/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070122.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, January 22, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 15
Headlines
ADVANCE AMERICA: Overcharged Payday Loans Interest Prompts Suit
BIO-ONE CORP: Fla. Stock Suit Over INI Deal Gets Court Approval
BIO-TECHNOLOGY: N.J. Court Junks Stock Suit; Plaintiffs Appeal
BUCA INC: Minn. Stock Suit Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Complaint
CANNONDALE BICYCLE: Recalls 2007 Road Bicycles for Brake Failure
CHICAGO BRIDGE: N.Y. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
CHINA ENERGY: Faces Securities Suit Related to Private Placement
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Faces Ky. Suit Over Bullitt Train Derailment
DORAL FINANCIAL: N.Y. Securities Suit Dismissal Motion Opposed
ELI LILLY: Ontario Court Yet to Rule on Certification Motion
ESCALA GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Fraud Complaint
GOODYEAR TIRE: Ohio Court Allows Savings Plan Members' Claims
HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Responds to Securities Fraud Lawsuits in La.
KAWASAKI MOTORS: Recalls All-Terrain Vehicles Posing Crash Risks
MEDICAL STAFFING: Proposes to Settle Fla. Securities Lawsuit
MONSANTO CO: Faces Consolidated Price Fixing, Overpricing Suit
NEXGRILL INDUSTRIES: Faces $300T Fine for Hazardous Gas Grills
NVE CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Minn.
PEROT SYSTEMS: Awaits Final Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
PIONEER ELECTRONICS: Settles Calif. Litigation Over DVD Players
PPL ENERGY: Mont. Litigation Over Asset Sale Remains Pending
SEENA INTL: Recalls Children's Hoodies for Strangulation Hazard
SHARPER IMAGE: Settles "Figueroa" Ionic Breeze Quadra Litigation
SIRVA INC: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Ill.
STAR GAS: Discovery Stayed Consolidated Securities Suit in Conn.
STATE FARM: Lawyers Renew Bid on Class Certification of "Guice"
TELE-COMMUNICATIONS INC: Feb. 1 Hearing Set for $52M Settlement
VATICAN: Priest Sex Abuse Litigation in Ky. Allowed to Proceed
WASHINGTON: Ex-Police Chief Says City Didn't Order WTO Arrests
WORKSTREAM INC: Anticipates 2007 Trial for N.Y. Securities Suit
New Securities Fraud Cases
HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Suit in E.D. La.
*********
ADVANCE AMERICA: Overcharged Payday Loans Interest Prompts Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America and Cash Advance Centers of Pennsylvania, LLC is
facing a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, claiming the payday loan firms charge
more than 700 percent annual interest for short term "payday
loans," The Courthouse News reports.
Plaintiffs say the defendants operate 361 outlets in 34 states,
and charge $8.50 to $9.50 for every $50 borrowed, and another
$8.50 to $9.50 for each $50 every time the loan is "renewed,"
which happens every two weeks.
They further allege this violates Pennsylvania's law against
loan sharking, which limits interest to 24 percent, and they
claim the defendants are not licensed under the Act.
The complaint states that the "defendant's real goal is to
ensnare customers into long-term indebtedness. A customer who
takes out a $200 two-week payday loan and renews the loan four
times would pay a total of $170 to $190 in finance charges . to
borrow $200 for ten weeks."
Common questions of law and fact common to the class include:
-- whether defendant's lending practices in Pennsylvania
have violated and/or continue to violate the CDCA and
Act 6;
-- whether Advance America has been and/or continues to be
the true lender of payday loans made through its
Pennsylvania retail outlets;
-- whether defendant's practices, as described above,
constitute unfair or deceptive practices under the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law, 73 P.S. Section 201-1 et seq. (CPL);
-- whether Advance America's collection of the payday
loans violates the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension
Uniformity Act, 73 P.S. Section 2270.1 et seq. (FCEUA);
-- whether defendant's business practices constitute the
business of acting as a "Credit services organization"
or "loan broker" in violation of the Pennsylvania
Credit Services Act, 73 P.S. Section 2181, et seq.
(CSA);
-- whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory
judgment that any purported contracts arising from
payday loans negotiated, made, advanced or brokered
through Advance America's storefronts are void and
unenforceable;
-- whether plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief
enjoining defendant from engaging in an illegal payday
lending business; and
-- whether plaintiffs are entitled to damages and/or
restitution of all interest paid by Pennsylvania
customers on payday loans described, obtained through
Advance America's storefronts, and whether those
damages should be trebled for defendant's willful,
deliberate, unconscionable, repeated, and otherwise
aggravated unlawful practices.
Plaintiffs request that the court order the following relief in
their favor and on behalf of all members of the class against
defendant:
-- determine that this action proceed as a class action,
that plaintiffs be certified as class representatives
and that their counsel be certified to represent the
class;
-- a declaratory judgment that defendant's conduct
violated the laws cited, and that any purported
contracts with Pennsylvania residents arising from
payday loans arranged through Advance America's
storefronts are void and unenforceable;
-- injunctive relief enjoining defendant from offering,
making, arranging, or collecting illegal payday loans
in Pennsylvania;
-- monetary damages in the amount of three times the
excess interest, finance charges, and fees paid over
the course of the last four years on payday loans
described above obtained through Advance America's
storefronts, pursuant to Act 6;
-- disgorgement of defendant's unjustly obtained interest
payments;
-- an award of attorney's fees, litigation expenses and
costs; and
-- such other and further relief as is just and proper.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?18c2
The suit is "King et al v. Advance America, Cash Advance Centers
of Pennsylvania, LLC, Case No. 2:07-cv-00237-JF," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
under Judge John P. Fullam.
Representing plaintiffs are:
(1) Mark R. Cuker of Williams & Cuker, 1617 JFK Blvd., Ste.
800, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-557-0099, E-
mail: mcuker@wcblegal.com; or
(2) David A. Searles of Donovan Searles, LLC, 1845 Walnut
Street, Suite 1100, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-
732-6067, Fax: 215-732-8060, E-mail:
dsearles@donovansearles.com.
BIO-ONE CORP: Fla. Stock Suit Over INI Deal Gets Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
granted preliminary approval to an agreement to settle a
securities fraud suit filed against Bio-One Corp., according to
an update posted by at the Web site of Berman DeValerio Pease
Tabacco Burt & Pucillo.
On Dec. 16, 2005, an investor sued Bio-One in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, accusing the
nutritional supplement company of issuing materially false and
misleading statements to the public.
The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who purchased Bio-One common
stock between Feb. 4, 2004 and May 9, 2005, inclusive.
The lawsuit claims that Bio-One and a number of individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Section 78j(b) and 78t of the Labor Code,
and SEC Rule 10b-5, Section 240.10b-5 of Title 17 of the Code of
Federal Regulations promulgated thereunder.
According to the complaint, Bio-One filed false and misleading
financial reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission during the class period.
Plaintiffs claim these reports failed to disclose that Bio-One
did not have the capital, expertise, or personnel to succeed
with its business plan of acquiring multiple nutritional
supplement companies and had defaulted on a promissory note in
connection with its acquisition of Interactive Nutritional
International.
Plaintiffs further claim that Bio-One's former chief executive,
Armand Dauplaise, used the company's bank accounts as if they
were his own and that the company failed to disclose the fact
that Mr. Dauplaise's son was acting as its de facto treasurer.
The complaint focuses on Bio-One's March 31, 2004 acquisition of
INI, for which the company pledged to pay CA$30 million, half in
cash and half through a promissory note.
Though the company pledged to begin making monthly installments
on the CA$15 million note July 1, 2004, it never made a single
payment, the complaint said.
Bio-One did not disclose its failure to make payments on the
promissory note, the complaint alleges, even though the company
signed two forbearance agreements and was notified on Dec. 13,
2004 that the note holder planned to seize INI's assets as a
result.
The company belatedly disclosed to the SEC that it had defaulted
on the INI promissory note. Following the February
announcement, shares of Bio-One began to significantly decline
in price.
A week later, the company announced it had fired Mr. Dauplaise.
The company, which had traded on the OTC Bulletin Board under
the symbol BICO, has since been delisted.
On Feb. 21, 2006, a motion for the appointment of lead plaintiff
and lead counsel was filed with the court. The motion was
referred to Magistrate Judge David Baker and on June 2, 2006,
Magistrate Judge Baker issued his Report and Recommendations and
Order recommending the appointment of lead plaintiffs and Berman
DeValerio as lead counsel. On June 20, 2006, Judge Anne Conway
adopted Magistrate Judge Baker's Report & Recommendation.
On Aug. 8, 2006 lead plaintiffs filed a notice stating the
parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle the
action.
On Oct. 13, 2006, the stipulation and agreement of settlement
between the parties was filed with the court. Pursuant to the
Stipulation, which is subject to court approval, a Settlement
Fund in the amount $375,000 will be established for the benefit
of the class.
The court preliminarily approved the settlement on Jan. 12,
2007. Once claim forms are available they will be sent to
shareholders of record.
The suit is "Molema v. Bio-One Corporation, et al., Case No.
6:05-cv-01859-ACC-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida under Judge Anne C. Conway with
referral to Judge David A. Baker.
Representing the plaintiffs is Marc J. Greenspon of Berman
DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, 222 Lakeview Ave., Suite
900, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Phone: 561/835-9400, Fax:
561/835-0322, E-mail: mgreenspon@bermanesq.com.
Representing the defendants is Dianne O. Fischer of Kluger,
Peretz, Kaplan & Berlin, P.A., The Miami Center, 17th Floor, 201
S. Biscayne Blvd., Miami, FL 33131, Phone: 305/379-9000, E-mail:
dfischer@kpkb.com.
BIO-TECHNOLOGY: N.J. Court Junks Stock Suit; Plaintiffs Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud suit filed against
Bio-Technology General Corp. in U.S. District Court for District
of New Jersey is appealing the dismissal of the suit.
On Feb. 19, 2003, an investor sued Bio-Technology General (n/k/a
Savient Pharmaceuticals Inc.) and certain top executives,
accusing the biopharmaceutical company of issuing false and
misleading financial statements to the public.
Plaintiffs seek damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who purchased the securities of
the company from April 19, 1999 to Aug. 2, 2002.
The lawsuit claims that the company defrauded investors by
releasing false and misleading financial statements about its
revenue and earnings, causing the company's stock to reach an
artificially high price.
On Aug. 2, 2002, the company announced that it would have to
revise and restate its prior financial results for 1999, 2000,
2001 and the first quarter of 2002.
According to the complaint, the company violated Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission rules, improperly accounting for:
-- development and startup costs associated with a new
drug;
-- compensation charges resulting from stock option awards
to certain employees and former employees; and
-- revenue from a 1999 product sale in which significant
uncertainties about the realization of the invoiced
amount arose.
Motions for the consolidation of all related cases and for the
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed with
the court on March 11, 2003.
On Sept. 5, 2003, the court issued an order consolidating all
related cases into one class action lawsuit, "In re Bio-
Technology General Corp. Securities Litigation" and appointing
lead plaintiffs and their selection of co-lead counsel.
Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on March 19, 2004, which defendants moved to dismiss
on July 9, 2004. Lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to
defendants' motion on Oct. 14, 2004.
On Aug. 10, 2005, Judge Harold A. Ackerman signed an opinion and
order granting defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice
and granting lead plaintiffs leave to file a second amended
class action complaint.
On Oct. 11, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated class action complaint. On Dec. 13, 2005
defendants submitted their motions to dismiss the second amended
complaint. Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to
defendants' motion on Feb. 15, 2006.
On Oct. 26, 2006 Judge Harold Ackerman granted the motion to
dismiss. On Dec. 1, 2006, plaintiffs filed their petition for
appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
The suit is "In re Bio-Technology General Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 02cv6048," filed in U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey under Judge Harold A. Ackerman. Case
Contact: C. Oliver Burt, III, Phone: 800-349-4612.
BUCA INC: Minn. Stock Suit Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has
allowed plaintiffs in a consolidated securities class action
filed against BUCA, Inc. to file a second consolidated amended
complaint.
Between Aug. 7, 2005 and Sept. 7, 2005, three identical civil
actions were commenced against the company. The three actions
were later consolidated.
On Jan. 11, 2006, the four lead plaintiffs filed and served a
consolidated amended complaint. The complaint is brought on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased the
company's common stock in the market during the time period from
Feb. 6, 2001 through March 11, 2005.
The lead plaintiffs allege that in press releases and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filings issued during the
class period, defendants made materially false and misleading
statements about the company's income, revenues, and internal
controls, which allegedly had the result of artificially
inflating the market price for the company's stock.
They assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seek compensatory damages
in an unspecified amount, plus an award of attorneys' fees and
costs of litigation.
On March 13, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on the grounds that it fails to state a claim and that
it fails to plead fraud with the particularity required under
the law.
On Aug. 4, 2006, a hearing on defendants' motions was held and
the motions were taken under advisement. On Nov. 28, 2006,
Judge Donovan W. Frank issued an order allowing lead plaintiffs
leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint by Dec.
18, 2006.
The suit is "West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund, et al. v.
Buca, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-1762," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Donovan
W. Frank with referral under Judge Arthur Boylan.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Bryan L. Crawford, Muria J. Kruger and Stacey L. Mills
of Heins Mills & Olson, PLC, 80 S. 8th St., Ste. 3550,
Mpls., MN 55402, Phone: 612-338-4605, Fax: 612-338-
4692, E-mail: bcrawford@heinsmills.com,
mkruger@heinsmills.com and smills@heinsmills.com;
(2) Jay W. Eng and Michael J. Pucillo of Berman DeValerio
Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, 222 Lakeview Ave., Ste.
900, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Phone: 561-835-9400,
Fax: 561-835-0322, E-mail: jeng@bermanesq.com and
mpucillo@bermanesq.com; and
(3) Daniel S. Sommers and Steven J. Toll of Cohen Milstein
Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC - DC, 1100 New York Ave., NW Ste.
500, Washington, DC 20005-3934, Phone: 202-408-4609 and
202-408-4646, E-mail: dsommers@cmht.com and
stoll@cmht.com.
Representing the defendants are Michael M. Krauss and Wendy J.
Wildung of Faegre & Benson, LLP, 90 S. 7th St., Ste. 2200,
Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901, Phone: 612-766-8514, Fax: 612-766-
1600, E-mail: mkrauss@faegre.com and wwildung@faegre.com.
CANNONDALE BICYCLE: Recalls 2007 Road Bicycles for Brake Failure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cannondale Bicycle Corp., of Bethel, Connecticut, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 700 Cannondale 2007 Model Road Bicycle.
The company said the bicycle's front brake could fail, causing
the rider to lose control and fall. No injuries have been
reported.
The recalled road racing bicycles are made from aluminum and
carbon fiber or all carbon fiber. The model name is printed on
the bicycle's top tube. They were sold in the following colors:
natural aluminum/carbon, red, black or black and blue. Recalled
models include:
Cannondale Models
-- 2007 Six 13 Team 1
-- 2007 Six 13 Team 1/Compact Drive /td>
-- 2007 Synapse Carbon SL1/Compact Drive Si Crank
-- 2007 Synapse Carbon SL1/Standard bottom bracket,
Dura Ace Crank
These recalled road bicycles were manufactured in the United
States and are being sold at authorized Cannondale dealers
nationwide from July 2006 through November 2006 for between
$3,200 and $4,500.
Picture of the recalled road bicycles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07517.jpg
Consumers are advised to stop using the bicycles immediately
until inspected or repaired. Cannondale or Authorized Cannondale
Dealers have contacted affected consumers directly for a free
inspection and repair, if necessary.
Consumers with one of the recalled models who have not been
contacted by Cannondale or an Authorized Cannondale Dealer can
contact Cannondale at (800) BIKE-USA between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.cannondale.com.
CHICAGO BRIDGE: N.Y. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
refused to dismiss a consolidated securities fraud suit filed
against Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. and its officers.
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo filed the suit,
"Welmon v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. NV, et al., Case
No. 06 CV 1283," on Feb. 17, 2006 against the company,
Gerald M. Glenn, Robert B. Jordan, and Richard E. Goodrich.
It was filed on behalf of a purported class consisting of all
those who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
securities from March 9, 2005 through Feb. 3, 2006 and were
damaged thereby.
The action asserts claims under the U.S. securities laws and
alleges, among other things, that the company materially
overstated the company's financial results during the class
period by misapplying percentage-of-completion accounting and
did not follow the company's publicly stated revenue recognition
policies.
Since the initial lawsuit, other suits containing substantially
similar allegations and with similar, but not exactly the same,
class periods were filed.
On April 18, 2006, competing motions for the appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel were filed with the court. On May
10, 2006, Judge John E. Sprizzo, issued an order consolidating
all related cases into one class action lawsuit and appointed
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On June 20, 2006, Judge
Sprizzo issued order appointing co-lead counsel to oversee the
litigation.
On July 5, 2006 lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended
class action complaint and on Aug. 16, 2006, defendants filed
their motions to dismiss this complaint. Lead plaintiffs filed
their opposition to defendants' motions on Oct. 6, 2006.
On Nov. 13, 2006 the court entered an order denying defendants'
motion to dismiss.
Also, pursuant to the Nov. 13, 2006 order, lead plaintiffs have
until Jan. 29, 2007 to file their motion for class
certification.
The suit is "Wayne Welmon, et al. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co.
NV, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01283-JES," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
John E. Sprizzo.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Catherine A. Torell of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
Toll, P.L.L.C., 150 East 52nd Street, New York, NY
10022, Phone: 212-838-7797, Fax: 212-838-7745, E-mail:
ctorell@cmht.com;
(2) Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia,
Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, (LIs), 58 South Service
Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-
7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com;
(3) Arthur N. Abbey of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis,
LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, US,
Phone: (212) 889-3700, Fax: (212) 684-5191, E-mail:
aabbey@abbeygardy.com; and
(4) Eric James Belfi of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275
Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
212-907-0878, Fax: 212-818-0477, E-mail:
ebelfi@labaton.com.
CHINA ENERGY: Faces Securities Suit Related to Private Placement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
consolidated all related securities cases against China Energy
Savings Technology, Inc. into one class action, entitled "In re
China Energy Savings Technology Securities Litigation, No. 06
Civ. 03308," according to an update posted by Berman DeValerio
Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo.
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo filed a class
action against the company in May 2006. The suit seeks damages
for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all
investors who acquired China Energy securities from April 21,
2005 through and including Feb. 15, 2006.
The lawsuit claims that the company and a number of individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 78j(b) and 78t of the
Commerce and Trade Code, and SEC Rule 10b-5, Section 240.10b-5
of Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations promulgated
thereunder.
Based in Hong Kong, China Energy develops, manufactures, and
markets energy savings products to businesses in China.
According to the complaint, the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements about the company's financial results
during the class period, some contained in Securities and
Exchange Commission filings.
In particular, the complaint says defendants failed to disclose
that:
-- insiders of the company were engaged in massive self-
dealing involving the company's January 2006 private
placement; and
-- the company was in violation of SEC Rules regarding
limitations on sales of restricted stock and, as a
result of this violation, trading of the company's stock
would be halted by Nasdaq.
In addition, the complaint accuses the defendants of falsely
stating that they had complied with the reporting requirement of
the SEC and U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and
had voluntarily complied with the reporting requirements of the
U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
On February 15, 2006, as a result of the above-mentioned
fraudulent activities, Nasdaq announced that trading in shares
of the company had been halted, the complaint said.
On June 30, 2006, competing motions for the consolidation of all
related cases and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel were filed with the court. Beginning July 14, 2006
further briefing was filed.
On Sept. 28, 2006, Judge Denny Chin issued an Order
consolidating all related cases into one class action lawsuit
entitled, "In re China Energy Savings Technology Securities
Litigation, No. 06 Civ. 03308," and appointing lead plaintiffs
and lead counsel. lead plaintiffs will be filing a consolidated
complaint.
The first identified complaint is "Victor Reichenstein, et al.
v. China Energy Savings Technology, Inc., et al.," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:
(1) Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA)
One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 02109, Phone:
617.542.8300;
(2) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;
(3) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com;
(4) Howard G. Smith, Attorney at Law, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847,
Fax: (215) 638-4867;
(5) Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, 650 Poydras St. Suite 2150,
New Orleans, LA, 70130, Phone: (504) 455-1400, E-mail:
lewis.kahn@kglg.com;
(6) Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., 210 Summit
Avenue, Montvale, NJ, 07645, Phone: 201-391-7000, Fax:
201-307-1086, E-mail: kgg@kgglaw.com;
(7) Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, 100 Park Avenue, 12th
Floor, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 212.907.0700, Fax:
212.818.0477, E-mail: info@labaton.com;
(8) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore,
MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
pivenlaw@erols.com;
(9) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
(Melville), 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville,
NY, 11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173,
(10) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave., 34th
Flr., New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
212.682.1892, E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com;
(11) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, 100 Park
Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
212.661.1100, Fax: 212.661.8665, E-mail:
info@pomerantzlaw.com;
(12) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
sn06106@AOL.com;
(13) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;
(14) Scott & Scott, LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue,
Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax:
860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com;
(15) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com; and
(16) Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor,
New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:
info@whhf.com.
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Faces Ky. Suit Over Bullitt Train Derailment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of Shepherdsville and Brooks, Kentucky filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky against CSX Transportation over a
train derailment in Bullitt County, The Courthouse News Service
reports.
This class action arises out of a rail car derailment,
explosion, chemical fire, and chemical release beginning on Jan.
16, 2007, in or about the towns of Brooks and Shepherdsville in
Bullitt County, Kentucky.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants, on their own accord and
through their agents, servants and employees, caused a massive
rail car derailment, explosion, fire, and chemical release into
nearby communities.
Thousands of people facing evacuation filed claims for personal
injuries, nuisance and trespass. They claim the derailment
released noxious gases, including cyclohexane, butadiene and
methyl ethyl ketone, and that CSX was negligent in informing
them about the derailment and the dangers it posed.
There are common questions of law and fact with respect to the
class regarding the Defendants' liability for the catastrophe,
including, but not limited to whether the
Defendants' conduct and/or actions have been intentional,
negligent, wanton, a nuisance, or otherwise wrongful:
-- the cause and origin of the catastrophe,
-- violations of the applicable rules, codes, and
regulations,
-- violations of standards of care,
-- negligence precipitating the catastrophe and any
failure to supervise, train and otherwise manage
employees responsible for the train cars involved,
-- failure to implement and follow safe operations
procedures,
-- failure to mitigate, evacuate, and otherwise prevent
the catastrophe
-- failure to timely warn persons at risk from the
dangerousness of the catastrophe; and
-- liability for punitive damages.
Plaintiffs and members of Plaintiffs' class pray that they be
awarded compensatory and punitive damages and recover judgment
against Defendants for the following:
-- Reasonable and just compensation for injuries to
interests in property, evacuation, shelter in place,
and loss of use and enjoyment of property belonging to
Plaintiffs and members of the class within the areas
affected by the catastrophe;
-- All expenses and economic losses, including but not
limited to lost income and out-of-pocket expenses
attendant to evacuation and/or shelter in place;
-- Reasonable and just compensation and punitive damages
for personal injuries, present and future medical
expenses, nuisance, trespass, negligence, and strict
liability, in amounts to be determined by a jury, to the
utmost amounts allowed by law;
-- Appropriate attorney fees and costs and expenses
incurred in connection with the litigation of this
matter;
-- For an injunction requiring the Defendants to make safe
Plaintiffs' property and places of employment;
-- That Summons and process issue as to the Defendants and
that the Defendants be served Summons and a copy of this
Class action complaint as required by law, and that
Defendants be required to appear and answer;
-- That this case be certified as a class action pursuant
to applicable Rules of Civil Procedure;
-- Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury; and
-- For such other and further relief as this Court may deem
just, proper, and equitable.
A copy of the suit is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?18c1
The suit is "Green et al v. CSX Corporation et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-00024-CRS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky under Judge Charles R. Simpson.
Representing plaintiffs are:
(1) William L. Bross and Timothy C. Davis both of Heninger
Garrison Davis LLC, 2224 First Avenue North,
Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 205-326-3336 or 205-326-
3326, Fax: 205-326-3332;
(2) Ryan C. Reed and Lee L. Coleman both of Hughes &
Coleman, P.O. Box 10120, Bowling Green, KY 42102,
Phone: 270-782-6003, Fax: 270-843-0446 or 270-782-8820,
E-mail: rreed@hughesandcoleman.com or
lcoleman@hughesandcoleman.com.
DORAL FINANCIAL: N.Y. Securities Suit Dismissal Motion Opposed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities class action against
Doral Financial Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York have filed oppositions to
defendants' motion to dismiss.
The company and certain of its officers and directors and former
officers and directors, were named as defendants in 18 purported
class actions filed between April 20, 2005 and June 14, 2005
over allegations of federal securities laws violations.
Sixteen of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York and two were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
These lawsuits were brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased Doral Financial securities as early as May 15, 2000
and as late as May 26, 2005.
They allege primarily that the defendants engaged in securities
fraud by disseminating materially false and misleading
statements during the class period, failing to disclose material
information concerning the valuation of the company's IO Strip
portfolios, and misleading investors as to Doral's vulnerability
to interest rate increases.
The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation has transferred
the two actions that were not initially filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to that
court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with
the actions previously filed there before Judge Richard Owen.
On Feb. 8, 2006, Judge Owen entered an order appointing the West
Virginia Investment Management Board as lead plaintiff and
approving the selection of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel.
On June 22, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint alleging securities fraud during the period
between March 15, 2000 and Oct. 25, 2005, based on allegations
similar to those noted above, as well as based on the reversal
of certain transactions entered into by Doral Financial with
other Puerto Rico financial institutions and on weaknesses in
Doral Financial's control environment as described in the
company's amended annual report on Form 10-K/ A for 2004.
The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages including interest, costs and expenses, and
injunctive relief.
On Sept. 15, 2006, all defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint based on contentions that, as a matter of law, the
allegations of the amended complaint fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the consolidated
complaint on Sept. 15, 2006. On Nov. 13, 2006, plaintiffs filed
their oppositions to the motion to dismiss.
ELI LILLY: Ontario Court Yet to Rule on Certification Motion
------------------------------------------------------------
The Honourable Mr. Justice Cullity of the Ontario Court (General
Division) in Toronto has reserved his decision for the class
action certification motion in a suit against Eli Lilly Canada
Inc. and its U.S. affiliate Eli Lilly and Company over the drug
Zyprexa.
Poyner Baxter LLP filed a class action against Eli Lilly Canada
Inc. and its U.S. affiliate Eli Lilly and Company in January
2005.
Eli Lilly researched, developed, manufactured, sold, distributed
and/or marketed a drug called Zyprexa (also known as Olanzapine)
in Canada.
Zyprexa is among a group of drugs called the "atypical
antipsychotic drugs" prescribed for the treatment of certain
disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
The lawsuit alleges that Zyprexa has been associated with an
increased risk of developing diabetes, hyperglycemia,
pancreatitis, ketoacidosis and other injuries and that Eli Lilly
knew or ought to have known that there were significantly
increased risks of serious adverse health complications caused
by ingesting Zyprexa.
Class actions have been filed in British Columbia, Alberta,
Ontario and Quebec. In Quebec, the class action, which includes
residents of the Province of Quebec, was certified on July 10,
2006.
In Ontario, the class action certification motion, which will
include the residents of all provinces and territories excluding
Quebec, B.C. and Alberta, was heard before The Honourable Mr.
Justice Cullity on Nov. 22 to 27, 2006.
On Nov. 27, 2006, Mr. Justice Cullity announced that he had
reserved his decision. It may take several months before his
decision is released.
The case management judge assigned to the class action in
British Columbia is The Honourable Mr. Justice Kelleher. There
are no hearings scheduled in British Columbia at this time.
According to a statement by Poyner Baxter, further dates will be
scheduled once Mr. Justice Cullity's decision has been released.
ESCALA GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Fraud Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Escala Group, Inc. (f/k/a Greg Manning Auctions) and other
defendants in a consolidated securities suit pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York filed
motions to dismiss an amended complaint in the case.
The complaint was filed in May on behalf of shareholders and
seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on
behalf of all investors who acquired Escala securities from
Sept. 5, 2003 through and including May 8, 2006.
The lawsuit claims that Escala and a number of individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 78j(b) and 78t of the
Commerce and Trade Code, and SEC Rule 10b-5, Section 240.10b-5
of Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations promulgated
thereunder.
Escala is a New York City-based global collectibles merchant and
auction house network. On Sept. 28, 2005, Escala announced that
it had changed its name from Greg Manning Auctions, Inc., to
Escala Group, Inc. Prior to the name change, Escala traded on
the Nasdaq under the symbol GMAI.
According to the plaintiff's complaint, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements, and/or omitted
material facts necessary to make those statements not
misleading, concerning Escala's financial results throughout the
class period.
Among other things, defendants:
-- claimed they were achieving record results, which were
actually achieved in part as a result of questionable
and potentially illegal activities of the company's
majority shareholder, Afinsa Bienes Tangibles, S.A.
of Spain;
-- failed to maintain adequate internal systems,
procedures, and controls such that the company's
officers and directors were able to allow these
questionable and potentially illegal activities to
continue; and
-- did not prepare Escala's financial statements in
accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles or SEC regulations.
On May 9, 2006, news emerged that Spanish officials had raided
the Madrid offices of Escala and its majority shareholder,
Afinsa, concerning what Spanish authorities described as a
glorified pyramid scheme. Nine people have since been arrested
in Spain in relation to the scheme.
In reaction to this news, Escala's stock fell by approximately
85% on heavy trading over the next few days while news continued
to be released regarding the alleged pyramid scheme.
On July 10, 2006, competing motions for consolidation of related
cases and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel
were filed with the court.
On Aug. 29, 2006, a hearing on these motions was held and on
Aug. 31, 2006 Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein signed an order
consolidating all related actions into one class action,
entitled "In re Escala Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 06-cv-3518," and appointed lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.
On Oct. 13, 2006, lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended
class action complaint. On Dec. 18, 2006 defendant's filed
their motions to dismiss the amended complaint.
Case Contact: Abigail R. Romeo, Phone: 800-516-9926.
GOODYEAR TIRE: Ohio Court Allows Savings Plan Members' Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio has
allowed the "Goodyear ERISA Litigation" to go ahead against
defendants in July.
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company ERISA Litigation Complaint
(Lead Case No. 5:03CV2182) was filed on behalf of Plaintiffs and
a class who were participants in or beneficiaries of:
-- the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Savings Plan for
Salaried Employees or the Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company Savings Plan for Bargaining Unit Employees (the
Plans); and
-- their predecessor plans
for whose individual accounts the Plans held shares of Goodyear
company stock, at any time between April 15, 1998 and the
present.
The complaint alleges that during the class period, the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs and the
class members by:
-- Imprudently continuing to invest Plan assets in grossly
overvalued Goodyear stock;
-- Making materially false and misleading statements
regarding Goodyear stock during the Class Period to
Plan participants; and
-- Failing to disclose to Plan participants and
beneficiaries the imprudence of investing in the
Goodyear stock fund and/or Goodyear stock, even though
they regularly communicated with Plan participants
concerning purchases of the Goodyear stock fund and/or
Goodyear stock.
On July 6, 2006, Judge John R. Adams denied Goodyear's motion to
dismiss the counts asserted in the Goodyear ERISA Complaint. He
also allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with the lawsuit against
all of the defendants named in the Goodyear ERISA Complaint.
HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Responds to Securities Fraud Lawsuits in La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. recently learned that purported
class actions were reportedly filed against the company and one
or more senior executives or directors, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana related to
disclosures under the securities laws.
The company was is reportedly named a defendant in several class
actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Louisiana on behalf of purchasers of the common stock and other
securities of Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. who purchased
during the period from Nov. 1, 2006 through Jan. 10, 2007.
The complaint alleges that Hornbeck and certain of its officers
and directors violated the federal securities laws by making
false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the
company's operations and expected earnings for the 4th Quarter
2006, and for fiscal 2007.
Based on its initial review of one of the complaints, Hornbeck
Offshore believes that such lawsuits are without merit and
intends to defend these suits vigorously.
As a public company, Hornbeck Offshore maintains insurance
coverage to address such matters. Management remains focused on
the operation, development and growth of the company.
For more information, contact Todd Hornbeck, CEO, or Jim Harp,
CFO, both of Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc., Phone: +1-985-
727-6802; or Ken Dennard, Managing Partner of DRG&E, Phone: +1-
713-529-6600.
KAWASAKI MOTORS: Recalls All-Terrain Vehicles Posing Crash Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. of Irvine, California, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 9,000 units of Kawasaki 2007 model year KFX50
and KFX90 all-terrain vehicles.
The company said that on some of these units, the handlebar
holder, tie-rod adjustment, and tie-rod end nuts may not have
been tightened to the proper torque. Operation of the vehicle
can cause the nuts to loosen, resulting in a loss of steering
control. The poses a crash hazard, which could result in injury
or death.
Kawasaki has received 10 reports of nuts loosening on the
handlebar holder, tie-rod adjustment or tie-rod end nut. One of
these incidents resulted in a consumer losing steering control
during ATV operation and receiving a minor injury.
The recall involves Kawasaki 2007 model year KSF50B7F (KFX50)
and KSF90A7F (KFX90) All Terrain Vehicles. These are 50cc and
90cc models designed for use by operators 6 years of age and
older (KFX50) and 12 years and older (KFX90). They are
available in Lime Green or White, and have "Kawasaki" and
"KFX50" or "KFX90" on the sides of the bodywork below the
handlebars.
These recalled all-terrain vehicles are sold by Kawasaki dealers
nationwide from August 2006 through December 2006 for between
$1,700 and $2,150.
Pictures of the recalled ATVs:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07518a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07518b.jpg
Consumers with recalled ATVs were sent direct notice from
Kawasaki. Consumers are advised to stop using these ATVs
immediately and contact a local Kawasaki dealer to schedule an
appointment for repair service.
For more information, consumers can call Kawasaki Customer
Service Department at (866) 802-9381 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:45
p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.kawasaki.com.
MEDICAL STAFFING: Proposes to Settle Fla. Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Staffing Network Holdings, Inc. announced that a
proposed settlement has been reached in a securities class
action lawsuit originally filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida in February 2004.
Under the settlement agreement, the company and the other
defendants, including certain current and former directors and
officers, expressly deny any violation of the securities laws or
other wrongdoing.
The settlement will create a $5.0 million cash fund that will be
used to pay claims submitted by class members and pay fees of
the plaintiffs' attorneys.
The entire amount of the settlement is covered by the company's
insurance and therefore will not have any impact on the
company's earnings.
The settlement agreement is subject to certain conditions,
including the court's review and final approval at a fairness
hearing, which is scheduled for March 2, 2007. There is no
assurance that such conditions will be satisfied.
Marrari, Williams Lawsuits
On Feb. 20, 2004, Joseph and Patricia Marrari filed class
actions against the company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, on behalf of themselves and
purchasers of the company's common stock pursuant to or
traceable to the company's initial public offering in April
2002. On April 16, 2004, Tommie Williams filed the same suit in
the same court.
These lawsuits also named as defendants certain of the company's
directors and executive officers. The complaints allege that
certain disclosures in the Registration Statement/Prospectus
filed in connection with the company's initial public offering
on April 17, 2002 were materially false and misleading in
violation of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933. The complaints
seek compensatory damages, as well as costs and attorney fees.
Haddon Zia's Lawsuit
On March 29, 2004, a third class action was brought on behalf of
the same class of the company's stockholders, making claims
under the Securities Act similar to those in the lawsuits filed
by Joseph and Patricia Marrari and Tommie Williams. The suit
was brought by Haddon Zia in the Florida Circuit Court of the
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County,
Florida.
Defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida and plaintiff moved to remand the
case back to the Florida Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial
Circuit, a motion that defendants opposed.
On Sept. 16, 2004, the federal district court entered an order
granting plaintiff's motion to remand. On Jan. 6, 2005, the
state court stayed the state court proceedings until further
order of the court. The Zia complaint seeks rescission or
damages as well as certain equitable relief and costs and
attorney fees.
Jerome Gould Lawsuit
On March 2, 2004, Jerome Gould filed another class action
complaint against the company and certain of its directors and
executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.
The suit was filed on behalf of a class of the company's
stockholders who purchased stock from April 18, 2002 through
June 16, 2003.
It alleges that certain of the company's public disclosures
during the class period were materially false and misleading in
violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint
seeks compensatory damages, costs and attorney fees.
On July 2, 2004, the Marrari, Gould, Williams and Zia actions
were consolidated, although, as noted above, the Zia action was
subsequently remanded to state court.
Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Appointment
Plaintiff Thomas Greene was appointed lead plaintiff of the
consolidated action and the law firm of Cauley Geller Bowman &
Rudman LLP -- now known as Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
and Robbins LLP -- was appointed plaintiffs' lead counsel.
On Sept. 1, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed his consolidated
amended class action complaint, which makes allegations on
behalf of a class consisting of purchasers of the company's
common stock pursuant to or traceable to the company's initial
public offering in April 2002, for purposes of the Securities
Act claims, and on behalf of the company's stockholders who
purchased stock during the period from April 18, 2002 through
June 16, 2003, for purposes of the Exchange Act claims.
The complaint alleges that certain of the company's public
disclosures during the class period were materially false and
misleading in violation of Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act
and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks
compensatory damages as well as costs and attorney fees.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which, on
Sept. 27, 2005, was granted in part as to those portions of
plaintiffs' Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims concerning statements
or omissions prior to Oct. 29, 2002, and denied as to the
remaining claims. On May 15, 2006, the court granted
plaintiff's motion for class certification.
In Aug. 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida granted class-action status to the consolidated
securities class action (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 16, 2006).
The suit is "Marrari, et al v. Medical Holdings, et al., Case
No. 9:04-cv-80158-WPD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge William P.
Dimitrouleas, with referral to Judge Frank J. Lynch.
Repesenting plaintiffs are:
(1) Scott L. Adkins of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
& Robbins, 197 S Federal Highway, Suite 200, Boca
Raton, FL 33432, Phone: 561-750-3000, Fax: 750-3364;
and
(2) Paul Jeffrey Geller and Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins both of 120 E Palmetto Park Road,
Suite 500, Boca Raton, FL 33432, Phone: 561-750-3000,
Fax: 561-750-3364, E-mail: pgeller@lerachlaw.com or
jreise@lerachlaw.com.
Representing defendants are:
(i) Sameer Advani, Sharon M. Blaskey, Stephen W. Greiner
and Tariq Mundiya, all of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, 787
Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-728-
8000 or 212-728-8527 or 212-728-8224, Fax: 728-9587 or
728-9527 or 728-8111;
(ii) Harry Richard Schafer of Kenny Nachwalter, P.A., Miami
Center, 201 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1100, Miami,
FL 33131-4327, Phone: 305-373-1000, Fax: 372-1861, E-
mail: hrs@kennynachwalter.com; and
(iii) Stanley Howard Wakshlag of Kenny Nachwalter Seymour
Arnold Critchlow & Spector, Miami Center, 201 S
Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1100, Miami, FL 33131-4327,
Phone: 305-373-1000, Fax: 372-1861, E-mail:
swakshlag@kennynachwalter.com.
MONSANTO CO: Faces Consolidated Price Fixing, Overpricing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Co. and its subsidiary Pioneer Hi-Bred International,
Inc. face a consolidated lawsuit over alleged price fixing and
overpricing of biotechnology traits.
Starting the week of March 7, 2004, a series of purported class
action cases were filed in 14 different state courts against
Pioneer and us.
The suits allege that the company conspired with Pioneer to
violate various state competition and consumer protection laws
by allegedly fixing and artificially inflating the prices and
fees for Monsanto's various biotechnology traits and seeds
containing those traits and imposing certain use restrictions.
All of these cases have been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and consolidated,
except for one case pending in state court in Tennessee. No
trial dates have been set for these matters.
The company reported no material development in the case at its
Nov. 2 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2006.
NEXGRILL INDUSTRIES: Faces $300T Fine for Hazardous Gas Grills
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nexgrill Industries Inc., of City of Industry, California, in
cooperation with U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, has
agreed to pay a $300,000 civil penalty to settle allegations
that the company failed to report a hazard with its gas grills.
CPSC alleged that the firm failed to report a defect with
Nexgrill Gas Grill Model 720-0025 in a timely manner. Federal
law requires manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to
immediately report product defects to the Commission.
Between April 2004 and October 2005, Nexgrill received 20
reports of gas grill fires, including three reports of minor
burn injuries.
The Commission further alleged that Nexgrill failed to report
the defect to the Commission for at least 10 months, even after
it had sufficient information that the gas grills contained a
defect which could create a substantial product hazard or
created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death.
Nexgrill voluntarily recalled about 16,000 of the grills in June
2006.
The defect involves the grill's fuel hose that connects the
propane tank to the burner manifold. The fuel hose can be
exposed to temperatures that can damage it or cause the hose to
separate from the burner manifold.
If this occurs, a gas leak and/or fire hazard can result in
injury and property damage.
Picture of the recalled gas grill:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07080.jpg
For more information about the recall, consumers should contact
Nexgrill Industries Inc. at (888) 361-0888 between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the company's Web site:
http://nexgrill0025.serorder.comto receive a free, self-
installation retrofit heat shield assembly.
In agreeing to settle this matter, Nexgrill denies it violated
federal reporting requirements.
NVE CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Minn.
-----------------------------------------------------------
NVE Corp. is a defendant consolidated securities fraud class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.
On Feb. 10, 2006 a lawsuit was filed against the company and
certain of its current and former executive officers and
directors by an individual shareholder seeking to represent a
class of purchasers of the company's common stock between May
22, 2003 and Feb. 11, 2005.
On Mar. 6 and Mar. 7, 2006, two additional lawsuits were filed
in the same court by two additional NVE shareholders, with the
same proposed class period, purporting to represent the same
class.
These lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into a single case
and a consolidated complaint was filed. The consolidated
complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing material
misrepresentations concerning NVE's projected revenues and
product technology, which artificially inflated the market price
of the company's common stock.
The suit is "In re: NVE Corporation Securities Litigation, Case
No. 0:06-cv-00574-MJD-JJG," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota under Judge Michael J. Davis with
referral to Judge Jeanne J. Graham.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Gregg M. Corwin of Gregg M. Corwin & Associates Law
Office, PC, 1660 S Hwy 100, Ste. 508, St. Louis Park,
MN 55416-1534, Phone: 952-544-7774, Fax: 952-544-7151,
E-mail: gcorwin@gcorwin.com;
(2) William B Federman of Federman & Sherwood, 10205 N.,
Pennsylvania Ave., Oklahoma City, OK 73120, Phone: 405-
235-1560, Fax: 405-239-2112, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com.
Representing the defendants is Peter W. Carter of Dorsey &
Whitney, LLP, 50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402-
1498, Phone: 612-340-2600, Fax: 612-340-2868, E-mail:
carter.peter@dorsey.com.
PEROT SYSTEMS: Awaits Final Approval of IPO Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
A settlement reached by Perot Systems Corp. in the Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation is still awaiting final
approval from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
In July and August 2001, the company, as well as some of the
company's current and former officers and directors and the
investment banks that underwrote the company's initial public
offering, were named as defendants in two purported class action
lawsuits seeking unspecified damages, statutory compensation and
costs and expenses of the litigation.
These suits allege violations of Rule 10b-5, promulgated under
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and focus on
alleged improper practices of investment banks, including the
alleged receipt by the underwriters of undisclosed commissions
and alleged requirements for customers to purchase stock in the
aftermarket.
In February 2003, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' Rule 10b-5
claims against the company, but did not dismiss the remaining
claims.
Approximately 300 issuers and 40 investment banks have been sued
in similar cases. The suits against the issuers and
underwriters have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in the
IPO Allocation Securities Litigation.
The company have accepted a settlement proposal presented to all
issuer defendants under which plaintiffs would dismiss and
release all claims against the company and the company's current
and former officers and directors, as well as all other issuer
defendants, in exchange for an assurance by the insurance
companies collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in
all of the IPO cases that the plaintiffs will achieve a minimum
recovery of $1 billion (including amounts recovered from the
underwriters), and for the assignment or surrender of certain
claims that the issuer defendants may have against the
underwriters.
On April 24, 2006, the court held a fairness hearing with
respect to the proposed settlement. The court has not yet
issued a ruling with respect to the proposed settlement.
For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.
PIONEER ELECTRONICS: Settles Calif. Litigation Over DVD Players
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anthony J. Mohr of the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles entered an Order on
November 16, 2006 in the case "Messick et al. v. Pioneer
Electronics (USA) Inc. (Case No. BC323499)," granting
preliminary approval of a settlement of the actions regarding
the alleged defects in Pioneer DVD Players.
A final approval hearing of the proposed settlement was
scheduled before Judge Mohr on Dec. 29, 2006. No update is
presently available from the Web site Pioneer DVD Player Class
Action (http://www.pioneerdvdclassaction.com/).
The proposed class is composed of people who purchased a Pioneer
or Pioneer Elite DVD-Video or DVD-Audio player, or a Pioneer or
Pioneer Elite Home-Theater-In-A-Box system containing a Pioneer
DVD-Video or DVD-Audio player in the U.S. between Jan. 1, 1997
and Oct. 25, 2006.
Claimants are entitled to reimbursement of expenses incurred in
fixing their players, or a firmware upgrade to resolve the
incompatibility defect alleged in the Complaint.
Consumers who replaced their Pioneer DVD Players with another
manufacturer's player may be entitled to a $50 cash rebate
certificate for other Pioneer home electronics products.
Counsel for the Class Members is Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman LLP, 300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3900, Los Angeles
California 90071; Rober I. Lax & Associates, 535 Fifth Ave.,
Suite 2100, New York, New York 10017; and Lange & Koncius, LLP,
222 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 1560, El Segundo,
California 90245.
Counsel for the defendant is William T. Bisset, Esq. at Hughes
Hubbard & Reed LLP, 350 S. Grand Ave., 36th Floor, Los Angeles,
CA 90071.
PPL ENERGY: Mont. Litigation Over Asset Sale Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action filed against PPL Energy Supply LLC
remains on hold in the U.S. District Court of Montana pending
the outcome of certain motions in the bankruptcy proceedings
against the company.
In August 2001, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed by a
group of shareholders of Montana Power against Montana Power,
the directors of Montana Power, certain advisors and consultants
of Montana Power and PPL Montana.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Montana Power
was required to, and did not, obtain shareholder approval of the
sale of Montana Power's generation assets to PPL Montana in
1999, and thus that sale "was null and void ab initio."
Among the remedies that the plaintiffs are seeking is the
establishment of a "resulting and/or constructive trust" on both
the generation assets and all profits earned by PPL Montana from
the generation assets, plus interest on the amounts subject to
the trust.
This lawsuit has been pending in the U.S. District Court of
Montana and the judge has placed this proceeding on hold pending
the outcome of certain motions currently before the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the resolution of
which may impact this proceeding.
The company reported no development in the case at its Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2006.
SEENA INTL: Recalls Children's Hoodies for Strangulation Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seena International, of Yaphank, New York, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
45,000 units of children's hooded sweatshirts with drawstrings.
The company said the garments have a drawstring through the
hood, posing a strangulation hazard to children. In February
1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist by
drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.
No incidents or injuries have been reported.
This recall involves children's fleece hooded sweatshirts, sizes
8-12. The sweatshirts were sold in black, brown, blue, red,
grey, white and off-white. The words "BKLYN Xpress" and
"Brooklyn Xpress" and various graphic designs are embroidered on
the sweatshirts. A sewn-in tag has one of the following style
numbers: BXFL72B, BXFL73B, BXFL74B, BXFL75B, BXFL77B or BXFL80B.
This recall only involves sweatshirts in sizes 8 to 12.
These recalled hooded sweatshirts were manufactured in China and
are being sold at various clothing stores, including Ross Stores
& Gordman's, from September 2006 through December 2006 for about
$25.
Pictures of recalled hooded sweatshirts:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07077a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07077b.jpg
Consumers are advised to immediately remove the drawstrings from
the sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard or return the garment to
the store where purchased for help in removing the drawstring.
For additional information, contact Seena International toll-
free at (866) 927-5596 between 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.brooklynxpress.com
Note: CPSC was alerted to this hazard by the State of Wisconsin
Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection through
its retail surveillance.
SHARPER IMAGE: Settles "Figueroa" Ionic Breeze Quadra Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sharper Image Corp. entered into an agreement to settle a
complaint over the performance and safety of its Ionic Breeze
Quadra air purifiers, The AP WorldStream reports.
According to the company's Jan. 19, 2007 Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, defendants and
plaintiffs, agreed that the lawsuit be conditionally settled,
compromised, and dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.
Under the settlement Sharper Image will offer $19 merchandise
credits to each of the roughly 3.2 million consumers who have
bought one of its "Ionic Breeze" purifiers since May 6, 1999.
One Merchandise Credit shall be made available to each
settlement class member, limited to one per household
(regardless of the number of Ionic Breeze's products Purchased
by said member or the amount spent on said products) who is
either:
-- found in the Ionic Breeze Database; or
-- provides Proof of Purchase as set forth herein.
The credits can be applied toward the purchase of other Sharper
Image-branded products for a year after they're issued.
The settlement further provides the same group of consumers the
capacity
Besides offering those discounts, Sharper Image agreed to tone
down its advertising claims about the power of the Ionic Breeze
and pay up to $1.875 million in fees to the lawyers who filed
the suit on behalf of Manual Figueroa in a Miami federal court.
Sharper Image denies and has asserted a number of defenses to
each and every one of the allegations. It stands behind the
Ionic Breeze and contends that scientific testing has
demonstrated the high quality, efficacy, and safety of the Ionic
Breeze.
The settlement still requires approval from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida. The company's filing
indicated a March 1, 2007 settlement hearing.
Sharper Image was named defendant in five purported class
actions alleging inaccurate advertising on behalf of the Ionic
Breeze Quadra, including its failure to perform as claimed
(Class Action Reporter, May 19, 2006).
The actions are filed on behalf of purchasers of the Ionic
Breeze Quadra in the state Courts of California (San Francisco)
and Florida (Jacksonville), as well as the U.S. District Courts
of Maryland and Florida (Miami).
The Florida suit is "Figueroa v. Sharper Image Corp., et al.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-21251-CMA," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District Court of Florida, under Judge Cecilia
M. Altonaga, with referral to Judge Ted E. Bandstra.
Representing plaintiffs are:
(1) David L. Aronoff of Thelen Reid & Priest LLP, 333 S
Hope Street, 29th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone:
213-576-8044, Fax: 576-8080;
(2) Daniel Dennis Dolan, II and Robert L. Parks both of
Haggard Parks Haggard & Lewis, 330 Alhambra Circle, 1st
Floor, Coral Gables, FL 33134, Phone: 305-446-5700,
Fax: 446-1154; E-mail: bob@haggardparks.com;
(3) Enrique J. Gimenez, Stephen J. Rowe and Jere F. White,
all of Lightfoot Franklin & White, 400 20th Street
North, The Clark Building, Birmingham, AL 35203-2706,
Phone: 205-581-0774, Fax: 581-0799.
Representing defendants are James S. Toscano and Terry C. Young
both of Lowndes Drosdick Doster Kantor & Reed, PO Box 2809,
Orlando, FL 32802-2809, Phone: 407-843-4600, Fax: 843-4444.
SIRVA INC: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
SIRVA, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and
directors remain defendants in a consolidated securities class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.
Initially, two securities suits were filed in November 2004,
styled "Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. SIRVA Inc., et al.,
No.04-CV-7644," and "Hiatt v. SIRVA,Inc., et al., No.04-CV-
7532."
Both complaints purported to be brought on behalf of all persons
who acquired the company's common stock between Nov. 25, 2003
and Nov. 9, 2004.
On Jan. 25, 2005, the plaintiff in "Hiatt" voluntarily dismissed
his suit. On March 29, 2005, the court appointed Central
Laborers' Pension Fund as lead plaintiff in the remaining case,
and approved its choice of counsel, Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman LLP, as lead plaintiff's counsel.
On May 13, 2005, plaintiff filed a "corrected" complaint,
retaining the same class period, and alleging, among other
things, that defendants had made false and misleading statements
in certain SEC filings, including the prospectuses to the
company's initial and secondary public offerings, and press
releases.
The statements subject to the complaint generally relate to the
Company's insurance claims reserves, European operations, and
restatement accounts and are said to constitute violations of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages.
On Oct. 11, 2005, plaintiff filed its consolidated amended class
action complaint, a corrected version of which was filed on Oct.
19, 2005.
The complaint adds ten new defendants, including an additional
director, the seven underwriters which participated in the
initial and secondary public offerings, the company's
independent auditor and its controlling shareholder.
It also extends the class period, purporting to be brought on
behalf of all those who acquired the Company's common stock
between Nov. 25, 2003 and Jan. 31, 2005.
It retains all causes of action contained in the prior complaint
and adds a new claim against the company's controlling
shareholder for violation of Section 20A of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The amended complaint also contains additional allegations
relating to the following areas: the company's restatement of
financial statements and accounting errors for years 2000
through 2003 and the first nine months of 2004, problems in its
European operations, insurance reserves, financial forecasting
and internal controls.
The case is in the preliminary stages, according to company's
Jan. 17, 2007 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2004.
The suit is "Central Lab PenFd v. Sirva Inc, et al., case no.
1:04-cv-07644," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Ronald A. Guzman.
Representing the plaintiffs is Steven G. Schulman of Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza
49th Floor, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (212) 594-5300.
Representing the company are Tara Kocheran Charnes, Richard
Bradshaw Kapnick, Matthew Brian Kilby, Catherine Rosen, Sidley
Austin LLP, One South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone:
(312) 853-7000, E-mail: rkapnick@sidley.com, mkilby@sidley.com,
crosen@sidley.com.
STAR GAS: Discovery Stayed Consolidated Securities Suit in Conn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the consolidated securities fraud class action
against Star Gas Partners, L.P., which is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut is stayed
pursuant to the mandatory stay provisions of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA).
The suit names as defendants certain of the company's
subsidiaries and officers and directors. Lawsuits filed against
the company includes:
-- "Carter v. Star Gas Partners, L.P., et al, No 3:04-cv-
01766-IBA, et al.,"
-- "Feit v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1832,"
(filed on 10/29/2004),
-- "Lila Gold v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-
1791,"(filed on 10/22/2004),
-- "Jagerman v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-
1855,"(filed on 11/3/2004),
-- "McCole, et al. v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No.
04-1859,"(filed on 11/3/2004),
-- "Prokop v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1785,"
(filed on 10/22/2004),
-- "Seigle v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1803,"
(filed on 10/25/3004),
-- "Strunk v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1815,"
(filed on 10/27/2004),
-- "Harriette S. & Charles L. Tabas Foundation v. Star
Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1857,"(filed on
11/3/2004),
-- "Weiss v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1807,"
(filed on 10/26/2004),
-- "White v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1837,"
(filed on 10/9/2004),
-- "Wood v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1856,"
(filed on 11/3/2004),
-- "Yopp v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1865,"
(filed on 11/3/2004),
-- "Kiser v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1884,"
(filed on 11/9/2004),
-- "Lederman v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-
1873,"(filed on 11/5/2004),
-- "Dinkes v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No.04-1979,"
(filed 11/22/04),
-- "Gould v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-2133,"
(filed on 12/17/2004)
The action plaintiffs generally allege that the Partnership
violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by purportedly failing to
disclose, among other things:
-- problems with the restructuring of the company's
dispatch system and customer attrition related thereto;
-- that the company's heating oil division's business
process improvement program was not generating the
benefits allegedly claimed;
-- that Star Gas was struggling to maintain its profit
margins in its heating oil division;
-- that Star Gas' second quarter 2004 profit margins were
not representative of its ability to pass on heating
oil price increases; and
-- that Star Gas was facing an inability to pay its debts
and that, as a result, its credit rating and ability to
obtain future financing was in jeopardy.
The class action plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages including interest against the defendants
jointly and severally and an award of reasonable costs and
expenses.
On Feb. 23, 2005, the court consolidated the class action
complaints and heard argument on motions for the appointment of
lead plaintiff.
On Apr. 8, 2005, the court appointed the lead plaintiff.
Pursuant to the court's order, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint on Jun. 20, 2005.
The consolidated amended complaint named as defendant:
-- Star Gas Partners, L.P.;
-- Star Gas LLC;
-- Irik Sevin;
-- Audrey L. Sevin;
-- Hanseatic Americas, Inc.;
-- Paul Biddelman;
-- Ami Trauber;
-- A.G. Edwards & Sons Inc.;
-- UBS Investment Bank; and
-- RBC Dain Rauscher Inc.
The consolidated amended complaint added claims arising out of
two registration statements, the same transactions under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The
defendants had until Aug. 19, 2005 to file an answer.
On Sept. 23, 2005, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim
under the federal securities laws and failure to satisfy the
applicable pleading requirements of the PSLRA and the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiffs filed their response to defendants' motions to
dismiss on or about Nov. 23, 2005 and defendants filed their
reply briefs on Dec. 20, 2005.
A hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss was held before the
Judge Janet Bond Arterton on July 27, 2006. On Aug. 21, 2006,
the judge granted defendants' motions to dismiss.
Currently plaintiffs are seeking to alter the judgment to grant
leave to amend the complaint. The court has granted plaintiffs'
motion and set a briefing schedule.
On Oct. 20, 2006, defendants opposed Plaintiffs' motion to alter
the judgment to grant leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs
filed their reply brief on or about Nov. 20, 2006.
The matter is now under consideration by the court. In the
interim, discovery in the matter remains stayed pursuant to the
mandatory stay provisions of the PSLRA, according to company's
Jan. 17, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2006.
The suit is "In re Star Gas Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:04-cv-01766-JBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Janet Bond Arterton.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Jonathan F. Andres of Green Schaaf & Jacobson, P.C.,
7733 Forsyth, Suite 700, St. Louis, MO 63105, Phone:
314-862-6800, Fax: 314-862-1606, E-mail:
andres@stlouislaw.com;
(2) David L. Belt of Jacobs, Grudberg, Belt, Dow & Katz,
P.C., 350 Orange St., P.O. Box 606, New Haven, CT
06503-0606, Phone: 203-772-3100, Fax: 203-772-1691, E-
mail: dbelt@jacobslaw.com;
(3) Stuart L. Berman of Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King of
Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706,
Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail: sberman@sbclasslaw.com; and
(4) Joel H. Bernstein of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP,
100 Park Ave., 12th Fl., New York, NY 10017, Phone:
212-907-0869, Fax: 212-818-0477, E-mail:
jbernstein@labaton.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Terence J. Gallagher, III of Day, Berry & Howard, One
Canterbury Green, Stamford, CT 06901-2047, Phone: 203-
977-7300, Fax: 203-977-7301, E-mail:
tjgallagher@dbh.com; and
(ii) Elizabeth K. Andrews of Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn - NH,
205 Church St., P.O. Box 1936, New Haven, CT 06509-
1910, Phone: 203-784-8200, Fax: 203-777-1181, E-mail:
eandrews@tylercooper.com.
STATE FARM: Lawyers Renew Bid on Class Certification of "Guice"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' attorneys in the federal suit, "Guice v. State Farm
Fire and Casualty Company et al.," are renewing their attempts
to have the case certified as a class action, The Biloxi Sun
Herald reports.
Their renewed bid came as State Farm employees and an expert
witness admit that the company could not separate Hurricane
Katrina wind from water damage.
Attorney Richard Phillips is seeking to represent a class of
"all-risk" homeowner policyholders claiming full compensation
for Hurricane Katrina damages. He argued that the insurer must
pay claims in full when wind and water damage can't be separated
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 14, 2006).
Mr. Philips along with other plaintiffs' attorneys argue that
State Farm should immediately pay policy limits to all
policyholders whose homes were reduced to slabs, foundations or
pilings.
They are also asking that these policyholders be allowed to file
or continue individual lawsuits against State Farm for mental
anguish, loss of use of their money, punitive damages and other
any claims against State Farm.
Judge L. T. Senter, who is presiding over Hurricane Katrina-
related lawsuits, has not yet ruled on the renewed motion for
class certification of the Guice case.
Pretrial testimony in the case has established that, for the
first time after a catastrophe, State Farm drafted a protocol
for handling claims that deviated from its insurance policies,
which are binding contracts.
The "wind-water protocol" required adjusters to deny claims in
surge areas unless they found "independent windstorm damage to
separate portions of the property."
Under the protocol, State Farm denied hundreds of claims in
areas hit by surge, even though hurricane-force winds arrived
ahead of the surge.
At first, State Farm ordered engineering reports, but those that
had not been started or completed were cancelled some time in
October 2005.
State Farm catastrophe employee Mark Drain said during unedited
pretrial testimony: "But if an engineer report came in and said
probably some wind damage occurred prior to the arrival of the
storm surge...however, there's nothing there to look at to
determine that there's wind damage, if there was no discernible
wind damage, we simply did not pay for it."
Judge Senter has allowed attorneys to add the insurer's parent
company, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., to the
lawsuit because corporate attorneys and employees drafted the
protocol, according to pretrial testimony.
In August 2006, before evidence about the protocol was
developed, Judge Senter rejected a request to certify the
lawsuit for class action status.
In his ruling, the judge, quoted the "Tuepker v. State Farm Fire
& Casualty Co." case which stated that "[t]he nature and extent
of the property damage the owners sustain from the common cause,
Hurricane Katrina, will vary greatly in its particulars,
depending on the location and condition of the property before
the storm struck and depending also on what combination of
forces caused the damage" (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 18,
2006).
The suit is "Guice v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00001-LTS-RHW," filed in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under Judge L. T.
Senter, Jr. with referral to Robert H. Walker.
Representing the defendant are:
(1) Robert C. Galloway at Butler, Snow, O'mara, Stevens &
Canada, PLLC, P.O. Drawer 4248, Gulfport, MS 39502-
4248, Phone: 228864-1170, E-mail:
bob.galloway@butlersnow.com; and
(2) William N. Reed at Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &
Berkowitz, PC, P.O. Box 14167, Jackson, MS 39236-4167,
Phone: (601) 351-2400.
Representing the plaintiff is Richard Taylor Phillips at Smith,
Phillips, Mitchell & Scott, P.O. Drawer 1586, Batesville, MS
38606, Phone: 662/563-4613, E-mail: flip@smithphillips.com.
TELE-COMMUNICATIONS INC: Feb. 1 Hearing Set for $52M Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State Of Delaware in and for New
Castle County will hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 1, 2007 at
2:00 p.m. for the proposed $52 million settlement in the matter,
"In Re Tele-Communications, Inc. Consolidated Shareholders
Litigation, C.A. No. 16470-NC."
The hearing will be held on, in the Court of Chancery
Courthouse, 34 The Circle, Georgetown, Delaware 19947.
The settlement covers all Record and Beneficial Holders of
Series A TCI Group Common Stock of Tele-Communications, Inc.,
during the period beginning on and including June 24, 1998,
through and including March 9, 1999, including any and all of
their respective successors in interest, successors,
predecessors in interest, predecessors, representatives,
trustees, executors, administrators, heirs, assigns or
transferees, immediate and remote, and any person or entity
acting for or on behalf of, or claiming under, any of them, and
each of them, but excluding the defendants, Liberty Media Corp.,
AT&T Corp., TCI, Comcast Corp., Comcast Cable Holdings LLC, and
their respective subsidiaries, and any person, firm, trust,
corporation, or other entity related to or affiliated with any
of the defendants.
Case Background
The action is a consolidation of purported class action lawsuits
brought by certain plaintiffs on behalf of former holders of
shares of Series A TCI Group Common Stock (TCOMA) issued by
Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI).
On Feb. 10, 1999, plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf
of the class filed an amended complaint alleging that John C.
Malone, Leo J. Hindery, Jr., Donne F. Fisher, J.C. Sparkman,
John W. Gallivan, Paul A. Gould, Jerome H. Kern, Robert A. Naify
(Settling Defendants) and Kim Magness breached their fiduciary
duties to the class in connection with their approval of the
merger of TCI with a subsidiary of AT&T Corp., which was
announced on June 24, 1998, and which closed on March 9, 1999
(Merger).
Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that the Merger improperly
provided for an exchange ratio of 0.7757 shares of AT&T common
stock for each share of TCOMA stock and 0.8533 shares of AT&T
common stock for each share of Series B TCI Group Common Stock
(TCOMB), representing a 10% premium per share for the TCOMB
shares over the TCOMA exchange ratio.
Plaintiffs also alleged that the proxy statement/prospectus
filed by TCI on Jan. 11, 1999, pursuant to Section 14(a) of the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and mailed to
shareholders on Jan. 11, 1999, contained material misstatements
and/or omissions, allegedly in violation of the settling
defendants' duty of disclosure.
Plaintiffs sought an award of damages resulting from Defendants'
alleged wrongdoing, plus interest, and an award of counsel fees
and costs.
On Jan. 18, 2000, the settling defendants answered the
complaint, denying all of Plaintiffs' claims, asserting various
affirmative defenses, and seeking an award of costs.
Following the service of the answer to the complaint, discovery
commenced. Class counsel conducted extensive discovery
including, among other things, inspection, review, and analysis
of documents produced by the Settling Defendants and non-parties
to the action, and the depositions of certain of the Settling
Defendants and non-parties.
On Feb. 14, 2005, after the close of merits discovery, the
Settling Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment that was
fully briefed and argued.
On Dec. 21, 2005, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion that
denied in part and granted in part the Settling Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.
On May 19, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. After conducting class discovery, the Settling
Defendants determined not to oppose this motion.
In connection with seeking the court's approval of the
settlement of the action between and among plaintiffs, on behalf
of themselves and the class, and the Settling Defendants, as set
forth in the Stipulation (Settlement), the Plaintiffs, the
members of the class, and the Settling Defendants (Parties) will
seek certification by the court of the class, for settlement
purposes only, pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2) of
the Court of Chancery.
On Oct. 10, 2006, the Parties filed a Pre-Trial Stipulation and
Order. Thereafter, the Parties filed their pre-trial briefs.
The trial was scheduled to commence on Oct. 16, 2006.
On Oct. 12, 2006, the Parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the action based principally upon the undertaking by
the Settling Defendants to cause $52 million in cash to be
deposited in an escrow account for distribution for the benefit
of former owners of shares of TCOMA stock in connection with the
Settlement.
For more details, contact:
(1) TCI Shareholders Litigation c/o Complete Claim
Solutions, LLC, P.O. Box 24664, West Palm Beach,
Florida 33416, Phone: 561-253-7785; and
(2) Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, 212 East 39th
Street, New York, New York 10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700
or (800) 889-3701, Fax: (212) 684-5191, E-mail:
info@abbeyspanier.com, Web site:
http://www.abbeyspanier.com/.
VATICAN: Priest Sex Abuse Litigation in Ky. Allowed to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
William F. McMurry of McMurry & Associates won a significant
ruling in a class action against the Vatican, when Judge John G.
Heyburn II of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky ruled that the plaintiffs could pursue their claim
against the Vatican.
In a ruling issued last week, the court allowed sex abuse
victims to pursue damages from the Vatican in a lawsuit alleging
top church officials failed to report known or suspected cases
of child abuse, The Associated Press reports (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 16, 2006).
The ruling by Judge Heyburn, essentially allows three men to
pursue negligence claims against the Vatican over allegations of
sexual abuse by priests in the Archdiocese of Louisville in
Kentucky.
The case, "O'Bryan et al v. Holy See," is thought to be the
first sexual-abuse suit to name the Vatican as sole defendant
and would be the first class action against the Vatican
regarding clerical sexual abuse.
Filed by attorney William McMurry on June 4, 2004, it was
brought on behalf of three men who say they were abused as far
back as 1928 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 11, 2006).
It alleges a cover up by the Vatican to protect priests who
molested American children. Specifically, the men alleged that
the Vatican knew or suspected some of its priests or bishops
were child molesters, but failed to warn the public or local
authorities about them. In doing so, the suit claims that the
Vatican was negligent.
Mr. McMurry, who in 2003 represented 243 abuse victims in
reaching a $25.7 million settlement with the Archdiocese of
Louisville, is seeking to have the suit certified as a class
action, alleging that "several thousand" victims exist across
the U.S. He is also seeking unspecified damages.
Previously, Judge Heyburn had previously dismissed parts of the
lawsuit that sought damages for sex abuse allegations outside
the U.S.
The recent decision though opens the way to take depositions of
Vatican officials and to get copies of church records and
documents.
One of the three plaintiffs suing the Vatican is Michael Turner
of Louisville, who also filed the first lawsuit against the
Archdiocese of Louisville. Turner alleged the Rev. Louis E.
Miller molested him in the 1970s while attending St. Aloysius
Church in Pewee Valley, Kentucky.
The late Pope John Paul II removed Mr. Miller from the
priesthood in 2006 after pleading guilty in 2003 to sexually
abusing children in Jefferson and Oldham counties. Mr. Miller
is currently serving a 13-year prison sentence.
The other two plaintiffs, James H. O'Bryan and Donald E. Poppe,
now both living in California, allege that while growing up in
Louisville priests abused them.
Mr. O'Bryan contends a "Father Lawrence" at St. Cecilia Church
in western Louisville abused him in 1928. An archdiocesan
spokeswoman has said a Rev. Lawrence Kuntz worked at St. Cecelia
from 1928 to 1935 and died in 1952.
Mr. Poppe alleges the Rev. Arthur Wood, who died in 1983 and was
named as an abuser by 39 plaintiffs who settled with the
archdiocese, molested him.
Commenting on its legal victory and on the case in general, Mr.
McMurry, a trial specialist in medical and legal malpractice
said that the primary purpose of their case is to hold the
Vatican accountable and this ruling gives them the opportunity
to get a hold of church documents and take depositions of church
officials.
The suit is "O'Bryan et al v. Holy See, Case No. 3:04-cv-00338-
JGH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky under Judge John G. Heyburn II.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) William F. McMurry of William F. McMurry & Associates,
4801 Olympia Park Plaza, Suite 4800, Louisville, KY
40241, US, Phone: 502-326-9000, Fax: 502-326-9001, E-
mail: bill@courtroomlaw.com;
(2) Marci A. Hamilton, 36 Timber Knoll Drive, Washington
Crossing, PA 18977, Phone: 212-790-0215, Fax: 215-493-
1094, E-mail: hamilton02@aol.com; and
(3) Ross T. Turner 6500 Glenridge Park Place, Suite 12,
Louisville, KY 40222, Phone: 502-429-9303 or 502-445-
4144, Fax: 502-429-9304, E-mail:
ross@rossturnerlaw.com.
WASHINGTON: Ex-Police Chief Says City Didn't Order WTO Arrests
--------------------------------------------------------------
In testimony before the U.S. District Court for the District
Court of Washington, former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper
has said that the city did not establish a policy on Dec. 1,
1999, to arrest people protesting against the World Trade
Organization (WTO), The Seattle Times reports.
In addition, the former police chief said that he would have
resigned rather than enforce such a directive. Mr. Stamper's
testimony were made recently in a federal class action against
the city of Seattle, Washington over the arrests of about 200
protesters during a 1999 WTO meeting in the city. Eight people
arrested on Dec. 1, 1999 are serving as lead plaintiffs.
The case centers on an emergency ordinance that took effect on
Dec. 1, 1999, imposing downtown as off-limits to ensure public
safety amidst protests while the conference is ongoing (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 12, 2007).
Plaintiffs contend that the city violated their First Amendment
right to free speech by arresting them because they were
espousing anti-WTO sentiments. They also say the city violated
their Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search
and seizure.
Previously, Judge Barbara Rothstein, who presided over the case
back then, threw out protesters claims, saying the city had
imposed a proper "time, place or manner" restriction to ensure
public safety (Class Action Reporter, June 6, 2005).
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth upheld the
ordinance, it pointed out, however, that the city might have
gone too far in targeting only anti-WTO protesters within the
restricted zone, raising questions about discrimination.
In his opening statement, plaintiffs' attorney Michael Withey
told jurors that his clients were arrested merely for speaking
out against WTO.
The matter to be decided now is whether police singled out
people because of their views and illegally arrested them as
part of a city policy to go after protesters.
To prevail, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that such
unconstitutional acts were made in accordance with official city
policy, or that city leaders such as Mr. Stamper were aware of
and authorized the improper behavior.
Ted Buck, an attorney representing the city, asked Mr. Stamper
if then-Mayor Paul Schell instructed the police to seek out and
arrest protesters.
Mr. Stamper denied that the former mayor issued such a
directive. He adds that if the mayor had given him such orders,
"I would have fought it. If I had lost that battle, I would
have offered my resignation."
Mr. Withey had sought to establish that then-Assistant Chief Ed
Joiner, acting with Mr. Stamper's authority, declared a "no-
protest zone" in the downtown area near the Seattle Convention
Center, where WTO meetings were taking place.
During a 7 a.m. news conference Dec. 1, 1999, Mr. Joiner
declared that "anyone that goes into that area to protest will
be arrested immediately," according to a transcript Mr. Withey
introduced into evidence.
Mr. Stamper explains that he delegated Mr. Joiner to plan the
department's tactics and strategy ahead of the WTO meetings and
gave him operational command during the meetings. However, Mr.
Stamper added that Mr. Joiner never had authority to set policy
for the department.
On Nov. 30, 1999, Seattle erupted in chaos as some 50,000 people
arrived to protest the policies of the WTO. In a bid to avoid a
second day of unrest, Mayor Schell in the early hours of Dec. 1,
1999, issued "Emergency Order No. 3," which declared parts of
downtown Seattle off-limits to all but a handful of people.
Among the exempt groups: WTO delegates and workers; residents of
the area; business owners and employees; and safety personnel.
The order said nothing about banning protesters from the area.
Case Background
On Oct. 2, 2000, the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice filed the
original suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington. The class action was brought on behalf
of anyone detained during mass arrests at Westlake Park between
6 a.m. and noon on Dec. 1, 1999.
Specifically, plaintiffs' lawyers alleged that the city engaged
in a policy of suppressing First Amendment rights by arresting
protesters without being ordered to disperse and jailing them
using an incorrect arrest record.
The complaint, thus seeks damages from the city, Mayor Schell,
and former Police Chief Norman Stamper on behalf of more than
600 protesters and others arrested and imprisoned on Dec. 1 and
2, 1999, pursuant to the city's "no-protest zone" policy.
The suit is "Hankin et al. v. Seattle City of, et al., Case No.
2:00-cv-01672-MJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington under Judge Marsha J. Pechman.
Representing the plaintiffs is Michael E. Withey of Law Office
Of Mike Withey, Two Union Square, 601 Union St., Ste. 4200,
Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-405-1800, E-mail:
mike@witheylaw.com.
Representing the defendants is Theron A. Buck of Stafford Frey
Cooper, 601 Union St., 3100 Two Union Sq., Seattle, WA 98101,
Phone: 206-623-9900, Fax: 624-6885, E-mail:
tbuck@staffordfrey.com.
WORKSTREAM INC: Anticipates 2007 Trial for N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Workstream, Inc. expects a late 2007 trial for the securities
fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the company and its chief
executive officer and its former chief financial officer.
On or about Aug. 10, 2005, a class action was filed on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of the company's common shares
during the period from January 14, 2005 to and including April
14, 2005.
It alleges, among other things, that management provided the
market misleading guidance as to anticipated revenues for the
quarter ended Feb. 28, 2005, and failed to correct this guidance
on a timely basis.
The action claims violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act,
and seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount as well
as the award of reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel
and expert fees and costs.
In December 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which added additional plaintiffs and sought to elaborate on the
allegations contained in the complaint.
The defendant's counsel filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which was denied. Plaintiffs have moved to confirm a class of
purchasers of the company's shares during the class period.
Briefing on that motion is expected to conclude in the fall of
2006.
Discovery remains in the early stages, and the company intends
to defend the action vigorously. The company expects the trial
to occur in or about late 2007, according to company's Jan. 16,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 30, 2006.
The suit is "Schottenfeld Qualified Associates LP et al. v.
Workstream, Inc. et al., Case No. 7:05-cv-07092-CLB," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Charles L. Brieant.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Ronen Sarraf of Sarraf Gentile, LLP, 485 Seventh
Avenue, New York, NY 10018, Phone: (212) 868-3610, Fax:
(212) 918-7967, E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com; and
(2) Ralph M. Stone of Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP, 485
Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, New York, NY 10018, Phone:
(212) 239-4340, Fax: (212) 239-4310, E-mail:
rstone@lawssb.com.
Representing the defendants are David M. Doret and H. Robert
Fiebach of Cozen and O'Connor, 45 Broadway Atrium, New York, NY
10006-3792, Phone: 212-509-9400.
New Securities Fraud Cases
HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Suit in E.D. La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock and other securities of
Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. who purchased during the period
from Nov. 1, 2006 through Jan. 10, 2007.
The complaint alleges that Hornbeck and certain of its officers
and directors violated the federal securities laws by making
false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the
company's operations and expected earnings for the 4th Quarter
2006, and for fiscal 2007.
On Nov. 1, 2006, the company reaffirmed its guidance for fiscal
2007 and specifically reaffirmed earnings before interest,
taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) for the fourth
quarter of 2006 to range of between $39.0 million and $41.0
million and earnings per share to range of between $0.69 and
$0.74.
On Nov. 6, 2006, the company announced an offering of $200.0
million in convertible senior notes with an over-allotment of
$30.0 million in principal amount of additional notes.
On Nov. 13, 2006, the company announced that it had closed the
note offering and received the offering proceeds. These
aggressive projections were crucial to the completion of the
note offering, but have the effect of artificially inflating the
price of the stock.
On Jan. 10, 2007, the company shocked the market by announcing
that that it was revising its EBITDA and earnings per share
guidance for the fourth quarter of 2006 and for fiscal 2006,
materially reducing EBITDA for the fourth quarter of 2006 to
range between $33.0 million and $34.0 million, down from $39.0
million to $41.0 million.
The company announced it now expected that per share earnings
for the fourth quarter of 2006 to range between $0.61 and $0.63,
down from $0.72 to $0.77. It also expected to reduce 2007
guidance by 15 to 20 percent.
The company was forced to admit that it had knowledge over the
previous several months that operating issues had negatively
impacted the company's financial performance, including
volatility in the offshore vessel day-rate, a lag in the
shipyard delivery schedules for new-builds and increased
turnaround time for regulatory dry-dockings, repairs and
maintenance, as well as increased costs for personnel and
insurance.
As a result of this unexpected news, the price Hornbeck shares
slumped to a 52-week low in early trading on Jan. 11, 2007 and
the stock was down $7.11, or 21.2%, on markedly increased
volume.
All motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff must be filed with
the court by March 19, 2007.
For more details, contact Roy Jacobs & Associates, Phone: 1-888-
884-4490, E-mail: jacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.jacobsclasslaw.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 * * *