/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070212.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, February 12, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 30
Headlines
ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR: Tower Stock Lawsuit Dismissal Now Final
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Premium Fees Suit Limited to N.M. Class Only
AMERICAN TOWER: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Massachusetts
BAUSCH & LOMB: Faces Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y.
BAUSCH & LOMB: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
CAREMARK INC: Discovery Ongoing in John Morrell ERISA Lawsuit
CAREMARKPCS: Motion Against Arbitration of "Bellevue" Pending
CAREMARK RX: Faces Calif. Suit by Non-ERISA Health Plan Members
CAREMARK RX: Antitrust Suits Sent to Penn. for Consolidation
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs' Amended Stock Suit Claim Due March
DONALD TRUMP: Ga. Resident Files Suit Over Television Contest
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Remains Stayed in N.J. Stock Suit
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Lawsuit in Texas Over Recording Fees
GROUP HEALTH: Sued in Relation to Doctor Facing Sexual Charges
G & W INDUSTRIES: Recalls "Little Lass" Toddler Pants Sets
HISSOM MEMORIAL: Okla. Judge Okays New Injunction in "Homeward"
HORIZON BLUE: "Sutter" Suit Settlement Gets N.J. Court's Okay
HSN LP: Recalls Low Pressure Cookers After Burn Injury Reports
JDS UNIPHASE: April 5 Conference Set for OCLI Shareholders Suit
JDS UNIPHASE: Calif. Securities Fraud Suit Hearing Set October
JDS UNIPHASE: 2008 Trial Set for ERISA Violations Suit in Calif.
JDS UNIPHASE: March 6 Conference Set for SDL Shareholders Suit
LONGS DRUG: No Trial Date Yet for Calif. Suit Over Hiring Policy
LOUISIANA: Orleans Residents Sue Army Corps for Negligence
NELLCOR PURITAN: Continues to Face Calif. Consumer Fraud Suits
NEW YORK COMMUNITY: ERISA Violations Suit Completely Dismissed
NORTEL NETWORKS: Rinis Travel Appeals N.Y. Securities Suit Deal
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Mo. Court Certifies Securities Suit Class
PANTRY INC: Plaintiffs File Second Amended Complaint in "Barton"
TYCO INT'L: Court Refuses to Reconsider Ruling in Merger Suit
TYCO INT'L: Motion to Amend Complaint in ERISA Case Dropped
UNITED STATES: Green-Card Holders Sue Over "Name Check" Delay
VAXGEN INC: Calif. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Complaint
WELLMAN INC: Settlement of Antitrust Lawsuits Under Appeal
WURLD MEDIA: Seeks Dismissal of Labor Violations Lawsuit in N.Y.
* Lerach Coughlin Launches New Securities Claims-Filing Service
New Securities Fraud Cases
ALVARION LTD: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
CYBERONICS INC: Goldman Scarlato Announces Stock Suit Filing
HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Gardy & Notis Files La. Securities Fraud Suit
LG. PHILIPS: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
LG. PHILIPS: Pittsburgh Law Firm Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Brower Piven Files Securities Lawsuit
POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Yourman Alexander Announces Stock Suits
QUANTA CAPITAL: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
SECURE COMPUTING: Yourman Alexander Announces Stock Suits Filing
SUNRISE SENIOR: Yourman Alexander Announces Filing of Stock Suit
*********
ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR: Tower Stock Lawsuit Dismissal Now Final
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities class action filed against Tower
Semiconductor Ltd., certain of its directors and shareholders,
including Alliance Semiconductor Corp., did not file a petition
for a writ of certiorari on the dismissal of the suit by an
August 2006 deadline, making the dismissal final.
In July 2003, the company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Tower certain of Tower's directors,
including N. Damodar Reddy.
The lawsuit alleges that a proxy solicitation by Tower seeking
approval from the Tower shareholders for a restructuring of a
financing agreement between Tower and certain investors
contained false and misleading statements and/or omitted
material information in violations of Section 14(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, and also alleges that certain defendants have
liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The lawsuit was brought by plaintiffs on behalf of a putative
class of persons who were ordinary shareholders of Tower at the
close of business on April 1, 2002, the record date for voting
on certain matters proposed in a proxy statement issued by
Tower.
On Jan. 30, 2004, all the defendants filed motions to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.
On Aug. 19, 2004, Judge Kimba Wood granted defendants' motions
and dismissed the complaint in its entirety with prejudice. On
Sept. 29, 2004, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
On June 1, 2006, the Second Circuit issued a ruling affirming
the dismissal. Plaintiffs had until Aug. 31, 2006 to petition
the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which they did
not do, making the dismissal final.
The suit is "De Vries, et al. v. Tower Semiconductor, et al.,
Case No. 1:03-cv-04999-KMW," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Kimba M.
Wood.
Representing the plaintiffs are Jeffrey S. Abraham and Lawrence
Donald Levit of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP, One Penn Plaza,
Suite 1910, New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212)-279-5050, Fax:
(212)-279-3655, E-mail: llevit@aftlaw.com.
Representing the defendants is Daniel Lucas Cantor and Michael
R. Patrick of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Seven Times Square, New
York, NY 10036, Phone: 212-326-2000, Fax: 212-326-2061, E-mail:
dcantor@omm.com.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Premium Fees Suit Limited to N.M. Class Only
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed in part the
certification of a multi-state class action claiming Allstate
Insurance Co. charges an additional fee when auto insurance
clients pay premiums, CourtHouse News Service reports.
Judge Lynn Pickard ruled that the district court erred in
concluding that New Mexico law should be applied to a class of
insureds from 16 states who paid auto insurance premiums on
installment basis.
The judge held that the case cannot proceed with the district
court applying the laws of the various jurisdictions because,
under those circumstances, the action would fail to meet the
requirements of Rule 1-023 NMRA (New Mexico Rules of Court
Annotated) as a matter of law.
According to the judge, New Mexico law does not apply to out-of-
state class members, and the "need to apply ambiguous laws of
the other class states would render this case unmanageable."
The appeals court reversed the portion of the certification
order that certified the class with regard to proposed
plaintiffs from other states, and remanded the action to proceed
on behalf of the class of New Mexico plaintiffs only.
Background
Plaintiffs initially asked the District Court of Sandoval County
to certify a class of Allstate insureds from 15 states on the
question of the legitimacy of the life insurance company's
charging of an additional fee for installment payments.
Plaintiffs claim Allstate issues vehicle insurance policies
showing an amount of money that is labeled "TOTAL PREMIUM."
Allstate offers its insureds the option of paying on a monthly
basis. When insureds choose to pay on a monthly basis, they pay
a service fee of $3.50 per month. That fee is clearly disclosed
on the bills received by insureds, but it is not included in the
amount designated as the "TOTAL PREMIUM" on the face of the
insurance policy.
Plaintiffs contend that Allstate has breached its contracts with
its insureds by "charging premiums, in the form of service fees,
which exceed the `TOTAL PREMIUM' . . . specified in their
policies."
Finding that proposed class members from two of the 15 states
should not be included in the class, the District Court Louis P.
McDonald certified the following class:
* persons "who have, within six years of the commencement
of this action, paid installment fees to Allstate, and
reside in these thirteen (13) states: Alaska, Arizona,
California, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Montana, Nevada,
New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, West Virginia and
Wyoming."
Allstate then filed an application for interlocutory review of
the certification decision.
On appeal, Allstate argues that the district court erred in
certifying the class because there are significant differences
between the laws of the class states, making it improper to
apply New Mexico law to all class members.
Allstate also argued that the laws of the class states are not
similar enough to New Mexico law to allow application of New
Mexico law to all class members.
Plaintiffs contend that this case presents a false conflict of
laws such that forum law can be applied to all class members.
Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that the case may still
proceed as a multistate class action even if the laws of
numerous jurisdictions must be applied.
Plaintiffs also argue that by taking an interlocutory appeal of
the district court's certification decision without arguing that
certification was improper as to class members from New Mexico,
Allstate has waived the right to argue against certification
with regard to New Mexico class members.
The Appeals Court earlier concluded that New Mexico law cannot
be applied to out-of-state class members and that the case
cannot proceed as a multistate class action.
The Appellate also held that Allstate retains only a limited
right to argue against certification of a class made up of only
New Mexico insureds.
The suit is "Ferrell v. Allstate Ins. Co., Docket No. 26,058,"
filed in the Court of Appeals of the State of New Mexico under
Judge Lynn Pickard.
Representing plaintiffs are:
(1) Floyd D. Wilson of McCary, Wilson & Pryor, 6707 Academy
Road N.E., Albuquerque, NM 87109, Phone: (505) 857-
0001, Fax: (505) 857-0008;
(2) Robert Hanson of Peifer, Charles - Peifer Hanson &
Mullins, 20 First Plz Ctr NW Ste 725, Albuquerque, NM
87102-5805, Phone: (505) 247-4800;
(3) David Freedman of Freedman, Boyd, Daniels, Hollander &
Goldberg, P.A., 20 First Plaza, Suite 700, Albuquerque,
NM 87102, Phone: 505.842.9960, Fax: 505.842.0761, E-
mail: daf@fbdlaw.com;
(4) John M. Eaves of Eaves & Mendenhall P.A., 6565 Americas
Parkway, N.E., Suite 950 (87110), P.O. Box 35670,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87176, Phone: 505-888-4300,
Fax: 505-883-4406, Website:
http://www.eavesandmendenhall.com;
(5) Alan Konrad, Esq. of The Law Office of Alan Konrad, 901
Rio Grande Blvd., N.W. #172, PMB 571, Albuquerque, NM
87204; and
(6) Timothy G. Blood of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
& Robbins, LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San
Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058 or (800) 449-
4900, Fax: (619) 231-7423
Representing defendants are:
(1) Lisa Mann and Jennifer A. Noya, both of Modrall,
Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A., 500 Fourth Street
NW, P.O. Box 2168, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-2168,
Phone: (505) 848-1800, E-mail: contact@modrall.com; and
(2) Jeffrey Lennard and Mark L. Hanover, both of
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, 7800 Sears Tower,
233 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606-6404, Phone:
312.876.8000, Fax: 312.876.7934.
AMERICAN TOWER: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Tower Corp. and certain of its current officers are
facing a securities class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on May 26, 2006.
The suit was filed by John S. Greenebaum. Also named plaintiff
in the case is Steamship Trade Association-International
Longshoremen's Association Pension Fund.
The complaint names the company, James D. Taiclet, Jr. and
Bradley E. Singer as defendants. It alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws in connection with public
statements made relating to the company's stock option practices
and related accounting. The complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-
5.
Plaintiff seeks monetary relief.
The suit is "Greenebaum v. American Tower Corp. et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-10933-MLW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Mark L. Wolf.
Representing plaintiff John S. Greenebaum is Jason B. Adkins at
Adkins, Kelston and Zavez, P.C., 90 Canal Street, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02114, Phone: 617-367-1040, Fax: 617-742-8280, E-
mail: jadkins@akzlaw.com.
Representing plaintiffs Steamship Trade Association-
International Longshoremen's Association Pension Fund is
David J. Goldsmith at Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP,
100 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017-5563, Phone: 212-907-0700.
Representing the company is Michael T. Gass at Edwards Angell
Palmer & Dodge LLP, 111 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02199,
Phone: 617-239-0100, Fax: 617-227-4420, E-mail:
mgass@eapdlaw.com.
BAUSCH & LOMB: Faces Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch & Lomb Inc. is a defendant in a consolidated class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New
York over allegations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act
violations.
The consolidated ERISA class action is "In re Bausch & Lomb Inc.
ERISA Litigation, Case Nos. 06-cv-6297 (master file), 06-cv-
6315, and 06-cv-6348." It was filed against the company and
certain present and former officers and directors.
Initially, three separate actions were filed between April and
May of 2006 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, and these were later transferred to the Western
District of New York and consolidated.
Plaintiffs in these actions purport to represent a class of
participants in the company's defined contribution 401(k) Plan
for whose individual accounts the plan held an interest in
company stock between May 25, 2000 and the present.
Among other things, plaintiffs allege that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants by allowing
the plan to invest in company common stock despite the fact that
it was allegedly artificially inflated due to the failure to
disclose negative information relating to the company's
Brazilian and Korean subsidiaries, internal controls, and
problems with MoistureLoc. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages
as well as certain declaratory and injunctive relief.
On Aug. 28, 2006, the court entered an order appointing co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead plaintiffs' counsel. Pursuant to a
stipulated schedule ordered by the court, plaintiffs in the
consolidated ERISA action will have until 10 days after a
consolidated amended complaint is filed in the consolidated
securities action described above, to file a consolidated
amended complaint.
The suit is "In re Bausch & Lomb Inc. ERISA Litigation, Case
Nos. 06-cv-6297," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York under Judge Michael A. Telesca with
referral to Judge Marian W. Payson.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Stephen John Fearon, Jr. of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, 32
East, 57th Street, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10022, US,
Phone: (212) 421-6492, Fax: 212-421-6553, E-mail:
stephen@sfclasslaw.com;
(2) Matthew J. Fusco of Chamberlain, D'Amanda, Oppenheimer
& Greenfield, LLP, 1600 Crossroads Building, Two State
Street, Rochester, NY 14614, Phone: 585-232-3730, Fax:
585-232-3882, E-mail: mjf@cdlawyers.com; and
(3) Thomas J. McKenna of Gainey & McKenna, 295 Madison
Avenue, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10017, US, Phone: (212)
983-1300, Fax: 212-983-0383.
Representing the defendants is Richard A. McGuirk of Nixon
Peabody LLP, Clinton Square, P.O. Box 31051, Rochester, NY
14603, Phone: (585) 263-1644, Fax: 585-263-1600, E-mail:
rmcguirk@nixonpeabody.com.
BAUSCH & LOMB: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch & Lomb Inc. is a defendant in a consolidated securities
fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York, according to the company's Feb. 7,
2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2005.
The suit, "In re Bausch & Lomb Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
Nos. 06-cv-6294 (master file), 06-cv-6295, 06-cv-6296, and 06-
cv-6300," was filed against the company and certain of its
present and former officers and directors.
Initially, four separate shareholder actions were filed between
March and May of 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, and these were later transferred
to the Western District of New York and consolidated into the
above-captioned matter.
Plaintiffs in these actions purport to represent a putative
class of shareholders who purchased company stock at allegedly
artificially inflated levels between Jan. 27, 2005 and May 3,
2006.
Among other things, plaintiffs allege that the defendants issued
materially false and misleading public statements regarding the
company's financial condition and operations by failing to
disclose negative information relating to the company's
Brazilian and Korean subsidiaries, internal controls, and
problems with MoistureLoc, thereby inflating the price of
company stock during the alleged class period. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages.
The cases are currently awaiting appointment of lead plaintiff
and lead plaintiff's counsel in accordance with the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.
The suit is "In re Bausch & Lomb Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case Nos. 06-cv-6294," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York under Judge Michael A. Telesca with
referral to Judge Marian W. Payson.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Mario Alba, Jr. of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
& Robbins, LLP, 58 South Service Road, Suite 200,
Melville, NY 11747, US, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-
367-1173;
(2) Jai Kamal Chandrasekhar of Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, 38th Floor,
New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 554-1400, Fax: 212-
554-1444, E-mail: jai@blbglaw.com; and
(3) K. Wade Eaton of Chamberlain, D'Amanda, Oppenheimer &
Greenfield, 1600 Crossroads Building, Two State Street,
Rochester, NY 14614, Phone: 585-232-3730, Fax: 585-232-
3882, E-mail: kwe@cdlawyers.com.
Representing the defendants is Carolyn G. Nussbaum of Nixon
Peabody, LLP, Clinton Square, P.O. Box 31051, Rochester, NY
14603, Phone: (585) 263-1558, Fax: 866-947-0625, E-mail:
cnussbaum@nixonpeabody.com.
CAREMARK INC: Discovery Ongoing in John Morrell ERISA Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in the class action, "Moeckel v. Caremark
RX, Inc., et al.," which is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee against Caremark, Inc.
In July 2004, Caremark Rx and Caremark were served with a
putative private class action filed by Robert Moeckel,
purportedly on behalf of the John Morrell Employee Benefits
Plan.
The suit alleged defendants each acting as a fiduciary breached
certain purported fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act. It seeks unspecified monetary damages and
injunctive relief.
In August 2005, Caremark Rx Inc. was dismissed from the action.
Discovery in the lawsuit is ongoing, and discovery in the
lawsuit is ongoing, according to the company's form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2006.
The suit is "Moeckel v. Caremark RX, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-00633," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee under Judge Aleta A. Trauger.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Rebecca Cothran Blair and John A. Day of Branham & Day,
P.C., 5300 Maryland Way, Suite 300, Brentwood, TN
37027, Phone: (615) 742-4880, E-mail:
rblair@branhamday.com and jday@branhamday.com; and
(2) Mike Miller of Solberg Stewart Miller & Tjon, 1129
Fifth Avenue South, P.O. Box 1897, Fargo, ND 58107-
1897, Phone: (701) 237-3166, E-mail:
mmiller@solberglaw.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Paul Savage Davidson, Joseph A. Woodruff and Jennifer
L. Weaver of Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, Nashville
City Center, 511 Union Street, Suite 2100, Nashville,
TN 37219, Phone: (615) 244-6380, Fax: (615) 244-6380 E-
mail: pdavidson@wallerlaw.com,
joseph.woodruff@wallerlaw.com and
jennifer.weaver@wallerlaw.com; and
(ii) Frank E. Pasquesi of Ungaretti & Harris, 3500 Three
First National Plaza, Chicago, IL 60602-4283, Phone:
(312) 977-4400.
CAREMARKPCS: Motion Against Arbitration of "Bellevue" Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion by plaintiffs seeking to dismiss and to block
arbitration in a suit filed by Bellevue Drug Co. and others
against Advance PCS, now CaremarkPCS, remains pending.
In August 2003, AdvancePCS was served with a putative class
action brought by:
-- Bellevue Drug Co.;
-- Robert Schreiber, Inc., d/b/a Burns Pharmacy; and
-- Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co., d/b/a Parkway Drugs #4,
purportedly on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and the Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National
Community Pharmacists Association. The suit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The plaintiffs allege antitrust violations under Section 1 of
the Sherman Act arising from AdvancePCS's establishment of
network rates for retail pharmacies. The plaintiffs seek for
themselves and the purported class three times actual monetary
damages and injunctive relief enjoining the alleged antitrust
violations.
The court granted a motion filed by AdvancePCS to compel
arbitration of any claims between it and the plaintiffs pursuant
to the pharmacy services agreements it has with the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the court's decision
or to have the decision certified for an immediate appeal, and
their motion was denied. The plaintiffs moved again for relief
from the court's decision to stay, seeking to dismiss the case
to allow an appeal and indicating that they do not intend to
arbitrate under the terms of the arbitration agreement in issue.
The motion is pending, according to the company's form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.
The suit is "Bellevue Drug Co. et al. v. Advance PCS, Case No.
2:03-cv-04731-ER," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Eduardo C. Robreno.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Michael J. Freed of Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg,
Ament & Rubenstein, 191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1800,
Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 312-521-2000, E-mail:
mfreed@muchshelist.com; and
(2) Jerome M. Marcus of Berger & Montague, PC, 1622 Locust
St., Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-875-3000, Fax:
215-875-5804, E-mail: jmarcus@bm.net.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Steven E. Bizar of Buchanan Ingersoll, P.C., 11 Penn
Center, 1835 Market Street, 14th Floor, Philadelphia,
PA 19103, Phone: 215-665-8700, E-mail:
bizarse@bipc.com; and
(ii) Erik F. Dyhrkopp of Bell Boyd & Lloyd, LLC, 70 West
Madison Street, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: 312-372-1121,
E-mail: edyhrkopp@bellboyd.com.
CAREMARK RX: Faces Calif. Suit by Non-ERISA Health Plan Members
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caremark Rx Inc. and Caremark Inc. are facing a purported class
action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California on
behalf of all California members of non-ERISA health plans
and/or all California taxpayers.
In March and April of 2003, AdvancePCS, and subsequently
Caremark Rx and Caremark, were served with a complaint filed by
Robert Irwin in the Superior Court of the State of California.
The plaintiff filed the action individually and purportedly as a
private attorney general on behalf of the general public of the
State of California, the non-ERISA health plans who contract
with pharmacy benefit management (PBM) companies and the
individuals who are members of those plans. Other PBM companies
are also named as defendants in this lawsuit, which alleges
violations of the California unfair competition law.
Specifically, the lawsuit challenges alleged business practices
of PBMs, including practices relating to pricing, rebates,
formulary management, data utilization and accounting and
administrative processes. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief,
restitution and disgorgement of revenues.
Mr. Irwin has recently amended his complaint and purported to
assert a class action on behalf of all California members of
non-ERISA health plans and/or all California taxpayers. No
motion for class certification has been filed, and discovery is
ongoing, according to the company's form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2006.
CAREMARK RX: Antitrust Suits Sent to Penn. for Consolidation
------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the
transfer of "North Jackson Pharmacy Inc. et al. v. Caremark RX
Inc., et al." from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the other
scheduled cases before it.
In April 2006, plaintiffs in the class action brought by:
* Brady Enterprises, Inc.,
* Charlotte J. Lopacki, d/b/a Budget Drug,
* Heritage Pharmacy,
* the Pharmacy Freedom Fund, and
* the National Community Pharmacists Association
against
* Medco Health Solutions, Inc., and
* Merck & Co., Inc.
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, filed a motion before the JPMDL, seeking to have a
number of cases in other courts brought by other plaintiffs and
against different defendants transferred to the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
The two cases against the company that are subject to the motion
are:
-- "N. Jackson Pharm Inc., et al. v. Caremark RX Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:04-cv-05674," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois;
and
-- "Bellevue Drug Co., et al. v. Advance PCS, et al., Case
No. 2:03-cv-04731-ER," filed in the U.S District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
In August 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered the North Jackson Pharmacy case to be transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with the other scheduled cases
before it, including the Bellevue Drug case.
Caremark Rx, Inc. on the Net: http://www.caremark.com/.
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs' Amended Stock Suit Claim Due March
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' counsel in a consolidated securities suit filed
against Conexant Systems, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey has until March 16, 2007 to file an
amended complaint with respect to a third claim in the case.
Between December 2004 and January 2005, the company and certain
current and former officers and directors were named as
defendants in several class actions seeking monetary damages
filed on behalf of all persons who purchased company common
stock during a specified class period.
These suits were filed in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey
and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, alleging that the defendants violated the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by disseminating materially
false and misleading statements and/or concealing material
adverse facts.
The California cases have now been consolidated with the New
Jersey cases so that all of the class actions are being heard in
the U.S. District Court of New Jersey by the same judge.
On Sept. 1, 2005, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the case. On Nov. 23, 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs'
motion to file a second amended complaint, which was filed on
Dec. 5, 2005.
The defendants filed an amended motion to dismiss the case on
Feb. 6, 2006. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 24,
2006, and defendants' reply was filed on June 14, 2006.
On Dec. 4, 2006, the court dismissed the second amended
complaint. Two of the three claims were dismissed with
prejudice, while the third claim was dismissed without
prejudice.
On Jan. 10, 2007, the parties filed a stipulation and tolling
agreement with the court stating that plaintiffs will not file
an appeal of the ruling dismissing two claims with prejudice.
Defendants agreed to give plaintiffs' counsel until March 16,
2007 to file an amended complaint with respect to the third
claim, according to the company's Feb. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Dec. 29, 2006.
The suit is "Witriol v. Conexant Systems, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-06219-SRC-TJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with
referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Peter S. Pearlman of Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann
& Knopf, LLP, Park 80 Plaza West One, Saddle Brook, NJ
07663, Phone: (201) 845-9600, E-mail:
PSP@njlawfirm.com; and
(2) Katrina Blumenkrants and Joseph J. Depalma of Lite
Depalma Greenberg & Rivas, LLC, Phone: (973) 623-3000,
E-mail: kblumenkrants@ldgrlaw.com and
jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com.
Representing the defendants are Gregory B. Reilly and Deborah A.
Silodor of Lowenstein Sandler, PC, 65 Livingston Avenue,
Roseland, NJ 07068-1791, Phone: (973) 597-2500 and (973) 597-
2500, E-mail: greilly@lowenstein.com and
dsilodor@lowenstein.com.
DONALD TRUMP: Ga. Resident Files Suit Over Television Contest
-------------------------------------------------------------
A local woman filed a lawsuit in Gwinett County Superior Court
in Georgia over the television contest "Get Rich with Trump,"
The Gwinnett Daily Post reports.
Cheryl Bentley, who lost money trying her hand at the game,
claims that the television contest is illegal. Her lawsuit
named as defendants Donald Trump, NBC Universal, Mark Burnett
Productions, and several other parties.
Filed on Feb. 2, the suit generally contends that the game,
which appears on television during episodes of Trump's reality
show, "The Apprentice," constitutes illegal gambling.
In court papers, Ms. Bentley's attorneys contend that the game
violates Georgia law, since it offers a grand prize of $10,000,
requires an entry fee -- 99 cents plus standard text messaging
rates -- and winners are chosen at random.
Ms. Bentley's attorneys, William Pannell and Kevin Moore, are
seeking class-action status for the case.
For more details, contact:
(1) William A. Pannell, P.C., P.O. Box 810, 15480 Laurel
Grove Dr., Alpharetta, GA 30009-0810, Phone: (770) 619-
0810, Fax: (770) 619-0811; and
(2) J. Kevin Moore of Moore Ingram Johnson & Steele, LLP,
192 Anderson Street, Marietta, Georgia 30060-8604,
(Cobb Co.), Phone: 770-429-1499, Telecopier: 770-429-
8631, Web Site: http://www.mijs.com.
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Remains Stayed in N.J. Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a consolidated securities fraud class action
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey against Exide Technologies, Inc. and certain of its
current and former officers continue to be stayed, according to
the company's form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.
In June 2005, the company received notice that two former
stockholders, Aviva Partners LLC and Robert Jarman, had
separately filed purported class actions against the company and
certain of its current and former officers, alleging violations
of certain federal securities laws.
The cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey purportedly on behalf of those who purchased the
company's stock between Nov. 16, 2004 and May 17, 2005.
The complaints allege that the named officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule
10b-5 in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading
public statements made during this period by the company and its
officers.
The complaints did not specify an amount of damages sought.
On Aug. 29, 2005, Judge Mary L. Cooper consolidated the Aviva
Partners and Jarman cases under, "Aviva Partners v. Exide
Technologies, Inc. Case No. 05-3098 (MLC)."
On March 24, 2006 Judge Cooper appointed:
* the Alaska Hotel & Restaurant Employees Pension Trust
Fund, and
* Lakeway Capital Management
co-lead plaintiffs for the putative class of former Exide
stockholders and appointed the law firms of:
* Lerach Coughlin Stoja Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and
Schatz & Nobel, P.C. as
co-lead counsel for the putative class.
On May 8, 2006, co-lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint in which they reiterated the claims described
above but purported to state a claim on behalf of those who
purchased the company's stock between May 5, 2004 and May 17,
2005.
Discovery is currently stayed pursuant to the discovery-stay
provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995, according to the company's regulatory filing.
The suit is "Aviva Partners LLC v. Exide Technologies, et al.,
Case No. 3:05-cv-03098-MLC-JJH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey under presiding judge, Mary
L. Cooper, with referral to Judge John J. Hughes.
Representing the plaintiffs is Patrick Louis Rocco of Shalov
Stone & Bonner, LLP, 163 Madison Avenue, P.O. Box 1277,
Morristown, NJ 07962-1277, Phone: (973) 775-8997, E-mail:
procco@lawssb.com.
Representing the defendants is Edward T. KOLE of Wilentz,
Goldman & Spitzer, Esqs., 90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
- Box 10, Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0958, Phone: (732) 636-8000, E-
mail: ekole@wilentz.com.
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Lawsuit in Texas Over Recording Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial Inc. is facing a class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas,
San Antonio Division, over allegations the company overcharged
for recording fees in Arizona, California, Colorado, Oklahoma
and Texas.
The suit seeks to recover the recording fees for the class that
was overcharged, interest and attorney's fees. The suit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas, San Antonio Division on March 24, 2006. Similar suits
are pending in Indiana, Kansas, and Missouri.
Other Class Actions
Several class actions are pending in Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Connecticut, New Hampshire and Florida alleging improper
premiums were charged for title insurance.
The cases allege that the named defendant companies failed to
provide notice of premium discounts to consumers refinancing
their mortgages, and failed to give discounts in refinancing
transactions in violation of the filed rates. The actions seek
refunds of the premiums charged and punitive damages.
A class action in California alleges that the company violated
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and state law by
giving favorable discounts or rates to builders and developers
for escrow fees and requiring purchasers to use Chicago Title
Insurance Co. for escrow services. The action seeks refunds of
the premiums charged and additional damages.
A class action in New Mexico alleges the company has engaged in
anti-competitive price fixing in New Mexico. The suit seeks an
injunction against price fixing and writs issued to the State
regulators mandating the law be interpreted to provide a
competitive market, compensatory damages, punitive damages,
statutory damages, interest and attorney's fees for the injured
class. The suit was filed in State Court in Santa Fe, New
Mexico on April 27, 2006.
Two class actions filed in Illinois allege the company has paid
attorneys to refer business to the company by paying them for
core title services in conjunction with orders when the
attorneys, in fact, did not perform any core title services and
the payments were to steer business to the company. The suits
seek compensatory damages, attorney's fees and injunctive relief
to terminate the practice. The suit was filed in State Court in
Chicago, Illinois on May 11, 2006.
None of the cases described above includes a statement as to the
dollar amount of damages demanded. Instead, each of the cases
includes a demand in an amount to be proved at trial. One Ohio
case states that the damages per class member are less than the
jurisdictional limit for removal to federal court.
Also named defendants in the suit are:
-- Chicago Title Insurance Co.,
-- Ticor Title Insurance Co.,
-- Fidelity National Title Group,
-- Chicago Title Insurance Group,
The Texas federal case is "Arevalo, et al. v. Fidelity National
Financial, et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-00265-OLG," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas under
Judge Orlando L. Garcia.
Representing plaintiff Rosa Maria Arevalo are:
(1) Phillip A. Bock at Diab & Bock, 20 N. Wacker Drive,
Suite 1741, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312)334-1970;
and
(2) Vic Feazell at The Law Offices of Vic Feazell PC, 6300
Bridgepoint Pkwy., Bridgepoint II, Suite 220, Austin,
TX 78730, Phone: (512) 372-8100, Fax: 512/372-8140.
Representing the defendants is Tricia R. DeLeon at Bracewell &
Giuliani LLP, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 3800, Dallas, TX 75202-
2711, Phone: (214) 758-1074, Fax: 214/468-3888, E-mail:
tricia.deleon@bracewellgiuliani.com.
GROUP HEALTH: Sued in Relation to Doctor Facing Sexual Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Group Health Cooperative was named a defendant in a purported
class action filed in Pierce County Superior Court in Washington
over its hiring and retaining of a doctor charged with sexually
abusing his patients.
The doctor, Jitesh Chawla, 30, currently faces 18 criminal
charges, including 10 of indecent liberties, three of fourth-
degree assault with sexual motivation, and two of second-degree
rape. On Oct. 13, 2006, the Washington State Medical Commission
suspended Dr. Chawla's license.
Filed by personal injury attorney Thaddeus Martin, the suit
accuses Group Health of negligence and ignoring reports of Dr.
Chawla's inappropriate behavior while he worked at Tacoma
Medical Center.
The suit alleges that Dr. Chawla was hired before a background
check could be conducted, and notes that such a check would have
shown the doctor's past history of problems at other medical
institutions. It also alleges that the doctor sexually harassed
and assaulted female patients and colleagues.
For more details, contact Thaddeus P. Martin, Bank of America
Building, 4002 Tacoma Mall Blvd., Suite #102, Tacoma, WA 98409,
Phone: 253-682-3420, E-mail: info@thadlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.thadlaw.com.
G & W INDUSTRIES: Recalls "Little Lass" Toddler Pants Sets
----------------------------------------------------------
G & W Industries Inc., of New York, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,800
toddler pants sets.
The company said the zipper pull on the jacket can detach,
posing a choking hazard to young children.
G & W Industries has received one report of a zipper pull
detaching into the hands of a toddler. No injuries have been
reported.
This recall involves "Little Lass" toddler pants sets sold with
a velour jacket and pants, and a tee-shirt. The sets were sold
in red and black, and have the words, "Snow Angel" printed on
the front of the jacket. Sizes included in the recall are 2T,
3T and 4T.
These recalled toddler pants sets were manufactured in the
Philippines and were sold at Meijer Stores nationwide from
October 2006 through December 2006 for about $20.
Pictures of the recalled toddler pants sets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07100a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07100b.jpg
Consumers are advised to immediately return the recalled pants
sets to the nearest Meijer Store for a full refund.
For additional information, consumers can contact G & W
Industries collect at (212) 736-4848 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.
ET Monday through Friday.
HISSOM MEMORIAL: Okla. Judge Okays New Injunction in "Homeward"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
approved a new injunction order in a protracted class action
that prompted the closing of Hissom Memorial Center, The Tulsa
World reports.
The order, which was signed by Judge Terence Kern, effectively
removes the 22-year-old case from the court's active docket.
Previously, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a
federal judge in Tulsa, Oklahoma should review the details of a
permanent injunction ordered in 2002 in the case, (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 22, 2006).
The class action was filed in 1985 by Homeward Bound Inc., a
group of parents of Hissom residents claiming that the center
had become an unsafe, inadequate environment for people with
developmental disabilities.
It named as defendants the Oklahoma Department of Human
Services, the Oklahoma Health Care Authority and the Oklahoma
Department of Rehabilitation Services.
U.S. Senior District Judge James Ellison of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma ordered in 1987 that
Hissom be closed and its residents transferred into community-
based homes.
On Feb. 1, 2005, Judge Ellison entered a permanent injunction
that ended the court's active supervision over the case. Under
it, he allowed plaintiffs to return to federal court to seek
enforcement of the permanent injunction if the defendants failed
to deliver appropriate services. An important condition for the
case to be retaken is for the plaintiffs to show that such
actions injured the class as a whole.
However, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit
sent the case back to district court, taking issue with a phrase
in the injunction.
In August 2006, court ordered the district court to evaluate any
changes in circumstances since January 2002 that might warrant
altering the permanent injunction.
If none was found, the district judge was to vacate the portion
of the injunction that required injury to the class as a whole
before any enforcement action could be taken.
Ultimately, Judge Kern -- who inherited the case from Judge
Ellison -- did not have to preside over any hearings about what
changes have occurred since January 2002.
That because a few weeks back, parties to the case filed a
document saying that "further litigation of these matters is
unnecessary" and suggesting that the court enter an amended
injunction without the "class as a whole" language.
Plaintiffs' attorney Louis Bullock and attorneys representing
state agencies in the lawsuit submitted the document Jan. 24.
Thus, the document that Judge Kern signed once again removes the
case from the court's active docket. Any future violation of
the injunction must be systemic to be actionable, it says.
With the injunction, plaintiffs would now have to demonstrate
that the defendants have failed to make available a system of
community-based services and supports for people with
developmental disabilities.
For more information, contact Louis Bullock of Miller, Keffer &
Bullock, PC, 222 South Kenosha Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120
(Osage & Tulsa Cos.), Phone: 918-743-4460, Fax: 918-743-6689.
HORIZON BLUE: "Sutter" Suit Settlement Gets N.J. Court's Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Essex County Superior Court Judge Stephen Bernstein recently
approved a settlement of a proposed class action accusing
Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of poor reimbursement practices,
The Star-Ledger reports.
The lawsuit was filed in 2002 on behalf of at least 40,000 New
Jersey doctors.
Eric Katz, the Roseland attorney who represented Clifton
pediatrician, John Sutter, said the agreement will benefit
perhaps as many as 60,000 other doctors, in addition to Sutter.
Under a settlement announced in October, Horizon BCBSNJ
committed to continue significant business practice improvements
related to physicians to increase transparency in payment of
claims, reduce administrative overhead, and improve interactions
between the health plan and physicians (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 24, 2006). These improvements will help enhance the
efficiency and quality of the health care delivery system in New
Jersey.
Legal fee under the settlement is $6.5 million, according to the
report. It represents one-sixth of the $39 million estimated
minimum value of the deal to doctors, compared with the typical
one-third fee in contingency cases.
Key settlement agreement points include:
-- Horizon BCBSNJ will make fee schedules for commonly used
procedures available to participating physicians by CD-
ROM or electronically;
-- Horizon BCBSNJ will disclose the significant automated
edits it uses to process physician claims;
-- Horizon BCBSNJ will provide 90 days notice to
participating physicians of material changes to its
contracts, policies, and procedures;
-- Participating primary care physicians will be allowed to
close their practices to new patients covered by Horizon
BCBSNJ;
-- Most fees shall not be reduced for participating
physicians, if at all, more than once a year and Horizon
BCBSNJ shall maintain standard fee schedules within
geographic regions;
-- Horizon BCBSNJ agrees not to recover for overpayments to
physicians after more than 18 months of the original
payment and to provide more notice and information
regarding any overpayments;
-- A determination of medical necessity by Horizon BCBSNJ
shall not subsequently be revoked absent evidence of
fraud, material error, or material change in the
condition of a patient prior to service;
-- Horizon will provide detailed monthly capitation reports
and a dedicated liaison to address physician inquiries
concerning capitation payments.
Other defendants named in the suit are:
-- Cigna Healthcare of New Jersey, a part of Cigna Corp.,
of Philadelphia;
-- United Healthcare of New Jersey, a unit of UnitedHealth
Group of Minneapolis; and
-- Oxford Health Plans of Trumbull, Conn.
Since then, the Cigna and United Healthcare cases have become
part of other national class actions in Florida. The case
against Oxford, whose parent company merged with UnitedHealth in
2004, is in arbitration, according to Mr. Katz.
As is the standard in such a deal, Horizon Blue, which insures
more than 3.2 million people in New Jersey, did not admit any
wrongdoing, according to company spokesman Thomas Rubino.
Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey on the Net:
http://www.bcbsnj.com/.
The suit is "John Ivan Sutter, M.D. et al. v. Horizon Blue Cross
Blue Shield of New Jersey, Case No. L-3685-02."
For more details, contact:
(1) Charles X. Gormally of WolfBlock, Phone: (973) 403-
3111, E-mail: cgormally@wolfblock.com, Web site:
http://www.wolfblock.com;and
(2) Eric D. Katz of Nagel Rice Dreifuss & Mazie, LLP, 103
Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, New Jersey 07068, Phone:
973-618-0400, Fax: 973-618-9194, Web site:
http://nrdm-law.com/.
HSN LP: Recalls Low Pressure Cookers After Burn Injury Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
HSN LP of St. Petersburg, Florida (previously Home Shopping
Network), in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling about 8,300 units of Bella Cucina Brand
"Zip Cooker" low pressure cookers.
The company said the hot food under pressure can be expelled
from the cooker causing burn injuries.
HSN has received seven reports of incidents resulting in eight
injuries involving first, second and third degree burns.
The recalled product is a Bella Cucina "Zip Cooker," model
number 03908. The name and model number are on the bottom of
the pot.
These recalled "Zip Cooker" low pressure cookers were
manufactured in Korea and are being sold at HSN's television
network, Web site and toll-free number from February 2003
through March 2004, and at HSN employee and retail outlets from
March 2003 through June 2004 for about $70.
Pictures of the recalled "Zip Cooker" low pressure cookers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07528a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07528b.jpg
Consumers are advised to stop using these products immediately.
Consumers who do not receive a direct notice should contact HSN
for instructions on how to receive a full refund.
For more information, contact HSN (800) 837-0372 anytime, or
visit http://www.hsn.com.
JDS UNIPHASE: April 5 Conference Set for OCLI Shareholders Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Sonoma Superior Court in California scheduled an April 5,
2007 case management conference for a class action filed by
plaintiffs purporting to represent the former shareholders of
The Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. (OCLI).
The suit is asserting that former directors of the company
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the events
alleged in the securities litigation against JDS Uniphase Corp.
Plaintiffs in the OCLI action, "Pang v. Dwight, No. 02-231989
(Sonoma Super. Ct.)," purport to represent a class of former
shareholders of OCLI who exchanged their OCLI shares for JDS
Uniphase shares when JDS Uniphase acquired OCLI.
The complaint names the former directors of OCLI as defendants,
asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and breach
of the duty of candor, and seeks unspecified damages. No
activity has occurred in the OCLI action since the company's
last filing.
The court has set a case management conference for April 5,
2007, according to the company's Feb. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Dec. 30, 2006.
JDS Uniphase Corp. on the Net: http://www.jdsuniphase.com/.
JDS UNIPHASE: Calif. Securities Fraud Suit Hearing Set October
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 1, 2007 hearing is scheduled for the consolidated
securities fraud class action filed against JDS Uniphase Corp.,
certain of its former and current officers and directors in the
U.S. District Court for Northern District of California.
On July 26, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California consolidated all the securities actions
then filed in or transferred to that court as, "In re JDS
Uniphase Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-02-1486
CW," and appointed the Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust
Funds as lead plaintiff.
The complaint in "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities
Litigation" purports to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of those who acquired the company's securities from
Oct. 28, 1999, through July 26, 2001, as well as on behalf of
subclasses consisting of those who acquired the company's common
stock pursuant to its acquisitions of The Optical Coating
Laboratory, Inc. (OCLI), E-TEK Dynamics, Inc., and SDL Ltd.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants made material misstatements
and omissions concerning demand for the company's products,
improperly recognized revenue, overstated the value of
inventory, and failed to timely write down goodwill.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and alleges various
violations of the federal securities laws, specifically Sections
10(b), 14(a), 20(a), and 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.
In January 2005, the court denied the motion to dismiss claims
against the company, Jozef Straus, Anthony R. Muller, and
Charles Abbe, and granted in part and denied in part the motion
to dismiss claims against Kevin Kalkhoven.
Defendants subsequently filed answers denying liability for the
claims asserted against them. On Dec. 21, 2005, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Fact discovery in the case is substantially complete. Each
party has noticed and taken depositions of both party and non-
party witnesses.
The closing date for expert discovery is March 23, 2007. The
next case management conference is scheduled for June 22, 2007,
and trial is set to begin on Oct. 1, 2007, according to the
company's Feb. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 30,
2006.
The suit is "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities Litigation, C-
02-1486," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Claudia Wilken with referral
to Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Reed R. Kathrein and Darren J. Robbins of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, Phone:
415-288-4545 and 619-231-1058, Fax: 415-288-4534 and
619-231-7423, E-mail: reedk@lerachlaw.com and
e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com; and
(2) John Frith Stewart of Segal, Stewart, Cutler, Lindsay,
Janes & Ber, 1400-B Waterfront Street, 325 West Main
Street, Louisville, KY 40202-4251, Phone: 502-568-5600.
Representing the defendants are, Philip T. Besirof and Jordan
David Eth of Morrison & Foerster, LLP, 425 Market St., San
Francisco, CA, Phone: 94105-2482, Fax: (415) 268-7000 and 415-
268-7522, E-mail: PBesirof@mofo.com and jeth@mofo.com.
JDS UNIPHASE: 2008 Trial Set for ERISA Violations Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Feb. 11, 2008 trial is scheduled for the consolidated class
action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act by JDS Uniphase Corp.
A consolidated action, "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. ERISA
Litigation, Case No. C-03-4743 WWS (MEJ)," is pending in the
District Court for the Northern District of California against
the company, certain of its former and current officers and
directors, and certain other current and former company
employees on behalf of a purported class of participants in the
401(k) Plans of the company and Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc.
and the Plans.
On Oct. 31, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The
amended complaint alleges that defendants violated the ERISA by
breaching their fiduciary duties to the Plans and the Plans'
participants.
The amended complaint alleges a purported class period from Feb.
4, 2000, to the present and seeks an unspecified amount of
damages, restitution, a constructive trust, and other equitable
remedies. Certain individual defendants' motion to dismiss
portions of the amended complaint was granted with prejudice on
June 15, 2006.
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on June 30, 2006.
Defendants answered the complaint on July 6, 2006, and the
company asserted counterclaims for breach of contract.
The court dismissed those counterclaims on Sept. 11, 2006. Both
sides have begun taking discovery. Trial is set to begin on
Feb. 11, 2008, according to the company's Feb. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Dec. 30, 2006.
The suit is "Pettit v. JDS Uniphase Corp., et al., Case No.
3:03-cv-04743-WWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge William W.
Schwarzer.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Alan R. Plutzik of Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birhaeuser,
LLP, 2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120, Walnut Creek, CA
94598, Phone: 925-945-0200, Fax: (925) 945-8792, E-
mail: aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com; and
(2) Joseph H. Meltzer of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280
King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-
7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail:
jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com.
Representing the defendants are Paul Flum and Terri Garland of
Morrison & Foerster, 425 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
Phone; 415/268-7000, Fax: 415-268-7522, E-mail:
paulflum@mofo.com and tgarland@mofo.com.
JDS UNIPHASE: March 6 Conference Set for SDL Shareholders Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Sonoma Superior Court in California scheduled a March 6,
2007 case management conference for the class action filed by
plaintiffs purporting to represent the former shareholders of
SDL Ltd. against the former directors of the company.
The suit is asserting that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the events alleged in the securities
litigation against JDS Uniphase Corp.
Plaintiffs in the SDL action, "Cook v. Scifres, Master File No.
CV814824 (Santa Clara Super. Ct.)," purport to represent a class
of former shareholders of SDL who exchanged their SDL shares for
JDS Uniphase shares when the company acquired SDL. Plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on Sept. 12, 2005.
The complaint names the former directors of SDL as defendants,
asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and breach
of the duty of disclosure, and seeks unspecified damages.
On Aug. 16, 2006, the court sustained defendants' demurrer to
the complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on Nov. 20, 2006. Defendants demurred to the amended
complaint on Jan. 8, 2007. That demurrer is to be heard on
March 6, 2007.
A case management conference is scheduled for March 6, 2007.
Limited discovery in the SDL action has occurred. No trial date
has been set in either SDL action, according to the company's
Feb. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 30,
2006.
JDS Uniphase Corp. on the Net: http://www.jdsuniphase.com/.
LONGS DRUG: No Trial Date Yet for Calif. Suit Over Hiring Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
No trial date has yet been set for "Rankin v. Longs Drug Stores
California, Inc.," which names as defendant Longs Drug Stores
Corp.
The suit was originally filed in the Superior Court of
California, San Diego County on Oct. 13, 2004. It was certified
as a class action on July 19, 2005.
The suit alleges that the company's employment application
violates California Labor Code Section 432.8 by inquiring about
criminal convictions within the last seven years, without
providing an exception for misdemeanor marijuana convictions
more than two years old.
The plaintiff sought to recover statutory damages and attorneys'
fees for him and all similarly situated individuals who applied
for employment with the company during the class period.
The court took a trial date of June 23, 2006, off calendar, with
no new trial date set, according to the company's form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Oct. 26, 2006.
Walnut Creek, California-based Longs Drug Stores Corp. on the
Net: http://www.longs.com/.
LOUISIANA: Orleans Residents Sue Army Corps for Negligence
----------------------------------------------------------
Residents of New Orleans, whose homes were destroyed by waters
from the 17th Street Canal, filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern of Louisiana against the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Bayou Buzz reports.
The lawsuit alleges numerous instances of negligence and cites
expert reports warning the Corps of the failure of the canal due
to weak soils as far back as 1974.
According to the lawsuit, that was the year that the New Orleans
Sewerage and Water Board began seeking a permit to dredge the
17th Street Canal to increase drainage in uptown New Orleans.
According to a press release from attorney Joseph Bruno, "for
close to ten years, numerous consultants and experts analyzed
the effect of dredging on the Canal."
Finally, in June, 1984 the Corps granted the dredging permit but
Corps allegedly failed to follow the advice of its own experts
and consultants who recommended driving sheet pilings deep
enough to reach sturdier soils.
The Corps is accused of negligently approving sheet pilings to
depths just two feet higher than the bottom of the canal,
allowing water to travel underneath the sheet pilings.
As a result, seepage occurred in properties on the other side of
the Canal. According to plaintiff Beth Leblanc, the New Orleans
Sewerage and Water Board confirmed it was indeed water from the
Canal in her front yard in November 2004. Leblanc's home was
destroyed when the Canal failed on Aug. 29, 2005".
According to Mr. Bruno, the actions leading up to the failure of
the 17th Street Canal stemmed from a dredging permit that the
New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board requested from the Corps
under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The governmental
immunity afforded by the Flood Protection Act of 1928 is not
applicable in this case, according to the suit.
The suit further contends that the Corps abandoned the so-called
"Barrier Plan" which would have protected metropolitan New
Orleans from deadly storm surge from Lake Pontchartrain.
Instead the Corps implemented another plan, the 'High-Level
Plan" which posed numerous known problems.
This change was made without authorization from Congress, once
again removing the Corps from the immunity afforded by the Flood
Protection Act, plaintiffs claim.
The suit is "Greer et al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Case
No. 2:07-cv-00647-SRD-JCW," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Stanwood R. Duval,
Jr., with referral to Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr.
Representing plaintiffs are:
(1) Joseph M. Bruno of Bruno & Bruno, 855 Baronne St., New
Orleans, LA 70113, Phone: (504) 525-1335, E-mail:
jbruno@brunobrunolaw.com;
(2) Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. of the Law Offices of Daniel E.
Becnel, Jr., 106 W. Seventh St., P. O. Drawer H
Reserve, LA 70084, Phone: 985-536-1186, E-mail:
dbecnel@becnellaw.com;
(3) Robert John Caluda of The Caluda & Rebennack Law Firm,
3232 Edenborn Ave., Metairie, LA 70002, Phone: 504-586-
0361, E-mail: rcaluda@rcaluda.com;
(4) John Patrick Connick of the Law Office of J. Patrick
Connick, 3900 Veterans Blvd., 3rd Floor, Metairie, LA
70002, Phone: 504-885-4391, E-mail:
pconnick@lil.nocoxmail.com;
(5) Keith Michael Couture of Keith Couture Law Firm, 1341
W. Causeway Approach, Mandeville, LA 70471, Phone: 985-
674-4428, Fax: 985-867-9540, E-mail:
keithcouture@bellsouth.net;
(6) Walter C. Dumas of Dumas & Associates Law Corporation,
1261 Government St., P. O. Box 1366, Baton Rouge, LA
70821, Phone: 225-383-4701, E-mail:
wdumas@dumaslaw.com; and
(7) Calvin Clifford Fayard, Jr. of Fayard & Honeycutt, 519
Florida Blvd., Denham Springs, LA 70726, Phone: 225-
664-4193, E-mail: calvinfayard@fayardlaw.com.
NELLCOR PURITAN: Continues to Face Calif. Consumer Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nellcor Puritan Bennett, Inc., a subsidiary of Tyco
International Ltd., remains a defendant in 12 consumer class
actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.
The suits are:
-- "Natchitoches Parish Hospital Service District v. Tyco
International, Ltd." filed in Aug. 29, 2005;
-- "Allied Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Tyco Healthcare
Group, LP, and Mallinckrodt, Inc.," filed on Aug. 29,
2005;
-- "Scott Valley Respiratory Home Care v. Tyco Healthcare
Group LP and Mallinckrodt, Inc.," filed on Oct. 27,
2005;
-- "Brooks Memorial Hospital et al. v. Tyco Healthcare
Group LP," filed on Oct. 18, 2005;
-- "All Star Oxygen Services, Inc. et al. v. Tyco
Healthcare Group, et al.," filed on Oct. 25, 2005;
-- "Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center, et al. v. Tyco
Healthcare Group LP," filed on Oct. 28, 2005;
-- "Nicholas H. Noyes Memorial Hospital v. Tyco Healthcare
and Mallinckrodt," filed on Nov. 4, 2005;
-- "North Bay Hospital, Inc. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, et
al.," filed on Nov. 15, 2005;
-- "Stephen Skoronski v. Tyco International Ltd, et al.,"
filed on Nov. 21, 2005;
-- "Abington Memorial Hospital v. Tyco Int'l. Ltd., Tyco
Int'l (U.S.) Inc.; Mallinckrodt, Inc., Tyco Healthcare
Group LP," filed on Nov. 22, 2005;
-- "South Jersey Hospital, Inc. v. Tyco International,
Ltd., et al.," filed on Jan. 24, 2006; and
-- "Deborah Heart and Lung Center v. Tyco International,
Ltd., et al.," filed on Jan. 27, 2006.
In all complaints, the putative class representatives, on behalf
of themselves and others, seek to recover overcharges they
allege they paid for pulse oximetry products as a result of
anticompetitive conduct by Nellcor in violation of the federal
antitrust laws.
In all twelve complaints the putative class representatives, on
behalf of themselves and others, seek to recover overcharges
they allege they paid for pulse oximetry products as a result of
anticompetitive conduct by Nellcor in violation of the federal
antitrust laws.
Tyco reported no development on this matter in its Feb. 6, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 29, 2006.
Tyco International Ltd. on the Net: http://www.tyco.com/.
NEW YORK COMMUNITY: ERISA Violations Suit Completely Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
dismissed remaining claims of Employee Retirement Income
Security Act violations filed against New York Community
Bancorp, Inc. by members of the New York Community Bank Employee
Savings Plan.
Filed on Nov. 9, 2004, the suit was brought on behalf of a
putative class of participants in the Savings Plan.
On Feb. 6, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part
the company's motion to dismiss. The court ruled that one of
the two putative class representatives did not have standing
under ERISA, but found that there were issues of fact concerning
the standing of the other putative class representative. After
he parties engaged in limited discovery concerning the
plaintiff's standing under ERISA, defendants renewed their
motion to dismiss.
On Oct. 25, 2006, the court entered an order dismissing the
remaining claims in this action on the ground that the
plaintiffs lack standing to pursue the claims.
The suit is "Caltagirone, v. New York Community Bancorp Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:04-cv-04872-LDW-JO," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge Leonard
D. Wexler with referral to Judge James Orenstein.
Representing the plaintiffs are Edwin J. Mills of Stull, Stull
& Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-687-
7230, Fax: 212-490-2022, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com.
Representing the company are David H. Kistenbroker, Pamela G.
Smith and Jonathan G. Rose of Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman,
Phone: (312) 902-1061 and 202-625-3500, Fax: 202-339-8258, E-
mail: jonathan.rose@kmzr.com.
NORTEL NETWORKS: Rinis Travel Appeals N.Y. Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for Rinis Travel Service Inc. Profit Sharing Trust filed
a notice of appeal against the $438.7 million settlement of a
securities fraud class action filed against Nortel Networks, the
Toronto Star reports.
The Maryland travel agency whose profit-sharing trust lost money
on 300 Nortel shares it bought late in 2000, had opposed the
deal for not specifying how much per share everyone would
receive, and for deducting too much for fees.
On Jan. 25, lawyers for Rinis filed a notice of appeal against
the terms of the settlement, including an award of $16.7 million
as attorneys' fees.
According to George Bauer of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
the New York law firm that spearheaded the class-action
settlement, chances of the appeal derailing the massive payout
entirely are remote. He says that while the appeal is heard, a
processing company will continue to review claims submitted by
some 237,642 shareholders.
The job of determining which claims are valid, and how much
everyone lost during two different time periods covered by
lawsuits, would have taken months whether or not Rinis had
appealed, he added.
Once total losses have been tallied, the various courts will be
asked to make distribution orders. With those orders in hand,
checks and Nortel shares could be distributed in a month or two,
Mr. Bauer estimated.
In 2006, Nortel reached a proposed settlement in the class
action, "In Re Nortel Networks Corp. Securities Litigation,
Consolidated Civil Action No.: 2001-CV-1855 (RMB)" in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2006).
Terms of Proposed Settlement
The settlement will provide total proceeds consisting of
approximately $438,667,428 in cash, which is already on deposit
and earning interest, to provide for benefit of the class of
314,222,875 Nortel shares.
In addition, Nortel will adopt certain corporate governance
enhancements. The settlement resolves lawsuits over whether
Nortel misled investors about its historic and future earnings
during the class period.
The settlement constitutes a full and final resolution of claims
and causes of action raised by members of the classes in the
Nortel I Actions and encompassed in the settlement.
Notice of Certification of Classes
The U.S. Action was certified in 2004 to proceed as a class
action on behalf of persons and entities, wherever located, who
bought Nortel common stock or call options on Nortel common
stock or who wrote (sold) put options on Nortel common stock
during the period Oct. 24, 2000 through Feb. 15, 2001,
inclusive, and suffered damages thereby, including, but not
limited to, those persons or entities who traded in Nortel
Securities on the New York Stock Exchange and/or the Toronto
Stock Exchange (U.S. Global Class).
A copy of the judge's order is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?193f
The suit is "In Re Nortel Networks Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:01-cv-01855-RMB-MHD," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Richard
M. Berman with referral to Judge Michael H. Dolinger.
Lead plaintiff's counsel are George A. Bauer III of Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York,
New, York 10119-0165; and Murray Gold of Koskie Minsky LLP, 20
Queen Street West, Suite 900, Toronto, Ontario M5H 3R3.
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Mo. Court Certifies Securities Suit Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ortrie Smith of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri has certified as a class action a
consolidated securities fraud suit pending against NovaStar
Financial Inc., the Yahoo! Finance bizjournals.com reports.
Since April 2004, a number of substantially similar securities
class actions against the company and three of its executive
officers were filed and consolidated into a single action in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
The consolidated complaint generally alleged that the defendants
made public statements that were misleading or failed to
disclose certain regulatory and licensing matters.
The complaint names as defendants:
-- the company;
-- Lance W. Anderson, president, and chief operating
officer;
-- Michael L. Bamburg, senior vice president and chief
investment officer;
-- Scott Hartman, chairman of the board and chief executive
officer; and
-- Rodney E. Schwatken, vice president, secretary,
treasurer, and controller.
The plaintiffs purported to bring this consolidated action on
behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock
and sellers of put options on the company's common stock during
the period Oct. 29, 2003 through April 8, 2004.
According to the complaint, NovaStar fostered an aggressive-
growth culture throughout the class period. NovaStar touted its
rapid growth in earnings, production, and its securities
portfolio and highlighted the increasing number of NovaStar-
affiliated branch offices.
In 2003, the company reported that it had doubled the number of
branch offices in operation and that its earnings had more than
doubled in 2003 to $112 million.
On Aug. 23, 2004, Judge Ortrie D. Smith issued an order
consolidating all related cases into one class action as, "In re
NovaStar Financial Securities Litigation" and appointed lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs filed their
consolidated class action complaint on Nov. 12, 2004.
On Jan. 14, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss this
action, and on May 12, 2005, the court denied such motion.
Defendants filed their answer to the consolidated complaint on
June 27, 2005.
On March 31, 2006, various discovery deadlines, expert testimony
and deposition schedules were set. Also on March 31, plaintiffs
filed a motion to certify the class.
Defense attorneys argued that attorneys for the plaintiffs
abandoned their original theory in the case to pursue another
line of attack in the lawsuit. But Judge Smith said that was a
question to be addressed during the summary judgment stage of
the lawsuit.
He had also rejected defense arguments that attorneys with the
New York law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
shouldn't be allowed to serve as co-lead counsel for the
plaintiffs because the firm has been indicted in California.
But the judge noted that the two Milberg Weiss attorneys
connected to the NovaStar lawsuit weren't involved in the
California case and have taken a leave of absence from the firm.
He noted that another New York law firm, Entwistle and Cappucci
LLP, has been appointed co-lead counsel in the NovaStar case.
The suit is "In Re: Novastar Financial Securities Litigation,
Case No. 4:04-cv-00330-ODS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri under Judge Ortrie D.
Smith.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Bruce D. Bernstein and Michael B. Eisenkraft of
Milberg, Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119,
Phone: 212-594-5300;
(2) James M. Evangelista of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP,
1230 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 2300, Atlanta, GA
30309, Phone: (404) 607-6871, Fax: (404) 876-4476, E-
mail: jevangelista@chitwoodlaw.com; and
(3) William W. Wickersham of Entwitle & Cappucci, LLP, 299
Park Avenue, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10171, Phone:
212-894-7200.
Representing the defendants are Erin Bansal and William F.
Alderman of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, 405 Howard
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-773-5700, Fax: (415)
773-5759, E-mail: walderman@orrick.com.
PANTRY INC: Plaintiffs File Second Amended Complaint in "Barton"
----------------------------------------------------------------
A second amended complaint was filed in the purported class
action, "Barton, et al. v. The Pantry, Inc.," which is pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina.
The suit asserted claims on behalf of the company's North
Carolina present and former employees for unpaid wages under
North Carolina Wage and Hour laws.
It was filed in the Superior Court for Forsyth County, State of
North Carolina in June 2004. Plaintiffs in the suit are
Constance Barton, Kimberly Clark, Wesley Clark, Tracie Hunt,
Eleanor Walters, Karen Meredith, Gilbert Breeden, LaCentia
Thompson, and Mathesia Peterson, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of classes of those similarly situated.
The suit sought an injunction against any unlawful practices,
damages, liquidated damages, costs and attorneys' fees.
On Aug. 17, 2004, the case was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. On July 18,
2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting certain
additional claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act on
behalf of present and former store employees in the southeastern
U.S. It added one additional plaintiff, Chester Charneski.
The plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand the case to the
Superior Court for Forsyth County, which is presently pending
before the federal district court.
The company filed a motion to dismiss parts of the amended
complaint on Aug. 23, 2005. On May 17, 2006, the court granted
in part and denied in part the company's motion, with the result
that the court will now determine if the case may proceed as a
class action under state law and/or a collective action under
federal law and if so, who among the company's present or former
employees will be members of the classes.
On Jan. 16, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion to file a second
amended complaint asserting on behalf of themselves and classes
of those similarly situated state law claims for alleged unpaid
wages in all eleven states in which the company does business.
The suit is "Barton, et al. v. The Pantry, Inc., Case No. 1:04-
cv-00748-NCT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina under Judge N.C. Tilley, Jr.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Robert M. Elliot and J. Griffin Morgan of Elliot Pishko
Morgan, P.A., 426 Old Salem Road, Winston-Salem, NC
27101, Phone: 336-724-2828, Fax: 336-714-4499, E-mail:
rmelliot@epmlaw.com; and
(2) Charles Joseph of Joseph & Herzfeld, LLP, 757 Third
Ave., 25th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-688-
5640.
Representing the company are Kimberly Jo Korando, Kirk Alan
Parry, Jr., Carl N. Patterson, Kerry A. Shad, Donald Hugh Tucker
of Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, POB 2611,
Raleigh NC 27602-2611, Phone: 919-821-6671, Fax: 919-821-6800,
E-mail: kkorando@smithlaw.com, aparry@smithlaw.com,
cpatterson@smithlaw.com, kshad@smithlaw.com, and
dtucker@smithlaw.com.
TYCO INT'L: Court Refuses to Reconsider Ruling in Merger Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Cook County in Illinois denied a motion to
reconsider a request by plaintiffs for summary judgment in a
purported class action relating to the merger between Tyco
International, Inc. and Mallinckrodt, Inc., filed
On March 10, 2005, plaintiff Lionel I. Brazen filed an amended
class action complaint in the Circuit Court for Cook County,
Illinois in connection with the Oct. 17, 2000 merger of the
company and Mallinckrodt Inc. Mr. Brazen purports to represent
a class of purchasers who exchanged shares of Mallinckrodt
common stock for shares of the company's common stock pursuant
to the Joint Proxy Statement and Prospectus, and the
Registration Statement in which it was included.
Plaintiff names as defendants the company and certain of its
former executives and asserts causes of action under Section 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The amended class action complaint alleges that the defendants
made statements in the Registration Statement and the Joint
Proxy Statement and Prospectus that were materially false and
misleading and failed to disclose material adverse facts
regarding the business and operations of the company.
On Apr. 21, 2005, the company moved in the Circuit Court for
Cook County, Illinois to dismiss or stay or, in the alternative,
to strike the class allegations. On July 22, 2005, the court
denied the company's motion.
Also, on July 22, 2005, the court granted the motion to dismiss
individual defendants Michael A. Ashcroft, Joshua M. Berman,
Richard S. Bodman, John F. Fort, III, Stephen W. Foss, James S.
Pasman Jr., W. Peter Slusser and Frank E. Walsh, Jr.
On Aug. 2, 2005, the company filed a motion for a finding
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308(a), which was denied on Aug.
16, 2005. On Aug. 19, 2005, the company filed an interlocutory
appeal of the Circuit Court for Cook County Illinois' July 22,
2005 memorandum and order.
On Dec. 27, 2005, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First
Judicial District, denied the company's interlocutory appeal.
On Jan. 6, 2006, the plaintiff filed a renewed motion for class
certification, which was granted. On Jan. 31, 2006, the company
filed a petition for leave to appeal the decision of the
appellate court, but that petition was denied. On Feb. 14,
2006, the company filed its answer to the complaint.
On July 5, 2006, plaintiffs filed a partial motion for summary
judgment, which was denied on Nov. 8, 2006. On Nov. 22, 2006,
plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider the denial of their
motion for summary judgment.
On Jan. 25, 2007, the court denied plaintiff's motion to
reconsider, according to the company's Feb. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Dec. 29, 2006.
Tyco International Ltd. on the Net: http://www.tyco.com/.
TYCO INT'L: Motion to Amend Complaint in ERISA Case Dropped
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated class action against Tyco
International, Inc., alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act filed a motion to withdraw their
motion to amend a complaint without prejudice.
The company and certain of its current and former employees,
officers and directors, were named as defendants in eight class
actions brought under of ERISA.
Two of the actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire and the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred the six remaining actions
to that court later on.
Thus, all eight actions are now consolidated in the District
Court in New Hampshire, falling under the Multidistrict
Litigation, "In re Tyco International, Ltd., Securities,
Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1335, Master Docket No.
1:02-md-01335-PB."
The complaints purported to bring claims on behalf of the Tyco
International (U.S.) Inc. Retirement Savings and Investment
Plans and the participants therein.
On Jan. 12, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire denied, without prejudice, the company's motion to
dismiss certain additional individual defendants from the
action.
On Jan. 20, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. On Jan. 27, 2005, the company answered the
plaintiffs' consolidated complaint.
On Jan. 28, 2005, the company and certain individual defendants
filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's Jan. 12, 2005
order, insofar as it related to the Tyco International (U.S.)
Inc. Retirement Committee. On May 25, 2005, the court denied
the motion for reconsideration.
On Jul. 11, 2005, the company and certain individual defendants
opposed plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The motion
is still pending.
On Aug. 15, 2006, the court entered an order certifying a class
"consisting of all participants in the Plans for whose
individual accounts the Plans purchased and/or held shares of
Tyco Stock Fund at any time from Aug. 12, 1998 to July 25,
2002."
On Aug. 29, 2006, Tyco filed a petition for leave to appeal the
class certification order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit.
On Nov. 13, 2006, the court denied Tyco's petition. On Nov. 28,
2006, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking an order directing them
to serve notice of the ERISA class action on potential class
members.
Tyco did not object to service of notice on potential class
members, and on Jan. 11, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion,
assented to by Tyco that proposed an agreed upon form of notice.
On Jan. 18, 2007, the court granted that motion.
On Dec. 5, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file
an amended complaint. Subsequently, on Jan. 10, 2007,
plaintiffs filed a motion to withdraw their motion to amend the
complaint without prejudice, according to the company's Feb. 6,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 29, 2006.
The consolidated suit is "In re Tyco International, Ltd.,
Securities, Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, Mdl-1335, Master
Docket No. 1:02-md-01335-PB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Hampshire under Judge Paul Barbadoro.
Representing the ERISA plaintiffs is Kenneth G. Bouchard
Bouchard & Kleinman, PA, 1 Merrill Drive, Ste. 6, Hampton, NH
03842-1968, Phone: 603 926-9333, E-mail:
kbouchard@bestnhlaw.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Elizabeth F. Edwards and Bryan A. Fratkin of
McGuireWoods, One James Center, 901 East Cary St.,
Richmond, VA 23219-4030, Phone: 804 775-4390, E-mail:
eedwards@mcguirewoods.com and
bfratkin@mcguirewoods.com;
(ii) Ann M. Galvani of Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 570
Lexington Ave, 16th Flr., New York, NY 10022, Phone:
212 446-2300, E-mail: kmasci@bsfllp.com;
(iii) Edward A. Haffer of Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green, 1000
Elm St., PO Box 3701, Manchester, NH 03105, Phone: 603-
668-0300, E-mail: ehaffer@sheehan.com; and
(iv) Mitchell Karlan of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, (NY),
200 Park Ave., 47th Floor, New York, NY 10166-0193,
Phone: 212 351-4000, E-mail: mkarlan@gibsondunn.com.
UNITED STATES: Green-Card Holders Sue Over "Name Check" Delay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Several civil rights groups filed a purported class action
against the federal government in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California over complaints of
indefinite delaying citizenship applications.
The American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants' Rights Project,
the ACLU of Northern California, the Asian Law Caucus and the
Council on American-Islamic Relations, San Francisco Bay Area
Chapter, all jointly filed the lawsuit on behalf of Green-card
holders who are still awaiting an "F.B.I. name check" to clear
them for citizenship.
Generally, the plaintiffs claim that the practice is in
violation of the Constitution as well as federal statutes and
regulations. They are hoping to speed up the processing of
their citizenship applications.
The eight plaintiffs, which include long-time California
residents, have met all the legal requirements for citizenship,
including passing their immigration interview and clearing
criminal record checks.
Before being granted citizenship though federal authorities told
them that they would have to clear a post-Sept. 11 procedure
known as the "name check."
Under U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services regulations,
citizenship applicants are entitled to hear back about their
applications within 120 days of their interviews. However,
according to the suit, all of the plaintiffs had waited more
than two years.
Cecillia D. Wang, senior staff attorney ACLU's Immigrant's
Rights Project contends that their clients deserve to "get out
of the limbo that the government agencies have created."
The ACLU and the other groups hope to have the case certified as
a class action, which list eight plaintiffs, who are:
-- Yinan Zhang,
-- Alia Ahmedi,
-- Shong Fu,
-- Abdul Ghafoor,
-- Miao Ling Huang,
-- Sana Jalili,
-- Yan Wang, and
-- Yan Yin.
Defendants in the suit include:
-- Alberto R. Gonzales, the attorney general;
-- Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security chief;
-- Robert S. Mueller III, Federal Bureau of Investigation
director;
-- Emilio T. Gonzalez, director of the U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services; and
-- David Still, USCIS district director.
Commenting on the case, Sin Yen Ling, a staff attorney with the
Asian Law Caucus, says "This lawsuit deals with the government's
recent attempts to evade the law: moving the unreasonable delay
earlier to skirt the letter of law while still violating
people's due process rights."
The attorney adds, "Our lawsuit specifically addresses the issue
by arguing for a time limit within which the government must
complete the 'name check,' regardless of the stage at which the
check is conducted."
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?19ab
The suit is "Zhang v. Gonzales, Case No. 07-CV-0503-JL," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Cecillia D. Wang American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project, 39 Drumm Street,
San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 343-0775, Fax:
(415) 395-0950, E-mail: CWang@aclu.org; and
(2) Sin Yen Ling of Asian Law Caucus, 939 Market Street,
Suite 201, San Francisco, CA 94103, Phone: (415) 896-
1701, Fax: (415) 896-1702; and
(3) Todd Gallinger, Council On American-Islamic Relations
(CAIR) - San Francisco Bay Area, 3000 Scott Boulevard,
Suite 212, Santa Clara, CA 95054, Phone: (408) 986-
9874, Fax: (408) 986-9875.
VAXGEN INC: Calif. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on a motion seeking to dismiss the amended
complaint in the consolidated securities class action against
VaxGen, Inc.
On March 17, 2003, the suit "Janice Whitkens v. VaxGen, Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. C03-1129 JSW," was filed against the
company for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On March 17, 2003, a civil complaint for violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
entitled, "Janice Whitkens v. VaxGen, Inc., et al., Civil Action
No. C03-1129 JSW."
Named, as defendants are VaxGen, Inc., chief executive officer
Lance K. Gordon and former president Donald P. Francis.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased
the company's securities between Aug. 6, 2002 and Feb. 26, 2003,
and alleges that the defendants misled investors about the
progress of certain clinical trials and the company's future
manufacturing and marketing plans.
Following the filing of the Whitkens complaint, several
additional class action complaints were filed in the same court,
each making identical or similar allegations against the same
defendants.
On April 16, 2004, Theodore Williams was appointed lead
plaintiff and an amended consolidated complaint was filed on May
14, 2004.
The matter is captioned, "In re VaxGen Securities Litigation,
Civil Action No. C-03-1129-JSW," and is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.
On June 28, 2004 defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
amended consolidated complaint.
The company reported no development in the case at its Feb. 7,
2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2004.
The suit is "In re VaxGen Securities Litigation, Civil Action
No. C-03-1129-JSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Jeffrey S. White.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900,
San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-
7423, E-mail: e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com;
(2) Stuart L. Berman of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King
of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610/667-7706,
E-mail: sberman@sbclasslaw.com; and
(3) Robert S. Green of Green Welling, LLP, 595 Market
Street, Suite 2750, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone:
415/477-6700, Fax: 415-477-6710, E-mail:
RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM.
Representing the defendants is William S. Freeman and William S.
Freeman of Cooley Godward, LLP, Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El
Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 9406-2155, Phone: 650 843-5000, Fax:
650 857-0663, E-mail: freemanws@cooley.com and
freemanws@cooley.com.
WELLMAN INC: Settlement of Antitrust Lawsuits Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
A settlement of several antitrust violations suits filed against
Wellman Inc. by indirect buyers of polyester staple fiber
products is under appeal, according to the company's form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.
In January 2001, the company received a document subpoena in
connection with a federal grand jury investigation of pricing
practices in the polyester staple fiber industry. The company
cooperated with the investigation by producing documents in
response to this subpoena. In September 2004, the Department of
Justice informed the company that it abandoned the investigation
and would not seek indictments against Wellman or any of its
employees in connection with this investigation.
Following the public disclosure of the investigation, numerous
producers of polyester staple fiber, including Wellman, were
named in 24 federal actions brought by direct purchasers of
polyester staple fiber asserting claims of violations of U.S.
antitrust laws due to alleged price fixing and market allocation
in the polyester staple industry. Ten of these cases were
brought as class actions. Direct and indirect purchasers also
brought a class action against Wellman and certain other
companies in Canada under Canadian law. All of these cases have
been settled.
Indirect Purchasers Lawsuit
In addition to the cases discussed above, indirect purchasers of
polyester staple fiber products filed 41 purported class actions
alleging violations of federal antitrust laws, state antirust or
unfair competition laws and certain state consumer protection
acts in one federal court and various state courts. Each
lawsuit alleged a conspiracy to fix prices of polyester staple
fiber products.
In addition, certain of the actions claim restitution,
injunction against alleged illegal conduct and other equitable
relief. These cases were filed in Arizona, California, the
District of Columbia, Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan,
New Mexico, North Carolina South Dakota, Tennessee, West
Virginia and Wisconsin and sought damages of unspecified
amounts, attorneys' fees and costs and other, unspecified
relief.
All of these cases except the one pending in California have
been settled, and the court has approved the settlements;
however, that approval has been appealed. In California, the
parties have entered into a settlement agreement, but no hearing
has been held to determine whether the court will approve it,
the company said in the regulatory filing.
WURLD MEDIA: Seeks Dismissal of Labor Violations Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wurld Media, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a purported class
action filed by four former employees of the company in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York, The Record
reports.
In a motion filed in January by Wurld Media, Chief Executive
Officer Gregory Kerber argues that the court does not have
jurisdiction over the claims because the employees signed an
agreement in 2005 that all legal disputes with the company would
be resolved through "final and binding arbitration."
The agreement reads "This agreement is important because it
confirms and creates certain obligations which are binding on
the employee, and provides a mechanism for resolving legal
disputes between the company and the employee; it should be read
completely and carefully before being signed."
In response to the defense's motion to dismiss the case,
plaintiffs requested a stay to move the matter into arbitration
with the Alternative Dispute Resolution program of the U.S.
District Court.
The affidavit of plaintiff Julie Vittengl, of South Glens Falls,
says that although she and the others signed the agreement,
"none recalled signing the agreement or its terms."
Filed on Dec. 18, 2006, the suit is claiming the company owes
the employees wages since last March. It also claims the
company kept money from the employees' paychecks that was for a
401(k) plan (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 26, 2006).
Named as plaintiffs in the suit are:
-- Benjamin deGonzague,
-- Julie Vittengl,
-- Sarah Kays, and
-- Thomas Borst.
Plaintiffs stated in their suit that they did not know how many
other workers were also owed payment. They do seek unspecified
relief.
Wurld Media operates a peer-to-peer music file-sharing network
that allows downloading music and videos on the Internet.
The suit is "Vittengl et al. v. Wurld Media, Inc., Case No.
1:06-cv-01513-DNH-DRH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York under Judge David N. Hurd with
referral to Judge David R. Homer.
Representing the plaintiffs is James T. Towne, Jr. of The Towne
Law Offices, PC, 7 Wembley Court, Albany, NY 12205, Phone: 518-
452-1800, Fax: 518-452-6435, E-mail: james.towne@townelaw.com.
* Lerach Coughlin Launches New Securities Claims-Filing Service
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP is rolling out
a securities claims-filing service for institutional investors.
The claims-filing service will complement Lerach Coughlin's
proprietary Portfolio Monitoring Program(SM), a fraud detection
system available to U.S. and international investors.
Statement by Lerach Coughlin
"For all the attention and effort pension fund trustees put into
recovering lost assets for retirees, the claims-filing process
is one of the most important and least understood steps. It is
great comfort to me as a trustee to hear that Lerach Coughlin is
now devoting its unequaled expertise to assisting funds with
this claims-filing process," said John Chobor, Chairman of the
Board of Trustees for the 1199 Greater New York Pension Fund.
"Lerach Coughlin is the proven leader in investor protection and
the law firm of choice for the largest pension funds and
institutional investors in the world. We now offer our
institutional clients a new claims-filing service to maximize
their recoveries in securities fraud settlements," said William
S. Lerach, of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP.
Hundreds of pension funds and investment advisors in Asia,
Europe and the Americas utilize the Portfolio Monitoring
Program(SM) to ensure a comprehensive analysis of potential
recoveries from securities class actions.
Lerach Coughlin's portfolio monitoring professionals are backed
by the country's best securities trial lawyers, forensic
accountants and other professionals. The hundreds of
institutional investors which currently utilize the Portfolio
Monitoring Program (SM) do so free of charge.
Because the securities class actions claims process can be both
confusing and cumbersome, Lerach Coughlin's claims-filing
service allows institutional investors to file accurate and
timely claims, utilizing Lerach Coughlin's expertise and more
than 35 years of working experience with claims administrators.
The firm's claims-filing service allows institutional investors
to increase recovery amounts and minimize rejected claims
through a combination of accuracy and advocacy that comes with
the experience of handling the largest and most important class
actions.
For more information, contact Lerach Coughlin, Michelle
Ciccarelli and William Doyle all of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins LLP, Phone: 619-231-1058, Website:
http://www.lerachlaw.com
New Securities Fraud Cases
ALVARION LTD: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven commenced a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
Alvarion Ltd. and one or more of its officers and/or directors
on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired
the common stock of Alvarion between Nov. 3, 2004 and May 12,
2006, inclusive.
The complaint charges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period,
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the company's securities.
Interested parties may move the court no later than April 9,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact Charles J. Piven, of Brower Piven,
The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite
2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@browerpiven.com.
CYBERONICS INC: Goldman Scarlato Announces Stock Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., announced that a lawsuit has
been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas against Cyberonics and certain officers and directors,
on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Cyberonics, Inc. between Feb. 5,
2004 and Aug. 1, 2006, inclusive.
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants failed to
disclose and misrepresented material information known to
Defendants regarding FDA review and approval of a new use for
the company's Vagus Nerve Stimulation ("VNS") device to treat
depression, the marketability of the VNS device and medical
insurance payers' coverage decisions for the device.
The complaint also alleges improper conduct related to the award
of stock option grants to certain Cyberonics officers.
Interested parties may move the court no later than Feb. 16,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact Brian Penny, Esq., of The Law Firm
of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-668-4130, E-mail:
info@gsk-law.com.
HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Gardy & Notis Files La. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gardy & Notis, LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, on behalf of an
institutional investor who purchased, exchanged or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc.
(NYSE:HOS) between Nov. 1, 2006 and 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 a range of between $39.0 million and $41.0
million and earnings per share to a range of between $0.69 and
$0.74.
On Nov. 6, 2006, the company announced an offering of $200.00
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.
On Jan. 10, 2007, the company shocked the market by announcing
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 of 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.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Hornbeck securities during the
Class Period.
Interested parties may move the court no later than March 19,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact Dustin Mansoor of Gardy & Notis,
Phone: (201) 567-7377, E-mail: dmansoor@gardylaw.com.
LG. PHILIPS: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. commenced a
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, against LG. Philips LCD Co., Ltd.
and certain key officers and directors, on behalf of
shareholders who acquired LG. Philips securities between July
16, 2004 and Dec. 11, 2006, inclusive.
The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the company's securities.
For more information, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esquire, 261
Old York Road, P.O. Box 706, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046,
Phone: (215) 886-1900, E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net.
LG. PHILIPS: Pittsburgh Law Firm Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC has commenced a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.
publicly traded securities during the period between July 16,
2004 and Dec. 11, 2006.
The complaint charges LG.Philips and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
It alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
positive statements concerning the company's LCD business while,
unbeknownst to investors, defendants were using artificial
antitrust mechanisms, including price fixing, to support the
company's already inflated margins.
However, by late spring 2006, as the company's executives became
aware of fines and jail sentences imposed for price fixing in
the industry, they began ceasing their price-fixing behavior and
rumors about the reasons for the sudden "weak pricing" in the
LCD marketplace circulated throughout the markets.
Without artificial anticompetitive mechanisms in place, the
company's profits began to fall and its share price declined
from $22 to $15.
According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
concealed the following material adverse facts from the
investing public:
(a) from on or about June 2004 until on or about June 2006,
LG.Philips and its co-conspirators entered into and
engaged in a combination and conspiracy in the United
States and elsewhere to suppress and eliminate
competition by fixing the prices of LCD panel products
to be sold to resellers and consumers; and
(b) as a result, the company's shares traded at inflated
prices, enabling the company to consummate its initial
public offering raising $1 billion, its secondary
offering raising $1.4 billion, and obtain an additional
$500 million in other securities offerings on terms
otherwise unobtainable but for defendants' conduct,
including the use of defective prospectuses for each
such offering.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of LG.Philips publicly traded securities during the Class
Period.
Interested parties may move the court no later than April 9,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq., of the
Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC, Pittsburgh, Phone: 800-
391-5164 toll free or 412-391-5164, Fax: 412-471-1033, E-mail:
yateslaw@aol.com.
POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Brower Piven Files Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven commenced a securities class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Southern Division, against Powerwave Technologies,
Inc. and one or more of its officers and/or directors, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Powerwave between May 2, 2005 and Oct. 9, 2006,
inclusive.
The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the company's securities.
Interested parties may move the court no later than April 2,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact David Brower and Charles Piven,
both of Brower Piven, The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East
Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Phone:
410/986-0036, E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com.
POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Yourman Alexander Announces Stock Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yourman Alexander & Parekh LLP, announced that lawsuits seeking
class action status have been filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Southern Division on
behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: PWAV) during
the period May 2, 2005 through Oct. 9, 2006, inclusive.
The lawsuits allege, in part, that the company and certain of
its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing statements, concerning the company's financial
performance and future prospects, that were materially false and
misleading when made.
It is further alleged that Powerwave materially misrepresented
and failed to disclose various conditions that adversely
affected the company which allowed Powerwave to:
(1) deceive shareholders concerning its business,
operations, and management;
(2) artificially inflate the price of Powerwave shares;
(3) register for sale with the SEC millions of shares of
stock that were sold to the public or used to acquire
assets of unwitting companies; and
(4) make it possible for company insiders to sell millions
of dollars of their privately held shares while in
possession of material adverse information unavailable
to the public.
On Oct. 9, 2006, Powerwave announced that its 2006 third quarter
results would be $155 million, which was significantly lower
than the $230-$250 million previously forecasted.
As a result, shares of Powerwave declined almost 20% in a single
trading day, marking a decline of almost $10 per share from the
Class Period high, following this announcement.
Interested parties may move the court no later than April 2,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact Vahn Alexander or Behram Parekh of
Yourman Alexander & Parekh LLP, 3601 Aviation Blvd., Suite 3000,
Manhattan Beach, California 90266, Phone: (800) 725-6020 toll-
free, E-mail: parekhb@yaplaw.com, Website:
http://www.yaplaw.com.
QUANTA CAPITAL: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Federman & Sherwood announced that a class action
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against Quanta Capital Holdings, Ltd.
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b- 5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Quanta
Capital Holdings, Ltd. (QNTA) or preferred shares (QNTA.P)
between Dec. 14, 2005 and March 2, 2006.
Interested parties may move the Court no later than April 6,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK
73120, Email: wfederman@aol.com, Website:
http://www.federmanlaw.com
SECURE COMPUTING: Yourman Alexander Announces Stock Suits Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yourman Alexander & Parekh LLP announced that lawsuits seeking
class action status have been filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities
of Secure Computing Corp. (NASDAQ: SCUR) during the period May
4, 2006 through July 11, 2006, inclusive.
The lawsuits allege, in part, that the company and certain of
its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing statements that were materially false and misleading
when made, which had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price.
On May 4, 2006, the company announced that it expected its
second quarter 2006 revenues to be between $43 million and $45
million, with earnings per share between $0.10 and $0.12, and
touted the progress of the integration of the company's newly
acquired entity.
However, on July 11, 2006, the company announced that it
expected to miss its previously announced revenue and earnings
guidance, anticipating revenue for the second quarter 2006 in
the range of $38.5 to $39 million, with earnings per share
between $0.05 and $0.06, and would report a loss for second
quarter 2006.
It is also alleged that the company admitted that the delay in
integration of the company's newly acquired entity contributed
to the loss in revenue. Shares of Secure Computing declined on
this news, falling from $8.07 per share to $4.99 per share, a
one-day decline of 38%.
Interested parties may move the court no later than March 20,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact Vahn Alexander or Behram Parekh of
Yourman Alexander & Parekh LLP, 3601 Aviation Blvd., Suite 3000,
Manhattan Beach, California 90266, Phone: (800) 725-6020 toll-
free, E-mail: parekhb@yaplaw.com, Website:
http://www.yaplaw.com.
SUNRISE SENIOR: Yourman Alexander Announces Filing of Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yourman Alexander & Parekh announced that lawsuits seeking
class-action status have been filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Sunrise Senior
Living, Inc. (NYSE: SRZ) during the period Aug. 4, 2005 through
June 15, 2006, and also those who owned Sunrise Senior Living
common stock from 2000 through 2006 at the time Sunrise Senior
Livings 2000-2006 Proxy Statements were circulated to
shareholders to solicit their votes on various matters.
The lawsuits allege, in part, that the company and certain of
its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing statements, concerning the company's stock option plans
and compensation practices, that were materially false and
misleading when made.
It is further alleged that Sunrise Senior Living's common stock
traded at artificially inflated prices as a result of these
misrepresentations, and that certain individual defendants sold
their shares for proceeds of over $34 million by manipulating
the company's stock option plans by "backdating" the stock
options they were granted.
On May 9, 2006, the company disclosed a delay in reporting its
first quarter 2006 results.
Moreover, on July 31, 2006, the company:
(i) announced it would restate its financials going back at
least to 1999;
(ii) admitted that it could not file current period
financial statements for the first, second, and third
quarters of 2006, and
(iii) that at least $100 million of previously reported
profits would be eliminated when it restated its
financial results.
Interested parties may move the court no later than March 19,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact Vahn Alexander or Behram Parekh of
Yourman Alexander & Parekh LLP, 3601 Aviation Blvd., Suite 3000,
Manhattan Beach, California 90266, Phone: (800) 725-6020 toll-
free, E-mail: parekhb@yaplaw.com, Website:
http://www.yaplaw.com.
*********
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, Ma. Cristina Canson, Janice Mendoza,
and Guada Fe Fernandez, 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 * * *