is covered by insurance, according to the company. The suit is "In Re: Dobson Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CIV-04-1394-C," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oklahoma under Judge Robin J. Cauthron. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Stuart W. Emmons, William B. Federman and Jennifer F. Sherrill of Federman & Sherwood, 120 N Robinson Ave., Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-235- 1560, Fax: 405-239-2112, E-mail: swe@federmanlaw.com, wfederman@aol.com and jfs@federmanlaw.com. (2) Trevan Borum and Gregory Castaldo of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail: tborum@sbclasslaw.com and gcastaldo@sbclasslaw.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Jeffrey A. Berger of Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP- Chicago, 71 S. Wacker Dr., Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 312-701-8583, Fax: 312-706-8400, E-mail: jberger@mayerbrownrowe.com; and (ii) Warren F Bickford, IV, Fellers Snider Blankenship Bailey & Tippens-OKC, 100 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 1700, Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8820, Phone: 405-232-0621, Fax: 405-232-9659, E-mail: wbickford@fellerssnider.com. EMERSON ELECTRIC: Falling Blades Prompt Ceiling Fans Recall ----------------------------------------------------------- Air Comfort Products Division of Emerson Electric Co., of St. Louis, Missouri, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 4,000 units of Emerson 60- inch designer ceiling fans. The company said the brackets holding the fan blades can break, causing the blade to detach. Falling pieces can hit and injure bystanders. Air Comfort Products has received one report of a fan blade striking a consumer in the head. The company is also aware of six incidents of the brackets failing. Three incidents resulted in minor property damage. The recall involves the "Emerson Designer 60-inch Ceiling Fan." The recalled fans have a 60-inch diameter and come in seven types of finishes including weathered bronze, pewter, antique brass, white, antique white, oil rubbed bronze and brushed steel. The following model numbers are included in the recall and can be found on the base of the fan. These ceiling fans were manufactured in Taiwan and are being sold by Menards and other lighting showrooms, electrical distributors and hardware stores nationwide from May 2005 through September 2006 for between $90 and $300. Consumers are advised to stop using these fans immediately and contact Air Comfort Products to receive a voucher for a free Emerson replacement fan of comparable value. Air Comfort will reimburse consumers up to $75 for charges incurred in the removal and installation of replacement fans from Air Comfort. For more information, consumers should contact Air Comfort toll- free at (866) 478-8564 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.emersonfans.com. IPEX INC: Nev. Homeowners File Lawsuit Over Defective Plumbing -------------------------------------------------------------- Ipex, Inc. faces a purported class action in Nevada over defective plumbing found on Las Vegas homes, KVBC reports. A group of valley homeowners filed the suit, claiming that pipes made by the company have burst, which in turn have cost them thousands of dollars in repairs. Attorneys involved in the lawsuit say there are many homeowners out there who might be affected. They say as many as 50,000 homeowners could be at risk. Randall Jones, a plaintiffs' attorney, says that the company knew there was a problem with the fittings. His suit seeks to get the plumbing fittings replaced expeditiously, and at no cost to the homeowner. Ipex, Inc. on the Net: http://www.ipexinc.com. MERRILL LYNCH: Exchange Rates Suit Gets High Court Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Marion Allan granted class-action certification to a lawsuit filed against Merrill Lynch Canada over foreign currency investments, the Calgary Sun reports. Merrill Lynch investor, Russell Cooper brought the original suit against the company, alleging it was unduly profiting from exchange rates it charged for securities transactions in foreign currencies. The suit claims Merrill Lynch earned substantial commissions on the investments without telling the clients. Mr. Cooper and his lawyers argued the suit deserves to be a class action because the issues are identical to a 2001 suit against TD Waterhouse Investor Services (Canada) Inc., which alleged breach of contract, negligence and unjust enrichment over undisclosed profits from foreign exchange rates used on stock trades. But Merrill-Lynch countered that the situations are different because TD Waterhouse was a discount broker with a different sort of contact with clients than the one-on-one relationship found in a full-service investment operation. Merrill-Lynch further argued it provided a service that benefited its clients. The company claims it was entitled to charge a premium on the exchange rate because it provided currency in circumstances where there was a risk of loss if rates fluctuated before a securities transaction became final. It also argued it provided foreign currency at better rates than its clients could obtain. Merrill-Lynch also denied assertions its clients were unaware it employed a spread or did not understand the nature of the transactions. In her complex ruling, Justice Allan found there were enough common elements to justify the suit's certification as a class action. While the brokerage house's relationships with individual clients might be unique, "it is the basic written agreements that established the relationship in each case," she writes in her judgment. "The relationship between Merrill and its clients is one of the core common issues in this case," the justice pointed out. MURPHY OIL: La. Judge Mulls Oil Spill Suit Settlement Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Eldon Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana will consider approving a $330 million proposed settlement for a class action against Murphy Oil Corp. over an oil spill that occurred in the aftermath Hurricane Katrina, The Associated Press reports. The judge has set a "fairness hearing" on Thursday. According to Murphy attorney, Kerry Miller, if the judge concludes that the settlement is fair and no one appeals his ruling within 37 days, Murphy could start cutting checks and scheduling closings to buy homes in the area nearest the refinery as soon as Feb. 11. Case Background The class action was filed on Sept. 9, 2005 on behalf of residents of St. Bernard Parish who were claiming compensation for damages caused by a release of crude oil at the company's wholly-owned subsidiary, a refinery of Murphy Oil USA in Meraux, Louisiana. Crude oil leaked from the plant's storage tank that was damaged by Hurricane Katrina (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2006). Property owner Patrick Joseph Turner on behalf of at approximately 500 property owners in St. Bernard Parish filed the suit. Additional class actions have been consolidated with the first suit into a single action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The court certified the class on Jan. 30, 2006. Earlier, residents of St. Bernard Parish that opted out of a class action against Murphy were given until Jan. 4, 2007 to rejoin a proposed $330 million settlement (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 20, 2006). Judge Fallon extended the deadline, which had been originally on Dec. 8, 2006. According to plaintiff attorney Daniel Becnel, the deadline is the same day that Judge Fallon is scheduled to hold a fairness hearing on the settlement proposal, which covers about 6,200 claims. Mr. Becnel added that the judge has also set Jan. 31, 2007 as the deadline for submission of claims in the proposed settlement of the class action. The settlement affects residents who live in the area of the Murphy Oil spill in Saint Bernard Parish. Objections to the settlement must be made to the court by Dec. 15, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 4, 2006). The suit, "Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.," stems from the spill of about 1 million gallons of oil from a storage tank that was moved off its base by massive flooding during Hurricane Katrina. Recently, Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana gave preliminary approval to the proposed $330 million settlement (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 12, 2006). Under the terms of the deal, all residential and commercial properties in the class area will receive a cash payment pursuant to a fair and equitable allocation subject to court approval following recommendations by a court-appointed Special Master. The entire class area will have the benefit of a comprehensive remediation program as approved by the court and regulatory bodies and to be overseen by regulatory authorities. About $80 million would go to settle roughly 2,700 household and business claims, according to Sidney Torres, the court-appointed liaison for the committee that would help disburse the settlement. Another $160 million would go toward property buyouts and paying property owners in the area, while the remaining $90 million would be for cleanup, Mr. Torres said. Additionally, the company has agreed to make bona fide offers to purchase, at fair market value, all residential and business properties located on the first four streets west of the refinery and north of St. Bernard Highway up to the Twenty Arpent Canal. The suit is "Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv- 04206-EEF-JCW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Eldon E. Fallon with referral to Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Mickey P. Landry of Landry & Swarr, LLC, 1010 Common St., Suite 2050, New Orleans, LA 70112, Phone: 504-299- 1214, E-mail: mlandry@landryswarr.com; (2) N. Madro Bandaries of Amato & Creely, 901 Derbigny St., P.O. Box 441, Gretna, LA 70054, Phone: (504) 367-8181, E-mail: madro@att.net; and (3) Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. of Law Offices of Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., 106 W. Seventh St., P.O. Drawer H. Reserve, LA 70084, Phone: 985-536-1186, E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com. Representing the defendants are, George A. Frilot, III and Patrick J. McShane of Frilot Partridge Kohnke & Clements, Phone: 337-988-5422 and (504) 599-8000, E-mail: gfrilot@fpkc.com and pmcshane@fpkc.com. PROGRESS LIGHTING: Recalls Light Fixtures for Falling Parts Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Progress Lighting Inc., of Spartanburg, South Carolina, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 12,800 trim assembly kits for recessed light fixtures. The company said heat from the light bulb can cause the fixture's plastic trim to soften and melt, causing the trim and lens to fall. This can result in laceration injuries to nearby consumers. Progress Lighting has received four reports of the trims melting. No injuries have been reported. Trim assembly kits involved in this recall attach to recessed light fixtures installed primarily in bathroom ceilings. The trim assemblies include a 7 3/4-inch white plastic ring, a glass lens and a metal reflector. Affected models were made in China and have model numbers: 8009-60, 8010-60 or 8011-60. The model number and country of manufacture are located on a sticker attached to the inside and outside of the reflector. Models made in Mexico are not included this recall. These recalled trim assembly kits were manufactured in China and are being sold by electrical and lighting distributors nationwide from July 2006 through December 2006 for between $9 and $27. Pictures of the recalled trim assembly kits: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07071a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07071b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07071c.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using the recessed light fixtures containing the recalled trim rings immediately and contact Progress Lighting to arrange for installation of a replacement trim ring. For more information, contact Progress Lighting toll-free at (877) 369-4548 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or log on to http://www.progresslighting.com. RADIO ONE: IPO Suit Settlement Yet to Obtain Court Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- 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 against Radio One, Inc., the company said at its Nov. 8, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. In November 2001, the company and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in a class action shareholder complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, now captioned, "In re Radio One, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV- 10160." Similar complaints were filed in the same court against hundreds of other public companies (Issuers) that conducted initial public offerings of their common stock in the late 1990s (IPO Lawsuits). In the complaint filed against the company (as amended), the plaintiffs claim that it, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain of its public offerings violated Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on allegations that its registration statement and prospectus failed to disclose material facts regarding the compensation to be received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the underwriters. The complaint also contains a claim for violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on allegations that this omission constituted a deceit on investors. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. In July 2002, the company joined in a global motion, filed by the Issuers, to dismiss the IPO Lawsuits. In October 2002, the court entered an order dismissing the company's named officers and directors from the IPO Lawsuits without prejudice, pursuant to an agreement tolling the statute of limitations with respect to the company's officers and directors until Sept. 30, 2003. In February 2003, the court issued a decision denying the motion to dismiss the Section 11 and Section 10(b) claims against the company and most of the Issuers. In July 2003, a Special Litigation Committee of the company's board of directors approved in principle a settlement proposal with the plaintiffs, which is anticipated to include most of the Issuers. The proposed settlement would provide for the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the participating Issuers and their officers and the assignment to plaintiffs of certain potential claims that the Issuers may have against their underwriters. The tentative settlement also provides that, in the event that plaintiffs ultimately recover less than a guaranteed sum from the underwriters, plaintiffs would be entitled to payment by each participating Issuer's insurer of a pro rata share of any shortfall in the plaintiffs guaranteed recovery. In September 2003, in connection with the proposed settlement, the company's named officers and directors extended the tolling agreement so that it would not expire prior to any settlement being finalized. In June 2004, the company executed a final settlement agreement with the plaintiffs. On February 2005, the Court issued a decision certifying a class action for settlement purposes and granting preliminary approval of the settlement subject to modification of certain bar orders contemplated by the settlement. In August 2005, the Court reaffirmed class certification and preliminary approval of the modified settlement in a comprehensive Order, and directed that Notice of the settlement be published and mailed to class members beginning November 2005. In February 2006, the court dismissed litigation filed against certain underwriters in connection with the claims to be assigned to the plaintiffs under the settlement. In April 2006, the Court held a Settlement Fairness Hearing to determine whether to grant final approval of the settlement. The Court's decision on final approval of the settlement remains pending, For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/. TERAYON COMM: Court Considers Approval for $15M Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has yet to grant approval to a proposed $15 million settlement in the consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. Beginning in April 2000, several plaintiffs filed class actions in federal court against the company and certain of its officers and directors. Later that year, the cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as "In re Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-00-1967-MHP." The court then appointed lead plaintiffs who filed an amended complaint. In 2001, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs filed a new complaint. In 2002, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss that complaint, which, like the earlier complaints, alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material information regarding our technology. On Feb. 24, 2003, the court certified a plaintiff class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities between Nov. 15, 1999 and April 11, 2000. On Sept. 8, 2003, the court heard defendants' motion to disqualify two of the lead plaintiffs and to modify the definition of the plaintiff class. On Sept. 10, 2003, the court issued an order vacating the hearing date for the parties' summary judgment motions, and, on Sept. 22, 2003, the court issued another order staying all discovery until further notice and vacating the trial date, which had been scheduled for Nov. 4, 2003. On Feb. 23, 2004, the court issued an order disqualifying two of the lead plaintiffs and ordered discovery, which was conducted. In February 2006, the company mediated the case with plaintiffs' counsel. As part of the mediation, the company reached a settlement of $15.0 million. After this mediation, the company's insurance carriers agreed to tender their remaining limits of coverage, and the company contributed approximately $2.2 million to the settlement. On March 17, 2006, the company along with plaintiffs' counsel, submitted the settlement to the court and the shareholder class for approval. The court held a hearing to review the settlement of the shareholder litigation on Sept. 25, 2006. To date, the court has not approved the settlement, according to its Dec. 29, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2005. TERAYON COMM: Still Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported securities fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to its Dec. 29, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2005. On June 23, 2006, a putative class action was filed against the company by I.B.L. Investments Ltd. purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock between October 28, 2004 and March 1, 2006. Zaki Rakib, Jerry D. Chase, Mark Richman and Edward Lopez are named as individual defendants. The lawsuit focuses on the company's March 1, 2006 announcement of the restatement of our financial statements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2004, and for the four quarters of 2004 and the first two quarters of 2005. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants' representations concerning the company's financial condition, impressive income growth, and various other statements in the company's quarterly and annual financial results and SEC filings were materially false and misleading (Class Action Reporter, July 12, 2006). It further alleges that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the company's reported financial results and growth were attributable to improper accounting practices, including improper revenue recognition practices, which resulted in an overstatement of the company's revenues. Unknown to investors, the company's internal controls and procedures and, as a result, the company's projections and reported financial results were seriously flawed. Furthermore, the company's earnings were not increasing in the amounts that had been represented by defendants, and the company's reported earnings statements for the interim periods were in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The complaint claims that on Nov. 7, 2005, after the market closed, Terayon announced that the company "is reviewing the recognition of revenue for certain transactions during prior periods." More specifically, an internal review was initiated after the company determined "that certain revenues recognized in the second half of fiscal year 2004 from a customer may have been recorded in incorrect periods." The complaint further alleges that on March 1, 2006, Terayon issued a press release announcing that the company's "consolidated financial statements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2004 and for the four quarters of 2004 and the first two quarters of 2005 should no longer be relied upon and will be restated." In response to these revelations, the next day, March 2, 2006, Terayon's stock price fell $0.37 per share-a more than 13% decline in the stock's value - on extremely heavy trading volume of more than four million shares. Plaintiffs are seeking damages, interest, costs and any other relief deemed proper by the court. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?d80 The suit is "I.B.I. Investments LTD v. Terayon Communication Systems, Inc et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-03936-MJJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Martin J. Jenkins. Representing the plaintiffs is Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of The Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, Fax: 310-201-9160, E- mail: info@glancylaw.com. TOP TANKERS: Glancy Binkow Sets Feb. 9 Lead Plaintiff Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP disclosed a February 9, 2007, deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities class action filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of TOP Tankers, Inc. between June 28, 2005 and Nov. 28, 2006. The suit, filed in Dec. 2006, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 27, 2006). The complaint charges TOP Tankers and certain of the company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning TOP Tankers' business and financial performance caused the company's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. TOP Tankers is an international provider of worldwide seaborne crude oil and petroleum products transportation services. The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them, including that: -- the company improperly accounted for certain sale and leaseback transactions involving ships during the class period; -- specifically, the company recognized certain gains from these transactions before receipt of payment; -- the company's financial statements were in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; -- the company lacked adequate internal controls; and -- as a consequence of the foregoing, the company's financial results were materially overstated at all relevant times. On Nov. 29, 2006, before the market opened, TOP Tankers disclosed that its auditors, Ernst & Young LLP, had resigned as the company's independent auditors over a disagreement between the company and Ernst & Young over the accounting treatment of certain aspects of the sale and leaseback of thirteen vessels that closed in March and April 2006. The company also reported that it would restate its interim unaudited financial statements for the first and second quarters of 2006. As a result of this news, shares of TOP Tankers' stock dropped $0.82, or 14 percent, to close, on Nov. 29, 2006, at $5.04, on unusually heavy trading volume. For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq. of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773- 9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com. ZURICH FINANCIAL: Judge Dismisses Fraud Claims in Converium Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed securities fraud claims against Zurich Financial Services (ZFS) and the underwriters of its spin-off of Converium Holdings AG, while allowing the case to proceed against some of Converium's former officers, according to Reuters. The suit, which is seeking class-action status, charged that ZFS knew at the time of its initial public offering of re-insurer Converium in 2001 that Converium was under-reserved for the amount of claims it would have to ultimately pay, and would have to take "hundreds of millions of dollars in charges to meet previously undisclosed liabilities." In dismissing the fraud claims against the company, Judge Denise Cote ruled that based on Converium's public disclosures about reserve developments, investors were on notice of Converium's problems no later than 2002. In addition to Zurich, claims were also dismissed against: -- Merrill Lynch & Co., -- UBS AG, and, -- directors of Converium. However, some claims against Converium and former Chief Executive Dirk Lohmann and ex-Chief Financial Officer Martin Kauer will continue, according to Judge Cote's ruling. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces 401(k) Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- UnitedHealth Group Inc. was named as a defendant in a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota filed on behalf of participants in the company's 401(k) defined contribution retirement plan (the UnitedHealth Group Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased and/or held shares of UnitedHealth Group Inc. common stock at any time from Dec. 21, 2005 through May 24, 2006. The case, which has been assigned Case No. 06-CV-2237 (JNR/SRM), alleges that UnitedHealth Group Inc. and other Plan fiduciaries concealed from Plan participants important information concerning: (i) long-standing, improper practices at the Company relating to executive stock options, including those awarded to former CEO William McGuire and current CEO Stephen Hemsley, and (ii) whether UnitedHealth Group Inc. common stock was a prudent and suitable retirement investment for the Plan. After receiving from the Company certain documentation relating to the Plan Stull, Stull & Brody filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of ERISA, which is the current pleading in the case. UnitedHealth Group and the other defendants named in the Amended Complaint have indicated that they intend to move to dismiss the case, and that their dismissal motion will be filed in early 2007. Stull, Stull & Brody intends to vigorously oppose any motion to dismiss the case. It also intends to ask the Court to certify the case as proper class action. For more information, contact Edwin J. Mills, Esq. of Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 1- 800-337-4983/ ext. 112, Fax: (212) 490-2022. UNITED WESTERN: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal Order in "Munoz" ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of United Western Bancorp and certain other defendants in the class action, "Heraclio A. Munoz, et al. v. Sterling Trust Company, et al.," which was filed in Superior Court of the State of California. Sterling Trust Co., United Western Bancorp, United Western Bank, The Vintage Group, Inc. and Vintage Delaware Holdings, Inc. were named as defendants in the action, which was filed in December 2001. The complaint sought class action status, requested unspecified damages and alleged negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of written contract on the part of Sterling Trust. In the fourth quarter of 2005, Sterling Trust was granted summary judgment as to all claims against it. In April 2006, the court granted a motion for summary judgment, dismissing Sterling Trust, United Western Bancorp, United Western Bank, The Vintage Group, Inc. and Vintage Delaware Holdings, Inc. from the action. On Sept. 27, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the California Superior Court, according to United Western's Nov. 13, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. VISA: Merchants' Counsel Updates Antitrust Litigation Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Constantine Cannon (formerly Constantine & Partners) directed the claims administrator in "Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 96-5238," to mail checks to class members for overcharges on Visa and MasterCard signature debit and credit card transactions during the period October 1992 to July 2003. These payments include claims that were filed and approved by March 10, 2006 that did not involve the consolidation of multiple store locations or divisions. Claims that required consolidation and were filed and approved by Oct. 20, 2006, are also being paid at this time. This distribution of approximately 128,000 payments involves more than $300 million. This is the third round of distribution, the first having occurred in December 2005 and the second in June 2006, involving more than $650 million in claim payments. Constantine Cannon, the lead counsel in the case expects that the remaining claim forms involving payments for signature debit and credit card overcharges will be approved and ready for payment before the end of 2007. It also expects that payments for online PIN debit overcharges will be made to all or most qualifying class members in 2007. Among the 128,000 checks to be mailed by the claims administrator during the next few days, there are approximately 29,400 checks of $1,000.00 or more; 1,790 checks of $10,000.00 or more; 308 checks of $100,000.00 or more; and 40 checks of $1,000,000.00 or more. In addition to this cash monetary relief, the settlement in this case includes an injunction valued by the court in the range of $25-$87 billion to U.S. merchants and consumers. In approving the settlement, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated that it is "the largest antitrust settlement in history," that "the compensatory relief by itself constitutes the largest settlement ever approved by a federal court;" and "produced significant and lasting benefits for America's merchants and consumers." Case Background The $3.1 billion settlement fund stems from class action captioned, "In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The suit was between retailers nationwide and credit providers Visa and MasterCard and relates to how the stores process transactions made with debit cards, which deduct cash from consumers' existing bank accounts, rather than building up their debt with credit accounts. It charges both MasterCard and Visa USA with violating U.S. antitrust law by monopolistic and anticompetitive business practices concerning debit cards. The suit specifically alleges that Visa and MasterCard violated antitrust laws by insisting that merchants who accept their credit cards must also accept their debit cards, and also that the two card companies charge unfair fees, eventually driving up costs for consumers, (Class Action Reporter, April 30, 2003). The case was certified as a class action in February of 2000, included five million merchants in the U.S. and is said to involve billions of dollars. On the eve of trial, the parties agreed to settle with the final settlement agreements being signed on June 4, 2003 and the federal judge overseeing the case, Judge John Gleeson, granting preliminary approval to the deal and the notice plan on June 13, 2003, (Class Action Reporter story July 24, 2003). Objections to the terms of the settlements and plan of allocation were due last Sept. 5, 2003. A fairness hearing took place on September 25, 2003, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York before Judge Gleeson. The settlement will bring awards ranging from healthy to adequate. According to those overseeing the suit, the $3 billion-plus compensation should begin in 2006. They say that the antitrust class award would go to all businesses and organizations in the United States that accepted Visa and MasterCard debit and credit cards between Oct. 25, 1992 and June 21, 2003, (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2005). Alongside the $3 billion compensation award, the settlement also called for the providers to stop requiring merchants that accept credit cards to also accept certain debit card transactions. The companies also agreed to lower debit card fees that they charge merchants for an interim period, by one-third. Some of retail's heaviest hitters led the suit, including Wal- Mart Stores Inc., Sears Roebuck and Co., Circuit City Stores Inc. and Safeway Inc. Those stores will collect exponentially more than a business the size of the smaller companies involved in the case. For more details, call 1-888-641-4437 or 212-350-2799 or visit, http://www.inrevisacheckmastermoneyantitrustlitigation.com. The suit is "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, et al v. Visa USA, Inc., et al, Case No. 1:96-cv-05238-JG-RLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge John Gleeson with referral to Roanne L. Mann. Representing the plaintiffs are Lloyd Constantine, Matthew L. Cantor, Jeffrey Issac Shinder and Robert L. Begleiter of Constantine Cannon, P.C., 477 Madison Ave., 11th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-350-2700, Fax: 212-350-2701, E-mail: lconstatine@cpny.com, mcantor@cpny.com, jshinder@cpny.com and rbegleiter@cpny.com. Representing the defendants are: (1) Kevin J. Arquit of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, 425 Lexington Ave., 29th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 455-7680 or -2000, Fax: (212) 455-2502, E-mail: karquit@stblaw.com, and (2) Stephen V. Bomse, Brian P. Brosnahan and Thomas P. Brown of Heller, Ehrman, White and McAuliffe, 333 Bush St., Suite 3100, San Francisco, CA 94104-2878, Phone: (415) 772-6000, E-mail: sbomse@hewm.com, bbrosnahan@hewm.com and tbrown@hewm.com. * Federal Shareholder Class Lawsuits Dramatically Down in 2006 -------------------------------------------------------------- NERA Economic Consulting's annual benchmark study showed that despite a surge in lawsuits alleging options backdating, shareholder class action filings were down dramatically in 2006, even as settlements of existing cases soared past last year's record levels. Class action settlements paid by corporations to shareholder plaintiffs rose by some 37% -- an increase driven by more "mega- settlements" exceeding $100 million. Four multi-billion-dollar settlements occurred in 2006. They were: -- the $2.7 billion settlement paid to shareholders in the AOL Time Warner class action, -- the $1.1 billion Royal Ahold NV settlement and -- two separate $1.1 billion settlements resulting from two Nortel Networks class action cases. These four settlements are in addition to the partial of $7.1 billion paid to shareholder plaintiffs in the Enron class action -- which began in 2005 and continued into 2006. The largest payout to date in a shareholder class action, the Enron settlement is expected to grow even larger after the final payments are made to shareholders. "This is an astonishing development given that before 2006 only three settlements had ever exceeded $1 billion," write NERA economists Todd Foster, Ronald I. Miller and Stephanie Plancich, co-authors of the report. Settlement size is influenced by variety of factors, including the class of securities involved, whether there are allegations of accounting improprieties, and whether the case concerns an IPO. "The single most powerful" determinant of settlement size, according to the study, is the losses experienced by investors. The NERA study also noted that, despite some 22 lawsuits in 2006 over the issue of options backdating, shareholder class action filings are projected to plunge 36% (the data for the study tracks 2006 filings through December 15). This decline in filings continues a trend that began in the second half of 2005, and represents a 44% decline from the average rate of filings after the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), passed in 1995 to curtail excessive securities litigation. According to NERA, only 129 federal shareholder class actions were filed from January 1 through December 15, 2006. A total of 135 are expected by year's end -- in contrast with 211 filings in 2005. "It is not yet clear what is driving this precipitous decline. One hypothesis is that Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX), passed in July of 2002, has now had enough time to cause improvements in corporate governance that have limited fraud and resulting class actions," the authors write. However, for a number of reasons, they call this scenario "unlikely." "Another possibility is that the decline is the result of distraction on the part of some of the largest plaintiffs' law firms," such as Milberg Weiss, due to federal indictment and personnel changes. NERA concludes, "If limitations in the resources of the plaintiffs' bar turn out to be the cause of the trend in filings then we would expect filings to return to higher levels in the future." Among other findings in the NERA study: * The largest drop in filings occurred in the Ninth Circuit, despite its reputation for being friendly to plaintiffs. Filings plunged from 68 in 2004 to only 27 through December 15, 2006. The smallest decrease took place in the New York-centered Second Circuit, which represents a substantial portion of the financial sector. The Second Circuit "has seen fully 87% of the filings it typically received over 1998-2004," according to NERA. However, every circuit court but two is expected to see filings decline by at least one third this year. * With the drop in filings, the average corporation now faces less than an 8% probability of being the target of at least one such suit over a five-year period. The annual likelihood of a suit has fallen 9% since the period of 1993 to 1995, from 1.8% to 1.6%, prior to PSLRA reform. * Chances are also greater that shareholder class action cases will be dismissed. More than 38% of class action cases filed between 1999 and 2004 were dismissed. Dismissal rates have nearly doubled since PSLRA reforms. * A significant portion of shareholder class action cases are dismissed within the first two years. The Second and Ninth Circuits, which together receive the most cases, dismiss approximately 20% within this time period. The Fourth Circuit has the highest rate, dismissing 31% of cases within two years, while the Tenth Circuit has the lowest, at 5%. * Seven of the ten largest settlements occurred between 2005 and 2006. Enron's $7.1 billion partial settlement exceeds last year's record-setting $6.2 billion WorldCom settlement, which dwarfed the mammoth $3.6 billion Cendant settlement in 2000. * The average shareholder class action settlement, including this year's largest billion dollar cases, is $86.7 million * up from the average of $73.6 million in 2005. [These numbers do not take Enron into account.] If cases exceeding $1 billion are excluded, the average is $34 billion, according to NERA numbers through December 15. * More than 10% of shareholder class action settlements were "mega-settlements" of over $100 million, in contrast with an average of 3% reaching this threshold in prior years. * Median settlements, which are more descriptive of typical cases, continued to rise in 2006, hitting a new peak of $7.3 million. * There were also fewer class action settlements of $3 million or less. They made up 22% of 2006 settlements, compared with 26% in 205 and 44% in 1996. * Investor losses constitute the single most powerful publicly available determinant of settlements. Average investor losses have ballooned from $140 million in suits settling in 1996 to $2.5 billion in 2003. * Other factors helping to determine the size of settlements are the class of securities involved (bonds and options boost the size of settlement values), the depth of defendant's pockets, and whether accounting improprieties are suspected. According to NERA, "The mere existence of allegations concerning improprieties leads to an increase in the expected settlement of more than 20%." * Settlements increase by approximately one-third if an IPO is involved. * Corporations in the health services sector pay significantly higher class action settlements than defendants in other industries, a possible consequence of billing fraud allegations resulting from the federal False Claims Act. Recent Trends In Shareholder Class Action Litigation: Filings Plummet, Settlements Soar on the net: http://www.nera.com. NERA Economic Consulting is an international firm of economists who understand how markets work. It provides economic analysis and advice to corporations, governments, law firms, regulatory agencies, trade associations, and international agencies. For more information, contact Jill Shea of Bolde Communications, Phone: 212-727-1680, E-mail: jshea@boldepr.com * Securities Fraud Class Suits Tumble to All-Time Low in 2006 ------------------------------------------------------------- A Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse report showed that the number of securities fraud class actions filed in 2006 was the lowest ever recorded in a calendar year since the adoption of the Public Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) of 1995. The Securities Class Action Filings 2006 Year in Review report illustrated securities fraud class actions decreased by 38 percent since 2005, plunging from 178 filings to just 110, making this year's numbers nearly 43 percent lower than the ten- year historical average of 193. Additional indices tracked by the Clearinghouse confirm a significant decline. John Gould, Vice President of Cornerstone Research and a contributor to the study, noted that the decrease in securities class action activity in 2006 is even more dramatic when measured by the associated market capitalization losses. For instance, in 2006 the total Disclosure Dollar Loss (market capitalization losses at the end of the class period, typically the time of the disclosure of the alleged fraud), as measured by the Clearinghouse's DDL Index(TM), sank a remarkable 44 percent from $93 billion in 2005 to only $52 billion in 2006. The total Disclosure Dollar Loss is now 58% below its historic average of $124 billion, and only 21% of the historic peak observed in 2000. The total Maximum Dollar Loss in 2006 (shareholder losses measured by the largest capitalization decline experienced during the class period), tracked by the Clearinghouse's MDL Index(TM), fell from $362 billion in 2005 to $294 billion in 2006. The total Maximum Dollar Loss is now 57% below the historic average of $680 billion per year, and only 14% of the historic peak observed in 2002. "The DDL and MDL statistics show the combined impact of less filings and lower market capitalization losses per filing. These numbers are potentially indicative of a new era in the securities litigation arena," said Mr. Gould. The decline is even more striking when filings alleging options backdating are excluded. To date, there have been 22 securities class actions filed related to options backdating allegations, 20 of which were filed in 2006. Excluding the options backdating cases from the sample, as these reflect one-time events that will not recur in the future, suggests that "core" securities class action litigation in 2006 was only 90 cases, a decline of 53% from the historic norm. The MDL for these 90 cases is $198 billion (71% below the historic average) and the DDL for these cases is $42 billion (66% below the historic average). Incidences of "mega" filings -- cases with DDLs in excess of $5 billion or MDLs in excess of $10 billion -- also declined in 2006. There was only one "mega" DDL filing in 2006, whereas there were 5 such filings in 2005. There were 8 "mega" MDL filings in 2006, 4 of which were driven by option backdating claims. In contrast, there were 9 "mega" MDL filings in 2005. Reasons The study attributes the record low numbers of securities fraud class action filings in 2006 to three primary factors: -- First, the strengthened federal enforcement environment reflected in the pressure that the SEC and Department of Justice now bring to bear on corporations to conduct internal investigations that implicate the individual executives responsible for the fraud, may be reducing the amount of fraud in the market. -- Second, a strong stock market combined with lower stock price volatility typically reduces the number of cases filed. -- Third, the overwhelming majority of securities fraud class actions that were filed in the late 1990s to the early 2000s are now behind us. While the boom and bust cycle of this era may have contributed to the peak, the numbers in 2006 are low even when compared to pre-peak activity. "These are unprecedented numbers, and my bet is that the private securities fraud litigation market is shrinking because corporations are engaging in less activity that gives plaintiffs an excuse to file a complaint alleging fraud," explained Stanford Law School Professor Joseph Grundfest, Director of the Securities Class Action Clearinghouse, co-Director of the Rock Center on Corporate Governance, and former Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission. "The federal government is a much more aggressive adversary than the private bar, and the feds can force a level of compliance that private class action lawyers could never touch. I think we are seeing the effects of a tougher and smarter campaign against white collar fraud by the SEC and Department of Justice." Fraud Allegation Trends There were more allegations of specific accounting irregularities in the complaints filed in 2006 compared to 2005, a trend that is consistent with last year's findings and indicates a continued concern over the quality of financial reporting. Of significance, there was a more than 70 percent spike in the percentage of cases involving "other" accounting allegations, jumping from 37 percent of all accounting allegations in 2005 to 63 percent in 2006. Almost half of the "other" accounting allegations were related to stock options issuances. Industry Activity The distribution of case filings by industry in 2006 was similar to that observed in 2005. The Consumer Non-Cyclical sector (e.g., commercial services, biotechnology, food, pharmaceuticals, etc.) again proved to be the major source of securities class action litigation in 2006, accounting for 33 percent of the total number of filings and the highest DDL. The Consumer Cyclical and Technology sectors were also large contributors, as 5 of the top 10 MDL cases were filed against tech sector companies (accounting for almost 50 percent of the Maximum Dollar Loss). Circuit Activity The Second Circuit (New York) was again the most active federal circuit in terms of number of filings, although the court's total filings dropped 26 percent since 2005 (42 filings in 2005; 31 filings in 2006). The Ninth Circuit (California) followed close behind with 25 filings, 11 of which were options backdating cases. The Third Circuit (Delaware/Pennsylvania) and Eleventh Circuit (Florida/Georgia/Alabama) had just 11 filings each. Historically the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits have had the largest disclosure dollar losses. The highest levels of DDL in 2006 were recorded in the Second Circuit ($26 billion), followed by the Eleventh Circuit ($8 billion), and Ninth Circuit ($7 billion). Professor Grundfest and Dr. Gould are available to speak to the media about the report. The full text of the 2006 Year in Review report can be found on both the Clearinghouse site: http://securities.stanford.eduand on Cornerstone Research's website at http://www.cornerstone.com. The Securities Class Action Clearinghouse is an authoritative source of data and analysis regarding the financial and economic characteristics of federal securities fraud class action litigation. Cornerstone Research -- http://www.cornerstone.com-- provides financial and economic analysis in civil litigation, regulatory proceedings, business consulting, and public policy analysis, and concentrates in matters involving securities, antitrust, intellectual property, financial institutions, energy, and accounting. For more information, contact John Hellerman, Phone: 202-274- 4762, E-mail: jhellerman@hellermanbaretz.com; or Joseph Grundfest of Stanford University Law School, Phone: 650-723- 0458, E-mail: grundfest@stanford.edu; or John Gould of Cornerstone Research, Phone: 617-927-3000, E-mail: jgould@cornerstone.com. Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- January 13, 2007 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California Grand Hyatt on Union Square, San Francisco Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 13, 2007 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California Sheraton Anaheim, Anaheim CA Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 13, 2007 TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California Grand Hyatt on Union Square, San Francisco Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 13, 2007 TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California Sheraton Anaheim, Anaheim CA Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 16, 2007 TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California PLI California Center, San Francisco CA Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 16, 2007 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California PLI California Center, San Francisco CA Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 18-19, 2007 Opinion and Expert Testimony in Federal and State Courts CM060 ALI-ABA Coral Gables, Florida Tuition Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 January 20, 2007 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California Pasadena Hilton, Pasadena CA Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 20, 2007 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California Sacramento Convention Center, Sacramento CA Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 20, 2007 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California San Diego County Bar Association, San Diego, CA Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 20, 2007 TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California Pasadena Hilton, Pasadena CA Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 20, 2007 TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California Sacramento Convention Center, Sacramento CA Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 20, 2007 TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California San Diego County Bar Association, San Diego, CA Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu 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 January 22-23, 2007 LEXISNEXIS ATTORNEY MARKETING & CLIENT DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Phoenix Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com January 24-25, 2007 EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 January 25-26, 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE CLAIMS AND LITIGATION American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 January 27, 2007 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California Sheraton Los Angeles Downtown Santa Monica Room 711 South Hope Street Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 27, 2007 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California Santa Clara Convention Center, Sta. Clara, CA Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 27, 2007 TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California Sheraton Los Angeles Downtown Santa Monica Room 711 South Hope Street Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 27, 2007 TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California Santa Clara Convention Center, Sta. Clara, CA Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 29-30, 2007 MEALEY'S THE ART OF NEGOTIATION CONFERENCE: SUCCESSFULLY NEGOTIATING MASS TORT & CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATION TECHNIQUES FOR MASS TORT AND CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS Mealeys Seminars Hyatt Century Plaza, Los Angeles Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 6-7, 2007 MANAGING COMPLEX LITIGATION American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 February 7, 2007 MEALEY'S GLOBAL WARMING LITIGATION CONFERENCE: ARE YOU READY? Mealeys Seminars The Ritz-Carlton, San Francisco, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 8-9, 2007 MEALEY'S FUNDAMENTALS OF INSURANCE CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Westin Grand, Washington, DC Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 8-9, 2007 MEALEY'S ASBESTOS CONFERENCE: THE NEW FACE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION Mealeys Seminars The Fairmont Hotel, Washington, DC Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 15-16, 2007 LEXISNEXIS SECURITIES LITIGATION CONFERENCE: STOCK OPTION BACKDATING AND EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION Mealeys Seminars The Four Seasons Palo Alto, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 27-28, 2007 CLINICAL TRIALS American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 February 27-28, 2007 E-DISCOVERY & LITIGATION READINESS FOR LIFE SCIENCES American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 February 27-28, 2007 PREVENTING AND DEFENDING BARIATRIC SURGERY American Conference Institute Philadephia Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 February 27-28, 2007 PREVENTING AND DEFENDING CLAIMS OF BREAST CANCER American Conference Institute Philadephia Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 March 2007 MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR Mass Torts Made Perfect Loews Hotel, Miami, Florida Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678 March 7-9, 2007 Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in Federal and State Courts CM090 ALI-ABA St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 March 12-13, 2007 MEALEY'S SOLVENT SCHEMES OF ARRANGEMENT CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York City Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 March 12-13, 2007 MEALEY'S CALIFORNIA BAD FAITH CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Ritz-Carlton Marina del Rey Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 March 14-15, 2007 LIFE SCIENCES MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 March 15-16, 2007 MEALEY'S FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Ritz-Carlton, New Orleans Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 March 19-20, 2007 MEALEY'S MASS TORT INSURANCE COVERAGE CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 March 20-21, 2007 MANAGING & SETTLING CORPORATE PATENT LITIGATION American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 March 21-22, 2007 ANTI-COUNTERFEITING & BRAND INTEGRITY PROTECTION American Conference Institute Las Vegas Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 March 22-23, 2007 Trial Evidence in the Federal Courts: Problems and Solutions CM078 ALI-ABA New York Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 March 28-29, 2007 GENERAL COUNSEL FORUM American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 March 28-29, 2007 RESOLVING MASS TORT PRODUCTS LIABILITY CLAIMS American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 April 25-28, 2007 MEALEY'S 14TH ANNUAL INSURANCE INSOLVENCY & REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE Mealeys Seminars The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Phoenix, AZ, USA Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 May 3-4, 2007 Accountants' Liability CM076 ALI-ABA Boston Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 May 17-19, 2007 Electronic Records Management and Digital Discovery: Practical Considerations for Legal, Technical, and Operational Success CM098 ALI-ABA San Francisco Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 July 11-13, 2007 Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in Federal and State Courts CN009 ALI-ABA Santa Fe, New Mexico Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 July 18-19, 2007 DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE ON TRIAL American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 * Online Teleconferences ------------------------ December 1-30, 2006 HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com December 1-30, 2006 CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com December 1-30, 2006 HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com December 1-30, 2006 IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS: CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY? CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com December 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 December 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 December 1-30, 2006 CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.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 January 25, 2007 NANOTECHNOLOGY Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com January 31, 2007 AMERICA'S HEALTH CARE CRISIS Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 1, 2007 MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT TOOLS FOR PARALEGALS Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 7, 2007 MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: TRAYSYLOL LITIGATION Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 7, 2007 MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: CULTIVATING AND MAINTAINING DIVERSITY IN YOUR FIRM 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 WHITNEY INFORMATION: Brodsky & Smith Files Fla. Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC commenced a securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock and other securities of Whitney Information Network, Inc., between Nov. 18, 2003 and Dec. 15, 2006. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period, thereby artificially inflating the price of Whitney Information. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more information on the suit, contact Evan J. Smith, Esquire or Marc L. Ackerman, Esquire both of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 877-LEGAL- 90 (toll free), E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.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 2007. 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 * * *