/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070213.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 13, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 31 Headlines ACE CASH: Tex. Shareholder Suit Settlement Hearing Set Mar. 29 ACXIOM CORP: No Appeal Made on Ark. Suit Over Security Breaches APPLERA CORP: Still Faces Conn. Securities Fraud Litigation ASHLAND INC: Faces Ohio Antitrust Suit by Foundry Owners ASHLAND INC: Faces MTBE Products Liability Litigation in N.Y. ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI: Extends Holocaust Suit Claims Deadline BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Ciprofloxacin Antitrust Suits BROOKS AUTOMATION: Mass. Court Grants Motion for Consolidation BROOKS AUTOMATION: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Del. CAPSTONE TURBINE: Awaits Final Approval of IPO Suit Settlement CAREMARK INC: "Dolan" ERISA Breach Suit Voluntarily Dismissed CENDANT CORP: N.J. Court Okays $22M ABI Stock Suits Settlement CHICO'S FAS: Settlement of "Schaffer" Labor Suit Now Complete CITGO PETROLEUM: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Litigation in Tex. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Settles "Fielder" Consumer Suit for $12.5M EGL INC: Continues to Face Suit by Pickup and Delivery Drivers ENRON CORP: Banks Appeal Class Certification of Investors' Suit EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Amended Securities Fraud Suit in N.J. FAIR ISAAC: Continues to Face CROA Violations Lawsuit in Ga. FAIR ISAAC: Continues to Face CROA Violations Suit in Calif. GRAND PRIX: Formula 1 Fans Suit in Quebec Allowed to Go Ahead HAWAII: Supreme Court Clears Homeland Beneficiaries' Lawsuit HOMEDICS INC: Recalls Heating Pads Posing Burn Injuries Hazard HO'S TRADING: Recalls Dried Lily Bulbs Over Undeclared Sulfites INDIAN TRUST: Discussions on Settlement of "Cobell" to Continue MICROSOFT CORP: N.J. Schools Benefit from Antitrust Settlement MOLEX INC: Discovery Still Ongoing in Ill. Securities Fraud Suit PEANUT PROCESSORS: Recalls Peanut Paste Containing Metal Grains POST APARTMENT: Ga. High Court Blocks Stock Suit Deal Challenge RADNET INC: Still Faces DVI Securities Fraud Litigation in Pa. RJ REYNOLDS: Appeals Court Cuts Damage Estimate in "Scott" Suit TJX COS: Faces New Suit in Mass. Over Client Information Leak TYSON FOODS: Workers File Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Ia. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Price-Fixing Suit Dismissal Challenged VAXGEN INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation VERITAS SOFTWARE: Del. Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Suit VISA: Merchant Claims Still Accepted in Antitrust Suit Deal New Securities Fraud Cases GLOBALSTAR INC: KGS Announces N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit Filing LG. PHILIPS: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. LG. PHILIPS: Brualdi Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. LG. PHILIPS: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. NUVELO INC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Howard Smith Files Calif. Stock Lawsuit POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin Files Calif. Securities Suit POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholders File Calif. Securities Suit QUANTA CAPITAL: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. SUNRISE SENIOR: Entwistle & Cappucci Files D.C. Securities Suit ********* ACE CASH: Tex. Shareholder Suit Settlement Hearing Set Mar. 29 -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, will hold on March 29, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. a fairness hearing in the proposed settlement of the class action "The Joel & Zehava Rosenfeld Family Foundation Trust v. Ace Cash Express Inc et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-01100." The class consists of all public stockholders who held the common stock of Ace Cash Express, Inc. (formerly traded over NASDAQ under the symbol: AACE) from June 7, 2006 to Oct. 5, 2006, inclusive. The terms of the settlement are subject to final court approval and the dismissal of the action with prejudice and without cost, except as otherwise provided. Under the terms of the settlement, the parties agreed, in part, as follows: (a) Plaintiff's counsel proposed certain changes to the disclosures contained in ACE's definitive proxy statement and schedule 13E-3 statement. After negotiations with counsel for plaintiff, the company made certain of those proposed changes in the proxy statement filed August 29, 2006 (as amended), and mailed on August 30, 2006, to all shareholders of record as of August 28, 2006. (b) Plaintiff's counsel will seek reimbursement for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. Defendants will not oppose an application for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses not exceeding the amount of $295,000. Subject to Court approval of such application, and on behalf of the Defendants, ACE agrees to pay $115,000, and cause their insurers to pay $180,000, for the attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by Plaintiff's counsel within 10 business days of the issuance of the Order approving the Settlement, notwithstanding any timely objections. If the Order approving the Settlement is reversed on appeal, Plaintiff's counsel (or their successors) shall refund this payment to the Defendants. (c) ACE shall be responsible for, and shall pay, up to $7,000 for costs and expenses incident to provision of notice to the company's shareholders as the court determines is appropriate and necessary, if any. Subject to court approval, notice will consist of: (1) a mutually agreeable and Court-approved press release issued over "Business Wire;" (2) an announcement posted on ACE's website; and (3) notification mailed to shareholders describing the non-monetary settlement arising from the adoption of certain recommended disclosures. In the event that the court requires additional notice that would require ACE to incur more than the $7,000 limit noted above, and the defendants are unwilling to pay for such additional notice, then either party has the right to terminate this agreement. (d) For purposes of settlement of the action only, the parties have petitioned the Court for provisional certification of a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), consisting of all holders of ACE common shares between June 7, 2006 and October 5, 2006, inclusive (except defendants and any person, firm, trust, corporation or other entity related to or affiliated with any of the defendants), and their successors in interest. (e) The settlement is subject to final court approval and will not be binding upon any party until final court approval, permanent certification of the class, and the dismissal of the action with prejudice. Deadline to file for objection is March 15, 2007. Case Background In 2006, ACE Cash Express, Inc. was named defendant in a purported shareholder class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in relation to a June 6 merger agreement with Ace Holdings I, LLC (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 4, 2006). The company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Ace Holdings, a Delaware limited liability company formed by JLL Partners Fund V, L.P., and Ranger Merger Sub, Inc., a Texas corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ace Holdings (Merger Sub), pursuant to which Merger Sub will be merged with and into the company. The company will continue as the surviving corporation and be a wholly owned subsidiary of Ace Holdings. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, at the effective time of the merger, each outstanding share of the company's common stock will be converted into the right to receive $30.00 in cash. On June 21, The Joel & Zehava Rosenfeld Family Foundation Trust filed a purported class action on behalf of itself and all of the company's other public shareholders against: -- the company, -- Ace Holdings I, LLC, -- Mr. Shipowitz, -- Robert P. Allyn, -- J. M. Haggar, III, -- Marshall B. Payne, -- Michael S. Rawlings, -- Charles Daniel Yost, -- Raymond C. Hemmig, and -- Edward W. Rose III Plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, honesty and fair dealing to the shareholders because the consideration payable to the shareholders under the merger is at an unfair price and is a result of unfair dealing. In its complaint, the plaintiff requested that the court certify the class. In addition, the plaintiff sought: -- to enjoin the company, Ace Holdings and the directors from proceeding with or consummating the merger; -- to invalidate and set aside the $15 million break-up fee; -- to rescind, set aside or award rescissory and/or compensatory damages to the class if the merger is consummated; -- punitive damages; -- costs and disbursements of the class action and reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees; and -- other relief as the court deems just and proper. A copy of the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?19c2 The suit is "The Joel & Zehava Rosenfeld Family Foundation Trust v. Ace Cash Express Inc et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-01100," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge A. Joe Fish. Representing the plaintiff are Roger L. Mandel and Martin Woodward of Stanley Mandel & Iola, 3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750, Dallas, TX 75205, Phone: 214/443-4302 and 214/443-4304, E- mail: rmandel@smi-law.com and mwoodward@smi-law.com. Representing the defendants is Paul R. Bessette of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld - Austin, 300 W Sixth St., Suite 2100, Austin, TX 78701, Phone: 512/499-6250, Fax: 512/499-6290, E- mail: pbessette@akingump.com. ACXIOM CORP: No Appeal Made on Ark. Suit Over Security Breaches --------------------------------------------------------------- No timely appeal was made on a decision by Judge William R. Wilson, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas to dismiss a purported class action against Acxiom Corp. over incidents that resulted in the loss of personal information of several people. According to the judge's dismissal ruling, even though a spammer had downloaded more than one billion records from the company, there was no evidence that Acxiom's purloined database had been used to send junk e-mail or postal mail. The case, "April Bell v. Acxiom Corp.," is a putative class action filed on April 17, 2006. It alleged that Acxiom had a duty to notify consumers of the security breach incidents that occurred in 2003. Among other things, the complaint sought an order requiring Acxiom to notify all class members in writing of the times their private information was breached, how it was breached, by whom, and what action Acxiom had taken to prevent further breaches of security. Plaintiff also sought an order requiring Acxiom to remove the class members' private information from its computer systems and enjoining Acxiom from obtaining such private information from the class in the future. The complaint also sought compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. On Oct. 3, 2006, the court granted Acxiom's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, holding that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the case. No timely appeal was taken, 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. 31, 2006. The suit is "April Bell v. Acxiom Corp., Case No. 4:06-cv-00485- WRW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas under Judge William R. Wilson, Jr. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) John G. Emerson and Scott E. Poynter of Emerson Poynter, LLP, Phone: 501-907-2555, Fax: 501-907-2556, E-mail: john@emersonpoynter.com and Scott@emersonpoynter.com; and (2) George L. McWilliams, Sean Fletcher Rommel, James Clark Wyly and Jack Thomas Patterson, II of Patton Roberts McWilliams & Capshaw, Phone: (903) 334-7000 and 501- 372-3480, E-mail: jpatterson@pattonroberts.com, srommel@pattonroberts.com and jwyly@pattonroberts.com. Representing the defendant is Amy Lee Stewart of Rose Law Firm, 120 East Fourth Street, Little Rock, AR 72201-2893, Phone: 501- 375-9131, E-mail: astewart@roselawfirm.com. APPLERA CORP: Still Faces Conn. Securities Fraud Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- Applera Corp. and some of its officers continue to face a securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, 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. 31, 2006. The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of Applera-Celera Genomics stock in the company's follow-on public offering of Applera-Celera Genomics stock completed on Feb. 6, 2000. In the offering, the company sold an aggregate of approximately 4.4 million shares of Applera-Celera Genomics stock at a public offering price of $225 per share. The suit was commenced with the filing of several complaints in April and May 2000. An amended consolidated complaint was filed on Aug. 21, 2001. The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the prospectus used in connection with the offering was inaccurate or misleading because it failed to adequately disclose the alleged opposition of the Human Genome Project and two of its supporters, the governments of the U.S. and the U.K., to provide patent protection to the company's genomic-based products. Although the Celera Genomics group has never sought, or intended to seek, a patent on the basic human genome sequence data, the complaint also alleges that the company did not adequately disclose the risk that the Celera Genomics group would not be able to patent this data. The consolidated complaint seeks monetary damages, rescission, costs and expenses, and other relief as the court deems proper. On March 31, 2005, the court certified the case as a class action. ASHLAND INC: Faces Ohio Antitrust Suit by Foundry Owners -------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc. is defendant in "In Re: Foundry Resins Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:04-md-01638-GLF-MRA" pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio. In response to an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice that was closed in 2006 without criminal or civil allegations being made by the government, several foundry owners have filed lawsuits seeking class-action status for classes of customers of foundry resins manufacturers such as Ashland. These cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio. The suit was filed before Judge Gregory L. Frost with referral to Mark R. Abel. Plaintiffs in the suit include: Tri-Cast Ltd. Partnership, Atchison Casting Corp., Amite Foundry & Machine Inc., Lancaster Foundry Supply Co., Port Shell Molding Co., Kore Mart, Ltd., Kulp Foundry Inc., State Line Foundries Inc., Tri-Cast Limited Partnership, and Caterpillar Inc. Defendants include: * Ashland Inc., * Delta Ha Inc., * Huttenes Albertus Chemische Werke Gmbh, * Borden Chemical Inc., * Ashland Specialty Chemical Co., * HA International LLC Representing the plaintiffs is Stephen Eric Chappelear at Hahn Loeser & Parks - 2, 65 E State Street, 14th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215-4224, Phone: 614-221-0240, Fax: 614-233-5148, E-mail: sechappelear@hahnlaw.com. Representing Ashland is Michael Karl Yarbrough at Frost Brown Todd LLC, One Columbus, 10 W Broad Street, Suite 1000 Columbus, OH 43215-3467, Phone: 614-464-1211, Fax: 614-559-7245, E-mail: myarbrough@fbtlaw.com. ASHLAND INC: Faces MTBE Products Liability Litigation in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc., along with many other companies, is a defendant in approximately 30 cases alleging methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) contamination in groundwater. All of these cases have been consolidated in a multi-district litigation in the Southern District of New York for preliminary proceedings. The plaintiffs generally are water providers or governmental authorities and they allege that refiners, manufacturers and sellers of gasoline containing MTBE are liable for manufacturing a defective product and that owners and operators of retail gasoline sites have allowed MTBE to be discharged into the groundwater. Ashland's potential liability relates to gasoline containing MTBE allegedly produced and sold by Ashland, or one or more of its subsidiaries, in the period prior to the formation of the Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC. Ashland only distributed MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE in a limited number of states and has been dismissed in a number of cases in which it was established that Ashland did not market MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE in the state or region at issue. Many MTBE cases allege class-action status and seek punitive damages or treble damages under a variety of statutes and theories. The suit is "In Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 1:00-cv-01898-SAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Representing Ashland is Steven L. Leifer at Baker Botts LLP (DC) 1299 Pennsylvania Ave N.W., Washington, DC 20004, Phone: (202) 639-7723. ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI: Extends Holocaust Suit Claims Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Assicurazioni Generali S.p.a. has agreed to extend claims filing deadline in the settlement of the class action "In re: Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A. Holocaust Insurance Litigation, No 1374." The original deadline was March 31. It was extended by as much as 18 months to allow heirs of Holocaust victims to try to find new documentation on unpaid life insurance policies at a sealed Nazi archive in Bad Arolsen, Germany, the International Herald Tribune reports. If the archives open in the first two-thirds of that period, survivors will have six months to file claims. Claims filing will ultimately end by Aug. 31, 2008. The issue of the archives was raised at a fairness hearing in U.S. District Court in New York on Jan. 31 by Samuel Dubbin, a lawyer in Miami who represents heirs of Holocaust victims and who is against the settlement. Summary of the Litigation The class action alleges, among other things, that: (a) Generali (and its related companies) withheld the value and/or proceeds of insurance policies sold to the Holocaust era victims prior to and during the Holocaust era; and (b) after the Holocaust, Generali refused to pay on the policies, did not disclose the nature and scope of its unpaid policies, and refused to identify or disgorge the value or proceeds of such policies. The Court decided that everyone who fits the following description is a Class member: All persons worldwide who: (1) were: -- Holocaust Victims as defined, infra; and -- during the Class Period were: * named in or were parties to any Insurance Policies as defined infra, including, but not limited to, the insureds, beneficiaries and owners under such Insurance Policies; or * persons who succeeded to their rights by operation of law or otherwise, including but not limited to heirs, distributees, legatees, and the like; or (2) persons claiming by, through, or in the right of any one or more of the foregoing persons (including but not limited to heirs, distributees, legatees, and the like), whether or not such claimants in this clause (2) are Holocaust Victims; provided however that "Generali Settlement Class" and "Releasors" shall not include persons: * who timely elect to be excluded from the "Generali Settlement Class"; or * who for any reason previously released any one or more of the Generali Group from liability in respect to the claims being compromised (whether such previous release was provided in connection with receiving compensation in respect of an Insurance Policy or for any other reason). The Class Period is Jan. 1, 1920, through Dec. 31, 1945. A "Holocaust Victim" means any person who was persecuted by the Nazis (or their allies or by persons acting in concert with them or pursuant to their direction) at any time on account of religion, sexual orientation, racial background, or political views, including but not limited to Jews, Romani, homosexuals, and Jehovah's Witnesses. Important terms of the proposed Settlement are: * Generali will process and fund Claim Forms under valuation and eligibility standards established by The International Commission On Holocaust Era Insurance Claims (ICHEIC), including all pending and unpaid claims already received by ICHEIC; * Generali will process new Claim Forms, with Court supervision, with the same eligibility standards as used in ICHEIC and with valuation criteria described in the Settlement Agreement that are similar (but not identical) to the criteria used in processing and paying claims through ICHEIC. Generali will bear the cost for reviewing and processing Claim Forms and Court supervision; * Validated Claim Forms will be paid based on a formula that takes into consideration amounts due on policies, currency conversion and interest, among other factors. The minimum payment for any valid claim is $1,000; * Generali will be released as to all Holocaust era insurance claims, and the class action Litigation will be dismissed with prejudice; * Generali will pay incentive awards to each of the four Named Plaintiffs up to $5,000, as the Court may award; * Generali will pay counsel fees and costs, but the payment thereof will not diminish the compensation available to Class Members with valid Claim Forms. BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Ciprofloxacin Antitrust Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. remains a co-defendant with Bayer Corp., The Rugby Group, Inc., and others in several class action complaints filed in state and federal courts by direct and indirect purchasers of Ciprofloxacin (Cipro) from 1997 to the present. The complaints allege that the 1997 Bayer-Barr patent litigation settlement agreement was anti-competitive and violated federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust and consumer protection laws. A prior investigation of this agreement by the Texas Attorney General's Office on behalf of a group of state Attorneys General was closed without further action in December 2001. The lawsuits include nine consolidated in California state court, one in Kansas state court, one in Wisconsin state court, one in Florida state court, and two consolidated in New York state court, with the remainder of the actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings. On March 31, 2005, the court in the MDL Case granted summary judgment in the company's favor and dismissed all of the federal actions before it. On June 7, 2005, plaintiffs filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Court of Appeals has stayed consideration of the merits pending consideration of the company's motion to transfer the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as well as plaintiffs' request for the appeal to be considered en banc. Merits briefing has not yet been completed because the proceedings are stayed pending en banc consideration of a similar case. On September 19, 2003, the Circuit Court for the County of Milwaukee dismissed the Wisconsin state class action for failure to state a claim for relief under Wisconsin law. On May 9, 2006, the Court of Appeals reinstated the complaint on state law grounds for further proceedings in the trial court, but on July 25, 2006, the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted the defendants' petition for further review. On October 17, 2003, the Supreme Court of the State of New York for New York County dismissed the consolidated New York state class action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. An intermediate appellate court affirmed that decision, and plaintiffs have sought leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. On April 13, 2005, the Superior Court of San Diego, California ordered a stay of the California state class actions until after the resolution of any appeal in the MDL Case. On April 22, 2005, the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas similarly stayed the action before it, until after any appeal in the MDL Case. The Florida state class action remains at a very early stage, with no status hearings, dispositive motions, pre-trial schedules, or a trial date set as of yet, according to the company's 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. The suit is "In Re: Ciprofloxin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:00-md-01383-DGT-SMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge David G. Trager with referral to Judge Steven M. Gold. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Robert S. Schachter and Joseph S. Tusa of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, 41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor, New York, NY 10010, Phone: 212-223-3900, Fax: 212-371-5969, E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com; and (2) Jennifer S. Abrams of Berman DeValerio Pease & Tabacco, 425 California Street, Suite 2025, San Francsico, Ca 94104, Phone: (415) 433-3200. Representing the defendants are: (i) Joseph Serino, Jr. of Kirkland & Ellis, 153 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10055, Phone: (212) 446-4800, Fax: (212) 446-6460, E-mail: jserino@kirkland.com; and (ii) Fred H. Bartlit, Jr. of Bartlit, Beck, Herman, Palenchar & Scott, LLP, 54 West Hubbard Street, Suite 300, Courthouse Place, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: (312) 494-4400. BROOKS AUTOMATION: Mass. Court Grants Motion for Consolidation -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a motion that sought to consolidate the securities class actions, "James R. Shaw v. Brooks Automation, Inc.," and "Charles E. G. Leech Sr. v. Brooks Automation, Inc., et al." Leech Class Action On June 19, 2006, a putative class action, "Charles E. G. Leech Sr. v. Brooks Automation, Inc., et al." was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The defendants in this action are: -- the company; -- former chairman and chief executive Robert Therrien; -- Ellen Richstone, former chief financial officer; -- Roger D. Emerick, former director; -- Amin D. Khoury, former director; -- Robert W. Woodbury, Jr. chief financial officer; and -- Edward C. Grady, director, president and chief executive. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against the company and the individual defendants; Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants; Section 11 of the Securities Act against the company and Messrs. Grady, Woodbury, Emerick, Khoury and Therrien; Section 12 of the Securities Act against the company and Messrs. Grady, Woodbury, Emerick, Khoury and Therrien; and Section 15 of the Securities Act against Messrs. Grady, Woodbury, Emerick, Khoury and Therrien. The complaint seeks, inter alia, damages, including interest, and plaintiff's costs. The defendants have filed motions to dismiss the Leech complaint. Shaw Class Action On July 19, 2006, a putative class action, "James R. Shaw v. Brooks Automation, Inc. et al., No. 06-11239-RWZ," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The defendants in the case are the company, Mr. Therrien, Ms Richstone, Mr. Emerick, Mr. Khoury, Mr. Woodbury, and Mr. Grady. The company has not been served with the complaint at the time the company prepared its report for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against all individual defendants. It thus, seeks, inter alia, damages, including interest, and plaintiff's costs. On Dec. 13, 2006, the court issued an order consolidating the Shaw action with the Leech action described above and appointing a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The lead plaintiff had until Feb. 12, 2007 to file a consolidated amended complaint, 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. 31, 2006. BROOKS AUTOMATION: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Del. --------------------------------------------------------------- Brooks Automation, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss a purported securities fraud class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On Aug. 22, 2006, an action, "Mark Levy v. Robert J. Therrien and Brooks Automation, Inc.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The suit seeks recovery on behalf of the company, from Mr. Therrien under Section 16(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged "short- swing" profits earned by Mr. Therrien due the loan and stock option exercise in November 1999, and a sale by Mr. Therrien of Brooks stock in March 2000. The complaint seeks disgorgement of all profits earned by Mr. Therrien on the transactions, attorneys' fees and other expenses. Defendants have filed motions to dismiss, 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. 31, 2006. CAPSTONE TURBINE: Awaits Final Approval of IPO Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to grant final approval to a settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Capstone Turbine Corp., two of its then officers and the underwriters of its initial public offering. The consolidated suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period from June 28, 2000 to Dec. 6, 2000. An amended complaint was filed on April 19, 2002. Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the company's June 28, 2000 initial public offering and Nov. 16, 2000 secondary offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. Plaintiffs allege that the prospectuses for these two public offerings were false and misleading in violation of the securities laws because they did not disclose these arrangements. A committee of the company's Board of Directors conditionally approved a proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter. The settlement would provide, among other things, a release of the company and of the individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful in the amended complaint. The company would agree to undertake other responsibilities under the partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims the company may have against its underwriters. Any direct financial impact of the proposed settlement is expected to be borne by the company's insurers. The proposed settlement is pending final approval by parties to the action and the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York. The court reported no development in the case at its form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006. The suit is "In Re Capstone Turbine Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, docket number 01-CV-11220," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York, NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065, Phone: 212.594.5300 (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax: 212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax: 310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail: newyork@whafh.com. CAREMARK INC: "Dolan" ERISA Breach Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama has granted a motion in a case filed by Mary Dolan against Caremark Inc. to voluntarily dismiss the suit alleging violations of breach of fiduciary duties by the company under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. In April 2002, Caremark Rx was served with a putative private class action that was filed by Roland Bickley, purportedly on behalf of: * the Georgia Pacific Corp. Life, and * Health and Accident Plan, in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, alleging that Caremark Rx and Caremark each act as a fiduciary as that term is defined in ERISA and that Caremark Rx and Caremark have breached certain purported fiduciary duties under ERISA. In August 2002, this case was ordered transferred to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama. Caremark Rx subsequently was served in May 2002 with a virtually identical lawsuit, containing the same types of allegations, which was filed by Mary Dolan, purportedly on behalf of Wells Fargo Health Plan, and also filed in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California. In December 2002, this case also was ordered transferred to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama. Both of these lawsuits were amended to name Caremark as a defendant, and Caremark Rx was dismissed from the second case filed. In December 2004, the court presiding over the Bickley matter entered an order dismissing that case in its entirety with prejudice, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing, had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that Caremark was not a fiduciary under ERISA as to the plaintiff. Mr. Bickley then filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the court's order, which was denied by the court in February 2005. In June 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the Bickley case based on the plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies (finding that this failure alone provided sufficient grounds for affirmance, the court did not reach the remainder of the district court's grounds for dismissal). The Dolan matter had been stayed pending the 11th Circuit's decision in Bickley. Based on the 11th Circuit's ruling in Bickley, the plaintiff in Dolan filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss her case, which was granted by the court, 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 "Bickley v. Caremark RX, Inc., et al. Case No. 2:02-cv-02197-VEH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins. Representing Roland Bickley are: (1) Peter C. Adams at Yearout & Traylor PC, 800 Shades Creek Parkway, Suite 500, Birmingham, AL 35209, Phone: 205-414-8160, Fax: 205-414-8199, E-mail: USCourts@yearout.net; and (2) Richard L. Akel at Mary Alexander & Associates PC, 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1303, San Francisco, CA 94104- 4612, Phone: 1-415-433-4440, Fax: 1-415-433-5440. Representing Caremark Inc. are: (1) W. Michael Atchison at Starnes & Atchison LLP, P.O. Box 598512, Birmingham, AL 35259-8512, Phone: 868-6000, Fax: 868-6098, E-mail: wma@starneslaw.com; and (2) Daniel S. Floyd at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, 333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197, Phone: 1-213- 229-7000, 1-213-229-7520. CENDANT CORP: N.J. Court Okays $22M ABI Stock Suits Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey approved a proposed $22 million settlement of two purported securities class actions filed against Cendant Corp. The suit was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased securities of American Bankers Insurance Group, Inc. between Jan. 27, 1998 and Oct. 13, 1998. The proceedings: -- "Semerenko v. Cendant Corp., et al., Case No. 98-5384 (D.N.J.)," and -- "P. Schoenfield Asset Management LLC v. Cendant Corp., et al., Case No. 98-4734 (D.N.J.)" (ABI Actions), were commenced in October and November of 1998, respectively. Named as defendants were: the company, four former officers and directors of CUC International, Inc., and Ernst & Young. The complaints in the ABI actions, as amended on Feb. 8, 1999, assert violations of Sections 10(b), 14(e) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act. Plaintiffs allege that they purchased shares of ABI common stock at prices artificially inflated by the accounting irregularities after the company announced a cash tender offer for 51% of ABI's outstanding shares of common stock in January 1998. They also allege that after the disclosure of the accounting irregularities, the company misstated its intention to complete the tender offer and a second step merger pursuant to which the remaining shares of ABI stock were to be acquired by the company. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages. On Apr. 4, 2006, the company entered into an agreement to settle the ABI Actions for $22 million. A hearing on the settlement occurred on July 24, 2006. The court approved the settlement and the settlement has been fully funded by Realogy and Wyndham Worldwide. For more details, contact: (1) [Semerenko and P. Schoenfield - Plaintiff] Allyn Zissel Lite and Joseph J. Depalma of Lite, Depalma, Greenberg and Rivas, LCC, Two Gateway Center, 12TH Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail: alite@ldgrlaw.com and jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com; and (2) [Semerenko and P. Schoenfield - Defendant] Michael M. Rosenbaum of Budd Larner, P.C., 150 John F. Kennedy Parkway, CN 1000, Short Hills, NJ 07078-0999, Phone: (973) 379-4800, E-mail: mrosenbaum@budd-larner.com. CHICO'S FAS: Settlement of "Schaffer" Labor Suit Now Complete ------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement of a class action filed against Chico's FAS, Inc. over allegations of California labor laws violations has been completed. The company was named as defendant in a putative class action filed in June 2005 in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Bernardino, "Carol Schaffer v. Chico's FAS, Inc. et al." The complaint alleged that the company, in violation of California law, failed to pay overtime wages, permit rest and meal periods, and timely pay separation wages, among other claims. Although the company believed it had strong defenses to the allegations in this case, the company agreed to participate in a voluntary private mediation on March 16, 2006. The parties reached a settlement at the mediation, notice was given to class members regarding the filing of claim forms to participate in the settlement, the period for filing claims lapsed, no class members filed objections to the settlement and the Court gave its final approval to the settlement. The company has made all required payments under the settlement. The court was notified that administration of the settlement has been completed. CITGO PETROLEUM: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Litigation in Tex. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Citgo Petroleum Corp, the wholly owned subsidiary of Venezuelan state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA) has sought the dismissal of a purported antitrust class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Filed in Nov. 13, 2006 by companies that directly purchase Citgo's oil products in the U.S., the suit charges that the subsidiary is involved with oil price manipulations allegedly perpetuated by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Named plaintiffs in the suit are: -- Abston Petroleum, Inc.; -- Major Oil Co, Inc.; -- Spectrum Stores, Inc.; and -- WC Rice Oil Co, Inc. According to the complaint, Citgo has entered into an agreement with OPEC and its members to facilitate, enable, and provide direct assistance to the cartel's price-fixing scheme. Although owned by Venezuela, a member of OPEC -- which has eluded U.S. antitrust law due to the foreign sovereignty of OPEC member states -- plaintiffs were able to sue Citgo since it is a U.S. company, according to an op-ed piece in The Washington Times. The suit charges the company of "directly and materially" assisting OPEC by, among other things, "providing analyses of American oil markets and other information" and "preparing OPEC's long-term strategy." It asserts that Citgo's agreement with PDVSA and Venezuela is anticompetitive. The lawsuit argues that a current Citgo director, Bernard Mommer, and former director Luis Vierma helped develop strategies for OPEC while they were members of the company's board (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2006). Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons and business entities in the U.S. who have directly purchased oil-based products, including gasoline, lubricants, motor oil, and asphalt from CITGO within the last four years. The purpose of the suit is to recover damages for the plaintiffs and the class in the amount, trebled, of the overcharge collected by defendant and its co-conspirators as a result of OPEC's artificial price restraints, and to enjoin defendant from facilitation, assisting, pr implementing such anticompetitive conduct in the future. The plaintiffs demand: -- that this case be certified as a nationwide class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- that CITGO's unlawful combination and conspiracy alleged herein be adjudged and decreed to be an unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Section 1) and Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Section 15); -- that plaintiffs and class members recover actual damages incurred as a result of the illegal OPEC price- fixing cartel, as provided by law, in an amount to be determined at trial; -- that plaintiffs and class members recover ascertainable future damages that will be incurred as a result of the illegal OPEC price-fixing cartel, as provided by law, in an amount to be determined at trial; -- that plaintiffs and class members recover punitive damages, as provided by law, in an amount to be determined at trial; -- that CITGO be required to disgorge all unlawful profits earned by the OPEC price-fixing cartel; -- that the court, pursuant to SEction 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 15(a), award plaintiffs and the class members threefold the damages sustained by plaintiffs and the class members; -- that, pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 26, the court grant plaintiffs injunctive relief against threatened continued violations of the antitrust laws, as described herein, by CITGO; -- that the plaintiffs recover their costs of this suit, including reasonable attorney's fees as provided by law; and -- that plaintiffs be granted such other, further, and different legal and equitable relief as the nature of the case may require or as may be deemed just and appropriate by the court. Recently, Citgo filed a motion to stay discovery while it tries to get the suit dismissed, and a ruling on that motion is expected by the end of March. A copy of the suit is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1532 The suit is "Spectrum Stores, Inc. et al. v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., Case No. 4:06-cv-03569," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas under Judge Sim Lake. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) John T. Crowder of Cunningham, Bounds et al., 1601 Dauphin St., Mobile, AL 36604, Phone: 251-471-6191, Fax: 251-479-1031, E-mail: jtc@cbcbb.com; (2) Robert Gerard Eisler of Lieff Cabraser Heiman & Bernstein, 780 Third Avenue, 48th floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-355-9500, Fax: 212-355-9592, E-mail: reisler@lchb.com; (3) Geoffrey L. Harrison of Susman Godfrey LLP, 1000 Louisiana, Ste 5100, Houston, TX 77002-5096, Phone: 713-653-7807, Fax: 713-654-3367, E-mail: gharrison@susmangodfrey.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Richard N Carrell of Fulbright & Jaworski, 1301 McKinney St., Ste. 5100, Houston, TX 77010-3095, Phone: 713-651-5447, Fax: 713-651-5246, E-mail: rcarrell@fulbright.com; and (ii) Chad J. Doellinger of Elmer Stahl Klevorn & Solberg, LLP, 224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: 312-660-7600, Fax: 312-692-1718, E-mail: cdoellinger@eimerstahl.com. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Settles "Fielder" Consumer Suit for $12.5M ------------------------------------------------------------- Credit Acceptance Corp. has signed a Memorandum of Understanding to settle a consumer class action, "Marvin Fielder, et al. v. Credit Acceptance Corp.," pending in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri. Credit Acceptance has agreed to pay $12.5 million in full and final settlement of all claims against Credit Acceptance. The suit was filed on Oct. 15, 1996. The lawsuit relates to allegations that between Oct. 15, 1991 and Oct, 9, 1997, in Missouri, Credit Acceptance delivered defective post repossession notices, assessed excessive interest, and accepted assignment of installment contracts from Missouri dealers that contained excessive official fees. The company's 2006 fourth quarter financial results will reflect a $11.2 million pre-tax charge related to the settlement, which is subject to court approval. EGL INC: Continues to Face Suit by Pickup and Delivery Drivers -------------------------------------------------------------- EGL, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class action filed by one former and two current independent contractor pickup and delivery (P&D) drivers of the company on behalf of themselves and similarly situated drivers in California. The suit alleges various causes of action based on their theory that the drivers are employees and not independent contractors. Filed in California state court on Sept. 12, 2005, the complaint requests: -- the matter be designated as a class action on behalf of all independent contractor P&D drivers working for EGL in California; -- a declaratory judgment that EGL has violated the law; -- an equitable accounting and an unspecified amount of damages; and -- restitution in the form of business expenses, unpaid overtime, meal period compensation, unlawful deductions from wages, statutory penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The company removed the case to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the parties agreed to focus only on the individual claims of the three named defendants in the first phase of the proceedings. In the event one or more of the plaintiffs' claims survive the summary judgment phase, the next phase would focus on whether the action is maintainable as a class action. The company reported no development in the case at its form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006. The suit is "Narayan et al. v. EGL, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:05- cv-04181-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte with referral to Judge Howard R. Lloyd. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Lorraine Grindstaff and Jules Sandford of Patten Faith and Sandford, 635 West Foothill Blvd., Monrovia, CA 91016-2097, US, Phone: 626-359-9335, Fax: 626-303-2391, E-mail: lgrindstaff@pfslaw.com and jsandford@pfslaw.com; and (2) Aaron D. Kaufmann of Hinton, Alfert & Sumner, 1646 N. California Blvd., Suite 600, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, Phone: (925) 932-6006, Fax: (925) 932-3412, E-mail: kaufmann@hinton-law.com. Representing the defendants is Karen J. Kubin of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, 580 California Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94104-1036, Phone: 415-765-9522, Fax: 415-765- 9501, E-mail: kkubin@akingump.com. ENRON CORP: Banks Appeal Class Certification of Investors' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit heard arguments on an appeal by certain investment banks that seek to decertify as a class action filed by Enron Corp. investors. Merrill Lynch & Co. and Credit Suisse First Boston asked to end a class action by Enron investors, who are seeking the $40 billion that they lost when the energy trader collapsed in 2001. Both companies argued that Judge Melinda Harmon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas was wrong to allow the Enron investors to sue as a group. In a June 2006 order, Judge Harmon ruled that plaintiffs could argue that the banks were "primary violators." She also ruled that if jurors find that the banks are primary violators, the financial institutions can be held liable for tens of billions of dollars in shareholder losses that stemmed from an overarching fraud, whether they knew what other participants did. The banks argued that they could not be sued since they did not participate directly in the accounting fraud that led to Enron's bankruptcy. Thus, they want the Fifth Circuit to reverse the ruling, which if granted would eliminate both the class-action status and the parameters that the judge set for the case. Regarding defendants role in the fraud, plaintiffs contend that the banks have the same level of responsibility as anyone at Enron, since they structured allegedly dubious deals that they knew the energy company used to fudge its financial statements. The case is bound for an April 2007 trial. Along with Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse, the other defendants in the shareholders' suit are Royal Bank of Canada, Royal Bank of Scotland and Toronto-Dominion Bank. In the past few years, The University of California Board of Regents has reached settlements with other defendants in the case, including Lehman Brothers, Bank of America, the outside directors, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, and CIBC, totaling over $7 billion for investors (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 26, 2007). The suit against Enron is "In Re: Enron Corp Securities, et al. (4:02-md-01446)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas under Judge Melinda Harmon. Representing the plaintiffs is Patrick J. Coughlin of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, Phone: (415) 288- 4545, E-mail: patc@lerachlaw.com, Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com. EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Amended Securities Fraud Suit in N.J. --------------------------------------------------------------- The lead plaintiff in a consolidated securities fraud class action pending against Exide Technologies, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has filed an amended complaint after an initial dismissal of the case. On June 22, 2006, defendants filed their motion to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaints briefing. The court has granted the company's motion to dismiss the complaint and permitted the plaintiff to file an amended complaint, which it did. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, 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. 31, 2006. In June 2005, the company received notice that two former stockholders, Aviva Partners LLC and Robert Jarman, 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 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 as, "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. On June 22, 2006, defendants filed their motion to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaints briefing. The court has granted the company's motion to dismiss the complaint and permitted the plaintiff to file an amended complaint, which it did. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, 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. 31, 2006. 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 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. FAIR ISAAC: Continues to Face CROA Violations Lawsuit in Ga. ------------------------------------------------------------ Fair Isaac Corp. remains a defendant in a putative consumer class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia over alleged violation of the Credit Repair Organizations Act. The suit is "Robbie Hillis v. Equifax Consumer Services, Inc. and Fair Isaac, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-03400-BBM." It was filed on Nov. 19, 2004, and asserts that defendants have jointly sold the company's Score Power credit score product in violation of certain procedural requirements under CROA. Plaintiff contends that Equifax Consumer Services and the company are "credit repair organizations" under CROA and that the transaction by which he purchased Score Power was in violation of CROA and fraudulent. Plaintiff seeks certification of a class on behalf of all individuals who purchased such services from defendants within the five-year period prior to the filing of the complaint. They also seek unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On May 23, 2005, the district court denied defendants' partial motions to dismiss the case and the defendants have answered, denying all liability or wrongdoing. The company reported no significant development in the case at its Feb. 7 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2006. The suit is "Hillis v. Equifax Consumer Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-03400-BBM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Beverly B. Martin. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Michael Lee McGlamry, Charles Neal Pope, Wade H. Tomlinson, Pope McGlamry Kilpatrick Morrison & Norwood, 925 The Pinnacle, P.O. Box 191625, 3455 Peachtree Road, N.E., Atlanta, GA 31119-1625, Phone: 404-523-7706, E- mail: efile@pmkm.com; (2) Arthur R. Miller, Arthur R. Miller, P.C., Areeda Hall 225, Cambridge, MA 02138, Phone: 617-495-1278; and (3) Michael C. Spencer or Melvyn I. Weiss, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-5300. Representing the defendants are: (i) Craig Edward Bertschi, Audra Ann Dial, Cindy Dawn Hanson, Kilpatrick Stockton, 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800, Atlanta, GA 30309-4530, Phone: 404-815- 6500, E-mail: cbertschi@kilpatrickstockton.com, adial@kilpatrickstockton.com, chanson@kilpatrickstockton.com; and (ii) Kenneth M. Kliebard and Todd L. McLawhorn, Howrey, LLP, Suite 3400, 321 North Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: 312-595-2255, Fax: 312-264-0362, E-mail: kliebardk@howrey.com or mclawhornt@howrey.com. FAIR ISAAC: Continues to Face CROA Violations Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ Fair Isaac Corp. remains a defendant in a putative consumer class action over alleged violation of the Credit Repair Organizations Act that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In the suit, "Christy Slack v. Fair Isaac Corp. and MyFICO Consumer Services, Inc.," plaintiff claims that the company sold credit score-related products in violation of the CROA. The plaintiff is also claiming that the defendants violated certain procedural requirements of CROA, and violated the antifraud provisions of CROA, with respect to the sale of credit score products on the company's myFICO.com website. The plaintiff also claims that the defendants violated the California Credit Services Act and were unjustly enriched. The plaintiff has sought certification of a class on behalf of all individuals who purchased credit score products from the company on the myFICO.com website in the five year period prior to the filing of the complaint on Jan. 18, 2005. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The company believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and denied any liability or wrongdoing and has denied that class certification is appropriate. On April 22, 2005, the company brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims. On June 27, 2005, the court granted the company's motion, in part, by dismissing certain of the plaintiff's claims under the CSA. The plaintiff has brought motions for summary judgment and for class certification. The company reported no significant development in the case at its Feb. 7 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2006. The suit is "Slack v. Fair Isaac Corp. et al., Case No. 3:05-cv- 00257-MHP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Marilyn H. Patel. Representing the plaintiffs is Sabrina S. Kim, Michael C. Spencer and Jeff S. Westerman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, Phone: 213-617-1200, 212-594-5300 and 213-617- 1200, Fax: 213-617-1975, 212-868-1229 and 213-617-1975, E-mail: skim@milbergweiss.com and jwesterman@milbergweiss.com. Representing the defendants is Frederick Brown and Rebecca Justice Lazarus of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, One Montgomery St., Montgomery Tower, Suite 3100, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415-393-8204 and 415-393-8296, E-mail: fbrown@gibsondunn.com and rjustice@gibsondunn.com. GRAND PRIX: Formula 1 Fans Suit in Quebec Allowed to Go Ahead ------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Michel Caron of the Quebec Superior Court has given the go-ahead for a planned class action against Grand Prix F1 du Canada Inc., grand prix organizers in Montreal, PaddockTalk reports. In his Feb. 1 decision, the judge said that the main legal issues to be dealt with in the case include whether the location and environment of Grandstand 10 conformed to what the Grand Prix represented to patrons. Led by spectator Scott McColl, a group of Canadian Formula 1 fans claim that their trackside view of the race in 2005 was obstructed, despite paying for tickets to the same grandstand they enjoyed 12 months earlier. Mr. McColl, a Pointe Claire businessman, argues ticketholders in Grandstand 10 had unobstructed views at the June 2004 race, including the starting line, the pit lane and the podium. But in 2005, the grandstand had been moved to allow for "podium suites," which he contends blocked their view. As a result, the seats "provided no views whatsoever" of some of the most entertaining sites on the track, like the start/finish line and the pit lane, Mr. McColl alleges in court documents. Mr. McColl's lawyer, Rene R. Gauthier said no date has been set for the suit to be heard. Rene R. Gauthier is with Lazarus, Charbonneau, 200-759 Sq. Victoria, Montreal, PQ H2Y 2J7, Canada, Phone: (514) 289-8600. HAWAII: Supreme Court Clears Homeland Beneficiaries' Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Supreme Court in Hawaii has allowed to proceed a class action filed on behalf of thousands of native Hawaiian waiting to be awarded homesteads by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands trust, the Honolulu Advertiser reports. About 2,700 homelands beneficiaries were denied properties after the state shut down the claims process in 1999 (Class Action Reporter, June 1, 2006). The lawsuit alleges breach of trust on the part of the DHHL and involves a variety of claims from individuals and families who were on the list to be awarded homesteads from 1959 through 1988. The claims range from lengthy waits for parcels to the dissemination of wrong information to beneficiaries to problems associated with the construction of homes. Tom Grande, one of the claimant attorneys, said he's pleased the agency "is making efforts to fulfill their trust obligations in awarding homesteads," according to the report. However, he said, "we think that the same efforts should be made in resolving the claims of our 2,721 class members for breaches of trust that occurred between 1959 and 1988." HOMEDICS INC: Recalls Heating Pads Posing Burn Injuries Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- HoMedics Inc., voluntarily recalled, approximately 292,108 of its heating pads which were produced in 2001 and subsequently shipped to retailers in 2001 and 2002. These heating pads were sold nationwide to Walgreens as well as to drug stores, discount stores and department stores. It has been determined that some of the heating pads contained an inadequate connector crimp, which lead to a high resistance connection that generated excessive heat, thereby posing a risk of burn injuries, fire or damage to the heating pad itself or to materials (like bedding and furniture) that could come into contact with the pad. HoMedics has received eight reports of minor or first degree burns associated with the use of the heating pads and five additional reports of minor or first degree burns possibly related to the use of the heating pads, as well as reports of property damage. If burned, the consumer should seek medical attention if appropriate. Models involved in this recall include: -- Model 802857 (Walgreens by HoMedics) Standard Size Moist/Dry Heating pad; sold exclusively through Walgreens; -- HoMedics Thera-P Model HP-100 Standard Size Dry Heating Pad; -- HoMedics Thera-P Model HP-150 Standard Size Moist/Dry Heating Pad; -- HoMedics Thera-P Model HP-200 Standard Size Moist/Dry Heating Pad with Auto Shut-off; -- HoMedics Thera-P Model HP-300 King Size Moist/Dry Heating Pad; -- HoMedics Thera-P Model HP-500 King Size Moist/Dry Heating Pad with Auto Shut-off; Each HoMedics heating pad is marked with a unique 4-digit date code located both on the back of the hand control as well as on the bottom panel of the color box. Only 4-digit date codes ending in "01" are subject to this voluntary recall. In order to accurately identify the date code, consumers are advised to refer to the diagram: http://www.fda.gov/oc/po/firmrecalls/photos/heatingpad.jpg HO'S TRADING: Recalls Dried Lily Bulbs Over Undeclared Sulfites --------------------------------------------------------------- Ho's Trading Inc. of 1010 Dean Street, Brooklyn, New York 11238, is recalling Fortune Star Brand Dried Lily Bulb, because it contains undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product. The recalled Fortune Star Brand Dried Lily Bulb is packed in 10 oz., un-coded plastic bags. The products were sold nationwide. The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Fortune Star Brand Dried Lily Bulb, which did not declare sulfites on the label. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe reaction in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfites sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. Consumers who have purchased Fortune Star Brand Dried Lily Bulb are advised to return it to the place of purchase. Consumer with any questions may contact the company at 718-622-2288. INDIAN TRUST: Discussions on Settlement of "Cobell" to Continue --------------------------------------------------------------- Discussions are set to continue in the new Congress on "settlement concepts" to resolve the "Cobell v. Kempthorne" litigation, The Indian Country Today reports. In 2006, a congressional initiative to end the litigation failed. At the end of that process, the federal government brought forward a handful of suggestions under the rubric of "settlement concepts," which will be one of the issues covered by the new Congress, according to the report. One of the "settlement concepts," which was proposed would ordain a federal withdrawal from management of the trust funds in two phases over a 10-year period. The priority of the first phase would be consolidation of fractionated lands by voluntary and involuntary mechanisms. Fractionated lands, universally recognized as the leading problem in managing the trust, would be consolidated, however, land title would remain with Indian individuals or tribes. Meanwhile, the priority of the second phase would be transition to a "beneficiary-managed" trust with limits on federal liability. Case Background Elouise Pepion Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet tribe in Montana, filed the class action on June 10, 1996 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 24, 2007). It seeks to force the federal government to account for billions of dollars belonging to approximately 500,000 American Indians and their heirs, and held in trust since 1887. Specifically, the case involves royalties for farming, grazing, mining, logging and other economic activities on tribal lands. It dates back to the 1880s, when the government, trying to break up reservations, "allotted" some Indian lands, giving 40 to 160 acres to some individual Native Americans. Back then, the government leased the lands for oil, gas, timber, grazing and coal, and collected the fees to put into trust funds for Indians and their survivors. Through document discovery and courtroom testimony, the case has revealed mismanagement, ineptness, dishonesty and delay by federal officials, which lead a federal judge to declare their conduct "fiscal and governmental irresponsibility in its purest form." As the case moved on, new revelations of false testimony, financial misconduct and bureaucratic retaliation continued to surface. The purpose of the litigation is two-fold: -- to force the government to account for the money, and -- to bring about permanent reform of the system. The suit is "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al. v. Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Case No. 1:96-cv-01285-JR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge Thomas F. Hogan. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Mark Kester Brown, 607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-2000, Phone: (775) 542-4938, Fax: 202-318-2372, E-mail: mkesterbrown@attglobal.net; (2) Dennis M. Gingold, 607 14th Street, NW 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 824-1448, Fax: 202- 318-2372, E-mail: dennismgingold@aol.com; (3) Richard A. Guest and Keith M. Harper, Native American Rights Fund, 1712 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036- 2976, Phone: (202) 785-4166, Fax: 202-822-0068, E-mail: richardg@narf.org or harper@narf.org; and (4) Elliott H. Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, 607 14th Street, NW Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 508-5800, Fax: 202-508-5858, E-mail: elevitas@kilpatrickstockton.com. Representing the defendants are Robert E. Kirschman, Jr. and Sandra Peavler Spooner of the U.S. Department of Justice, 1100 L Street, NW Suite 10008, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 616- 0328, E-mail: robert.kirschman@usdoj.gov or sandra.spooner@usdoj.gov. For more details, contact (i) Elouise Cobell, Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund, Inc., PO Box 3029, 101 Pata Street, Browning, MT 59417, E-mail: info@indiantrust.com, Web site: http://www.indiantrust.com. (ii) The Committee on Indian Affairs, Phone: 202-224-2251, Web site: http://indian.senate.gov;and (iii) House Resources Committee, Phone: 202-225-2761, Web site: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov. MICROSOFT CORP: N.J. Schools Benefit from Antitrust Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Area schools in New Jersey are set to receive more than $1 million in grant money under the settlement of an antitrust class action against Microsoft Corp., The Daily Review reports. Fremont schools are eligible for $439,000, New Haven schools are eligible for $437,000 and Newark schools are eligible for $198,842 of the $1.1 billion settlement. The settlement stems from a 1998 antitrust suit, filed by the U.S. Department of Justice and 20 states, about certain Microsoft software acquired by consumers and businesses between Feb. 18, 1995 and Dec. 15, 2001 for use in California. The suit alleged that Microsoft Corp. unlawfully used anti- competitive measures to obtain a monopoly on software. The class action claimed that the Redmond, Washington-based firm overcharged consumers who licensed its MS-DOS, Windows, Word, Excel, and Office software. In December 2004, a settlement was reached in the antitrust and unfair competition class action. Under the terms of the settlement, Microsoft will provide vouchers totaling up to $1.1 billion to eligible California users of its Windows, MS-DOS, Office, Excel, Word, Works Suite or Home Essentials 97 or 98 products to be redeemed for cash after they purchase qualifying computer hardware or software. Roughly $1 million was awarded to education and the rest went to the non-profit organizations and charter schools. The money was made available to schools whose districts have a state-approved technology plan and at which a minimum of 40 percent of students are eligible to receive free or reduced- price meals. In Newark, those include Schilling, Graham, Musick, Snow and Milani elementary schools, and Newark Memorial High School. Districts have until June 2008 to apply. Microsoft-California Class Action Settlement on the net: http://www.microsoftcalsettlement.com. MOLEX INC: Discovery Still Ongoing in Ill. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery continues in the consolidated securities fraud class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Molex, Inc. and certain of its officers and employees. Between March 2, 2005 and April 22, 2005, seven separate complaints, each purporting to be on behalf of a class of Molex shareholders, were filed against the company, and certain of its officers and employees. The shareholder actions have been consolidated before Judge Ruben Castillo in the case, "The Takara Trust v. Molex Inc., et al., Case No. 05C 1245," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The consolidated amended complaint alleges, among other things, that from July 27, 2004 to Feb. 14, 2005, the named defendants made or caused to be made a series of materially false or misleading statements about the company's business, prospects, operations, and financial statements which constituted violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint also alleges that certain of the named defendants engaged in insider trading in violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. As relief, the complaint seeks, among other things, a declaration that the action be certified as a proper class action, unspecified compensatory damages, including interest, and payment of costs and expenses, including fees for legal counsel and experts. The individual defendants named in the consolidated amended complaint are: -- J. Joseph King, -- Diane S. Bullock, -- John H. Krehbiel Jr., -- Frederick A. Krehbiel and -- Martin P. Slark On April 28, 2006, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 6, 2005, the court appointed City of Pontiac Group, Joan L. Weeks individually and as trustee, and James Baker as lead plaintiffs, and approved lead plaintiffs' choice of lead counsel. Discovery is ongoing, and is scheduled to conclude in March 2007, according to the company's Feb. 7, 2007 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006. The suit is "The Takara Trust v. Molex Inc., et al., Case No. 05C 1245," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Ruben Castillo. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Carol V. Gilden of Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Rubenstein, P.C., 191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60605-1615, Phone: (312) 521-2403, Fax: (312) 521-2100, E-mail: cgilden@muchshelist.com; and (2) Marc A. Topaz of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: (610) 667-7706. Representing the defendants are Harold C. Hirshman, Jason L. Rubin, Christopher Qualley King and Gerald E. Fradin of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive, 8000 Sears Tower, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 876-8000, E- mail: cking@sonnenschein.com and gfradin@sonnenschein.com. PEANUT PROCESSORS: Recalls Peanut Paste Containing Metal Grains --------------------------------------------------------------- Peanut Processors, Inc. of Dublin, North Carolina, is recalling certain bulk loads of peanut paste because the paste may contain small particles of metal. These products were sold to manufacturers of consumer food products in Virginia, Tennessee and North Carolina on: -- Monday, Jan. 29, -- Tuesday, Jan. 30, -- Wednesday, Jan. 31, -- Thursday, Feb. 1, and -- Friday Feb. 2. A total of seven shipments were delivered to three different food product manufacturers. Each of the food product manufacturers has been given notice of the recall and of the specific shipments recalled. The metal particles were detected through internal quality checks by one manufacturer. No consumer complaints have been reported. POST APARTMENT: Ga. High Court Blocks Stock Suit Deal Challenge --------------------------------------------------------------- The Georgia Supreme Court refused to review a ruling approving a settlement of shareholder derivative and class actions against Post Apartment Homes LP and the members of its board of directors. On May 5, 2003, the company received notice that a shareholder derivative and purported class action was filed against members of the board of directors of the company and the company as a nominal defendant. This complaint alleged various breaches of fiduciary duties by the board of directors of the company and sought, among other relief, the disclosure of certain information by the defendants. This complaint also sought to compel the defendants to undertake various actions to facilities a sale of the company. On May 7, 2003, the plaintiff made a request for voluntary expedited discovery. On May 13, 2003, the company received notice that a similar shareholder derivative and purported class action was filed against certain members of the board of directors of the company and against the company as a nominal defendant. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Atlanta, Georgia on May 12, 2003 and alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control and corporate waste by the defendants. The plaintiff sought monetary damages and, as appropriate, injunctive relief. These lawsuits were settled, and in October 2004, the Superior Court of Fulton County entered an order approving the settlement and related orders dismissing the litigation. An alleged company shareholder, who has filed a separate purported derivative and direct action against the company and certain of its officers and directors, has appealed from the Superior Court's orders approving the settlement, overruling the shareholder's objection to the settlement, denying the shareholder's motion to intervene, and dismissing the litigation with prejudice. In November 2005, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the orders. In December 2005, the alleged company shareholder asked the Georgia Supreme Court to review the case. In April 2006, the Georgia Supreme Court denied review, and the alleged company shareholder indicated that he would seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The alleged shareholder has not sought such review, however, and the deadline has passed. RADNET INC: Still Faces DVI Securities Fraud Litigation in Pa. -------------------------------------------------------------- Radnet, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class action, "In Re DVI, Inc. Securities Litigation," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 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 Oct. 31, 2006. This is a class action securities fraud case under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. It was brought by shareholders of DVI, Inc., one of the company's former major lenders, against DVI officers and directors and a number of third party defendants, including Radnet. The case arises from bankruptcy proceedings instituted by DVI in August 2003. Radnet was named as a defendant in the third amended complaint filed in July 2004. The putative plaintiff class consists of those persons who purchased or otherwise acquired DVI, Inc. securities between August of 1999 and August of 2003. Plaintiffs allege that in 2000, we acquired from a third party one or more unprofitable imaging centers in order to help DVI conceal the fact that existing DVI loans on the centers were delinquent. Plaintiffs argue that the company should have known that DVI was engaging in fraudulent practices to conceal losses, and the company's alleged "lack of due diligence" in investigating DVI's finances in the course of these acquisitions amounted to complicity in deceptive and misleading practices. The company has answered the complaint. The matter is still in its initial stages with discovery just beginning in that the court has stayed the proceedings for many months. The suit is "In Re DVI, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:03-CV-5336," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Legrome D. Davis. Representing the defendants are: (1) Antonia M. Apps of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd and Evans, PLLC, 1615 M. Street, North West, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-326-7900; (2) Thomas V. Ayala of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1701 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-963- 5719, E-mail: tayala@morganlewis.com; and (3) Gregory Ballard of Cadwalader wickersham & Taft LLP, One World, Financial Center, New York, NY 10281, Phone: 212-504-6701, E-mail: gregory.ballard@cwt.com. Representing the plaintiffs is M. Reas Bowman of Krislov & Associates Ltd, 20 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 1350, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 312-506-0500. RJ REYNOLDS: Appeals Court Cuts Damage Estimate in "Scott" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Louisiana 4th Circuit Court of Appeal reduced the amount of potential damages by at least 70 percent in the Scott class action, a suit brought by smokers in the state against cigarette manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Jeff Raborn, senior counsel for R.J. Reynolds said, "We are certainly pleased with that, but we remain convinced that the class should be decertified and the case completely reversed." Mr. Raborn added R.J. Reynolds will seek further review of the case. On Nov. 5, 1998, in the case, "Scott v. American Tobacco Co.," a Louisiana state appeals court affirmed the certification of a medical monitoring or smoking cessation class of Louisiana residents who were smokers on or before May 24, 1996. On Feb. 26, 1999, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition for review. Jury selection began on June 18, 2001 and was completed on Sept. 23, 2002. Opening statements occurred on Jan. 21, 2003. On July 28, 2003, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson, on the plaintiffs' claim for medical monitoring and found that cigarettes were not defectively designed. In addition, however, the jury made certain findings against the defendants, including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson, on claims relating to fraud, conspiracy, marketing to minors and smoking cessation. With respect to these findings, this portion of the trial did not determine liability as to any class member or class representative. What primarily remained in the case was a class-wide claim that the defendants, including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson, pay for a program to help people stop smoking. On March 31, 2004, phase two of the trial began to address the scope and cost of smoking cessation programs. On May 21, 2004, the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $591 million on the class claim for a smoking cessation program. On Sept. 29, 2004, the defendants posted a $50 million bond (pursuant to legislation that limits the amount of the bond to $50 million collectively for Master Settlement Agreement MSA signatories) and noticed their appeal. RJR Tobacco posted $25 million (the portions for RJR Tobacco and B&W) towards the bond. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. on the Net: http://www.RJRT.com. TJX COS: Faces New Suit in Mass. Over Client Information Leak ------------------------------------------------------------- TJX Cos. Inc. is facing a new class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all consumers of the Framingham retailer who had personal and financial data stolen from the computer network of TJX, the Boston Herald reports. The suit alleges that TJX was negligent for failing to protect their credit and debit card information and to promptly notify them of the company's recent computer breach. According to the recent lawsuit, Fitchburg resident Rachel Rosenfeld, who shopped at Marshalls last year, had her Visa debit card information stolen. On Jan. 17, Ms. Rosenfeld's credit union informed her on that day that her debit card number was at risk due to an unspecified merchant's network intrusion. It issued her a new card and advised her to review her accounts for unauthorized transactions, the suit says. "After making efforts on her own, she was finally later able to confirm with her credit union that the 'intrusion' was at TJX," the suit said. Although TJX discovered the data breach in mid-December 2006, it did not publicly announce the intrusion until one month later when it issued a press release on Jan. 17, 2007. Because of TJX's actions, hundreds of thousands or even millions of its customers have allegedly had their personal financial information compromised, have had their privacy rights violated, have been exposed to the risk of fraud and identity theft, and have otherwise suffered damages. The other plaintiffs in the suit are from Michigan, Oregon and California. One had fraudulent charges posted to her MasterCard. The suit is "Buckley et al. v. TJX Cos., Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv- 10209-RWZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Rya W. Zobel. Representing plaintiffs are Thomas G. Shapiro and Robert E. Ditzion both of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax: 617-439-0134, E- mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com or rditzion@shulaw.com. TYSON FOODS: Workers File Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Ia. -------------------------------------------------------------- Employees at Tyson Foods Inc. filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa for alleged non-payment to workers for the time needed to prepare for each shift, WOI-TV reports. According to the complaint, Tyson does not pay workers for the whole time it takes to change into required uniforms and safety equipment and collect and sanitize knives and other equipment needed to work on the production lines. The employees claim workers are paid only for the time they spend on the production line and four minutes per day for "clothes changing time," a process the lawsuit said can take up to 35 minutes. Ten workers from Tyson plants in Denison and Storm Lake are seeking class-action status for the lawsuit, which seeks unpaid overtime wages and other damages. If granted, the litigation would affect as many as 35 hundred current and former workers since Feb. 6, 2005. The suit is "Sharp et al. v. Tyson Foods Inc., Case No. 5:07-cv- 04009-MWB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa under Judge Mark W. Bennett with referral to Judge Paul A. Zoss. Representing plaintiffs is MacDonald Smith of Smith & McElwain, 505 Fifth Street, Suite 530, Sioux City, IA 51101, Phone: 712 255 8094, Fax: 712 255 3825, E-mail: smitmcel@aol.com. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Price-Fixing Suit Dismissal Challenged ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has yet to make a ruling with regards to an appeal of the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York of a consolidated class action against United Technologies Corp., Otis Elevator Co. and other elevator and escalator manufacturers. The suit alleges a worldwide agreement among elevator and escalator manufacturers to fix prices in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The lawsuit did not specify the amount of damages claimed. On June 6, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss without leave to re-plead. On June 30, 2006, the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The company expects a decision in the second or third quarter of 2007, according to the company's Feb. 8, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The suit is "In re Elevator Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:04- cv-01178-TPG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Thomas P. Griesa. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Mary Jane Fait, Frederick Taylor Isquith, Sr., Stuart S. Saft, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, L.L.P., 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 545-4600, E-mail: fait@whafh.com, isquith@whafh.com; (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 USA, Phone: 619-231-7423; and (3) Nadeem Faruqi, Beth Ann Keller, Anthony Vozzolo, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 983-9330, Fax: (212) 983-9331, E- mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com, bkeller@faruqilaw.com and avozzolo@faruqilaw.com. Representing the defendants is Deborah M. Buell, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, LLP, 1 Liberty Plaza, New York, NY 10006, Phone: 212-225-2000, Fax: 212-225-3499, E-mail: maofiling@cgsh.com. VAXGEN INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed 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 our 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. On June 28, 2004 defendants filed their motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. In May 2005, the U.S District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice the class action filed against the company, 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, 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. VERITAS SOFTWARE: Del. Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied a motion filed by VERITAS Software Corp., which was recently acquired Symantec Corp., seeking for the dismissal of a consolidated securities class action filed against it. On July 7, 2004, a purported class action complaint, "Paul Kuck, et al. v. Veritas Software Corp., et al." was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit alleges violations of federal securities laws in connection with company's announcement on July 6, 2004 that it expected results of operations for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004 to fall below earlier estimates. The complaint generally seeks an unspecified amount of damages. Subsequently, additional purported class action complaints have been filed in Delaware federal court, and, on March 3, 2005, the court entered an order consolidating these actions and appointing lead plaintiffs and counsel. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on May 27, 2005, expanding the class period from April 23, 2004 through July 6, 2004. The consolidated amended complaint also named another officer as a defendant and added allegations that the company and the named officers made false or misleading statements in the company's press releases and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings regarding the company's financial results, which allegedly contained revenue recognized from contracts that were unsigned or lacked essential terms. Defendants to this matter filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in July 2005, which was denied by the court in May 2006, 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 "Kuck v. Veritas Software, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv- 00831-SLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware under Judge Sue L. Robinson. Representing the plaintiffs is Carmella P. Keener of Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess, Citizens Bank Center, Suite 1401, P.O. Box 1070, Wilmington, DE 19899-1070, Phone: (302) 656-4433, E- mail: CKeener@rmgglaw.com. Representing the defendants are: (1) Erica Niezgoda Finnegan of Cross & Simon, LLC, 913 North Market Street, 11th Floor, Suite 1001, Wilmington, DE 19801, Phone: (302) 777-4200, (302) 777- 4224, E-mail: efinnegan@crosslaw.com; and (2) Peter J. Walsh, Jr. of Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, 1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th Flr., P.O. Box 951, Wilmington, DE 19899-0951, Phone: (302) 984-6037, Fax: (302) 658-1192, E-mail: pwalsh@potteranderson.com. VISA: Merchant Claims Still Accepted in Antitrust Suit Deal ----------------------------------------------------------- U.S. merchants, who accepted cards from Visa U.S.A. and MasterCard Worldwide between October 1992 and July 2003, can still file claims to receive their fair share of the settlement in the class action "Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 96-5238," the Green Sheet reports. According to Lloyd Constantine, partner with the law firm Constantine Cannon, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs, the law firm has not yet decided when to close the class. "If and when it's our recommendation to the court that we end that, we will give public notification well in advance," Mr. Constantine said in an interview with Green Sheet. Case Background The $3.1 billion settlement fund stems from class action captioned, "In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The suit was between retailers nationwide and credit providers Visa and MasterCard and relates to how the stores process transactions made with debit cards, which deduct cash from consumers' existing bank accounts, rather than building up their debt with credit accounts. It charges both MasterCard and Visa USA with violating U.S. antitrust law by monopolistic and anticompetitive business practices concerning debit cards. The suit specifically alleges that Visa and MasterCard violated antitrust laws by insisting that merchants who accept their credit cards must also accept their debit cards, and also that the two card companies charge unfair fees, eventually driving up costs for consumers (Class Action Reporter, April 30, 2003). The case was certified as a class action in February of 2000, and included five million merchants in the U.S. and is said to involve billions of dollars. On the eve of trial, the parties agreed to settle with the final settlement agreements being signed on June 4, 2003 and the federal judge overseeing the case, Judge John Gleeson, granting preliminary approval to the deal and the notice plan on June 13, 2003 (Class Action Reporter story July 24, 2003). Objections to the terms of the settlements and plan of allocation were due last Sept. 5, 2003. A fairness hearing took place on Sept. 25, 2003, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York before Judge Gleeson. Alongside the $3 billion compensation award, the settlement also called for the providers to stop requiring merchants that accept credit cards to also accept certain debit card transactions. The companies also agreed to lower debit card fees that they charge merchants for an interim period, by one-third. Some of retail's heaviest hitters led the suit, including Wal- Mart Stores Inc., Sears Roebuck and Co., Circuit City Stores Inc. and Safeway Inc. Those stores will collect exponentially more than a business the size of the smaller companies involved in the case. Earlier, Constantine Cannon directed the claims administrator to mail checks to class members (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 3, 2007). These payments include claims that were filed and approved by March 10, 2006 that did not involve the consolidation of multiple store locations or divisions. Claims that required consolidation and were filed and approved by Oct. 20, 2006, are also being paid at this time. This distribution of approximately 128,000 payments involves more than $300 million. This is the third round of distribution, the first having occurred in December 2005 and the second in June 2006, involving more than $650 million in claim payments. Constantine Cannon expects that the remaining claim forms involving payments for signature debit and credit card overcharges will be approved and ready for payment before the end of 2007. It also expects that payments for online PIN debit overcharges will be made to all or most qualifying class members in 2007. Among the 128,000 checks to be mailed by the claims administrator are approximately 29,400 checks of $1,000.00 or more; 1,790 checks of $10,000.00 or more; 308 checks of $100,000.00 or more; and 40 checks of $1,000,000.00 or more. In addition to this cash monetary relief, the settlement in this case includes an injunction valued by the court in the range of $25-$87 billion to U.S. merchants and consumers. In approving the settlement, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated that it is "the largest antitrust settlement in history," that "the compensatory relief by itself constitutes the largest settlement ever approved by a federal court;" and "produced significant and lasting benefits for America's merchants and consumers." For more details, call 1-888-641-4437 or 212-350-2799 or visit, http://www.inrevisacheckmastermoneyantitrustlitigation.com. The suit is "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, et al. v. Visa USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:96-cv-05238-JG-RLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge John Gleeson with referral to Roanne L. Mann. Representing the plaintiffs are Lloyd Constantine, Matthew L. Cantor, Jeffrey Issac Shinder and Robert L. Begleiter of Constantine Cannon, P.C., 477 Madison Ave., 11th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-350-2700, Fax: 212-350-2701, E-mail: lconstatine@cpny.com, mcantor@cpny.com, jshinder@cpny.com and rbegleiter@cpny.com. Representing the defendants are: (1) Kevin J. Arquit of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, 425 Lexington Ave., 29th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 455-7680 or -2000, Fax: (212) 455-2502, E-mail: karquit@stblaw.com, and (2) Stephen V. Bomse, Brian P. Brosnahan and Thomas P. Brown of Heller, Ehrman, White and McAuliffe, 333 Bush St., Suite 3100, San Francisco, CA 94104-2878, Phone: (415) 772-6000, E-mail: sbomse@hewm.com, bbrosnahan@hewm.com and tbrown@hewm.com. New Securities Fraud Cases GLOBALSTAR INC: KGS Announces N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC announced that a securities fraud class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders of Globalstar, Inc. common stock purchased in the initial public offering or on the open market during on or about Nov. 2, 2006 through Feb. 6, 2007. The complaint charges Globalstar and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the federal securities law. On or about Nov. 2, 2006, the IPO Prospectus, which forms part of the Registration Statement, became effective and at least 7.5 million shares of Globalstar's common stock were sold to the public, thereby raising more than $127 million. The Prospectus failed to disclose that Globalstar's constellation of satellites was degrading at an increasingly fast rate and the length of their commercial viability was decreasing. Then, on Feb. 5, 2007, Globalstar filed a Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing several material events. Among other things, the company disclosed that it has received updated information concerning its constellation of satellites and that the satellites' rate of degradation had accelerated. In response to the announcement about the company's satellites, on Feb. 6, 2007, the price of Globalstar stock declined precipitously falling from $14.48 per share to $10.40 per share -- approximately 39% below the IPO price -- on extremely heavy trading volume. Interested parties may move the court no later than April 10, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner of Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, KGS, Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 106 (toll free), Mobile: 504-301-7900, E-mail: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com, Website: http://www.kgscounsel.com. LG. PHILIPS: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Brower Piven commenced a securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendant LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. and one or more of its officers and/or directors, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of LG.Philips between July 16, 2004 and Dec. 11, 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. LG. PHILIPS: Brualdi Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- The Brualdi Law Firm commenced a securities 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 between July 16, 2004 and Dec. 11, 2006. The complaint charges LG.Philips and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the U.S. 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. On Dec. 8, 2006, officials from South Korea's Fair Trade Commission appeared at the company's Seoul headquarters to proceed with a formal investigation of the company and its top executives. Then on Dec. 11, 2006, the company announced it was being investigated for possible anticompetitive conduct in the LCD industry. The announcement spurred a two-day stock slide that erased about $1.6 billion in market value from the top five producers, including LG.Philips. 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. Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from Feb. 7, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. LG.Philips engages in the manufacture and supply of thin film transistor liquid crystal displays to original equipment manufacturers and multinational corporations. It sells its products primarily in the U.S., Korea, Asia, and Europe. For more information, contact Tali Leger, Director of Shareholder Relations of The Brualdi Law Firm, 29 Broadway, Suite 2400, New York, New York 10006, Phone: (877) 495-1877 toll free or (212) 952-0602, E-mail: tleger@brualdilawfirm.com, Website: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com/. LG. PHILIPS: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C. filed a lawsuit seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. between July 16, 2004 and Dec. 11, 2006, inclusive. Also included are those who purchased in the Initial Public Offering and in the Secondary Offering on or around July 21, 2005. The complaint alleges that LG Phillips and certain of its officers and directors violated Federal Securities laws in the U.S. Specifically, defendants made positive statements concerning the company's liquid crystal displays business while they were using artificial antitrust mechanisms, including price fixing, to support inflated margins. During the Class Period, defendants concealed that: (i) 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; and (ii) as a result, the company's shares traded at inflated prices, enabling the company to consummate its IPO raising $1 billion, its Secondary Offering raising $1.4 billion, and obtain an additional $500 million in other securities offerings. On Dec. 8, 2006, officials from South Korea's Fair Trade Commission appeared at the company's Seoul headquarters to proceed with a formal investigation of the company and its top executives. On Dec. 11, 2006, LG Phillips announced it was being investigated for possible anticompetitive conduct in the LCD industry. Interested parties may move the court no later than April 9, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact Wayne T. Boulton and Nancy A. Kulesa, both of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499 toll-free, E-mail: firm@snlaw.net, Website: http://www.snlaw.net. NUVELO INC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Nuvelo, Inc. publicly traded securities during the period between Jan. 5, 2006 and Dec. 8, 2006. The complaint charges Nuvelo and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that Nuvelo misrepresented its chances of obtaining U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of a purported new blood clot dissolver, alfimeprase. The complaint further alleges that despite the fact that 80% of Nuvelo's value was attributed to this drug, the company's top officers concealed that their own clinical data demonstrated alfimeprase was ineffective in dissolving blood clots. On Dec. 14, 2005, the company announced it had received a Special Protocol Assessment (SPA) agreement from the FDA, claiming that the SPA would solidify the regulatory pathway to approval for alfimeprase. Defendants also stated their "power calculations" demonstrated alfimeprase's efficacy as a drug candidate. During a Jan. 5, 2006 conference call, defendants confirmed they believed alfimeprase would reach the U.S. consumer market by 2008 and that alfimeprase would generate $500 million in annual sales in the U.S. alone. The complaint alleges Nuvelo's stock price surged on this news and remained inflated throughout the Class Period while Nuvelo issued and sold 7.5 million shares of its common stock in an underwritten offering on Jan. 30, 2006, receiving over $119 million in proceeds. Then on Dec. 11, 2006, Nuvelo disclosed that alfimeprase had completely failed its clinical trials. During the conference call following the announcement, Nuvelo's chief executive sadmitted that alfimeprase failed to perform better than placebos and that previously reported positive results were due to drug injections washing clots away rather than dissolving them. On this news the company's stock fell 80%, erasing over $800 million in market capitalization. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were that: (i) Nuvelo had no reliable clinical data suggesting that alfimeprase "dissolved" blood clots when applied to them through a catheter, other than physically washing them away; (ii) Nuvelo had no "power calculations" suggesting alfimeprase would out-perform a placebo as required to demonstrate the efficacy the FDA would demand; and (iii) defendants knew the decision of Amgen, the drug's original developer, to walk away in December 2004 was based on Amgen's educated suspicion (based on clinical data also known to defendants) that alfimeprase would likely not pass FDA muster and thus was not a commercially viable drug candidate. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Nuvelo publicly traded securities during the Class Period. Nuvelo is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in the development and commercialization of acute cardiovascular and cancer therapies. For more information, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com, Website: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/nuvelo/. POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Howard Smith Files Calif. Stock Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith filed a securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. between May 2, 2005 and Oct. 9, 2006, inclusive. The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning the company's operations and financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of Powerwave securities. Interested parties may move the court no later than April 2, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847 Toll-Free, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Website: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com. POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin Files Calif. Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, on behalf of all common stock purchasers of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. (PWAV) from May 2, 2005 through Oct. 9, 2006, inclusive. The complaint charges Powerwave and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that Powerwave was materially overstating its financial results, specifically by improperly recognizing revenue; (2) that the company was materially overstating its profitability by underreporting foreseeable expenses, and failing to make proper, timely adjustments; (3) that Powerwave's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with GAAP; (4) that the company lacked adequate internal operational or financial controls; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On Oct. 9, 2006, prior to the market opening for that day, Powerwave shocked investors when it announced, in striking contrast to the company's prior announcements, the company was drastically slashing its financial guidance for the third quarter of fiscal year 2006. On the release of this news, shares of the company's stock declined $1.38, or 17.6 percent, to close on Oct. 9, 2006 at $6.42 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than April 2, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. and Richard A. Maniskas, Esq., both of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888- 299-7706 toll free or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com. POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholders File Calif. Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. announced that a lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Powerwave Technologies Inc., between May 2, 2005 and Oct. 9, 2006, inclusive. The lawsuit charges Powerwave and certain officers and directors of violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants made a series of materially false and misleading statements or failed to disclose certain adverse facts, including; (1) problems associated with the implementation of the company's enterprise resource management system; (2) that Defendants had overstated Powerwave's profitability and understated its expenses and acquisition integration costs; (3) that the company did not have adequate internal controls; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim that Powerwave was operating according to plan and could achieve financial guidance issued by Defendants. On Oct. 9, 2006, Powerwave announced preliminary financial results for the third quarter of 2006. The press release announced that the company expected revenue for the quarter to be in the range of $155 million to $160 million, approximately $50 million below the company's previous guidance. In reaction to the news, shares of Powerwave fell from $7.79 per share to $6.41 per share, a decline of approximately 17.7%. Interested parties may move the court no later than April 2, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact Brian Penny Esq., of The Law Firm of Goldman Scralato & Karon., P.C., Phone: 888-668-4130. QUANTA CAPITAL: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Brower Piven commenced a securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York 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, inclusive. The action charges Quanta and one or more of its officers and/or directors of violating 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 6, 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. SUNRISE SENIOR: Entwistle & Cappucci Files D.C. Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- New York law firm Entwistle & Cappucci LLP filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for violations of the federal securities laws. Named defendants in the suit are: -- Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., -- Paul J. Klaassen, -- Thomas B. Newell, -- Bradley B. Rush, -- Ronald V. Aprahamian, -- J. Douglas Holladay, -- Thomas J. Donohue, -- William G. Little, -- Teresa M. Klaassen, -- Craig R. Callen and -- J. Barron Anschutz. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons who purchased Sunrise common stock from Aug. 4, 2005 through and including June 15, 2006 and all persons who owned Sunrise common stock at the time Sunrise's 2000 through 2006 Proxy Statements were circulated to shareholders. The complaint alleges that the defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts concerning the company's financial performance and condition. In this regard, the complaint alleges that the defendants falsely represented to investors that Sunrise's equity in earnings in unconsolidated senior living properties was growing due to its joint ventures. The complaint further alleges that the statements were materially false and misleading because, among other reasons, the defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Sunrise was understating losses from its minority interests in joint ventures in which Sunrise's partners received preferential distributions; (ii) the company was improperly accounting for gains on real estate sales in which it provided guarantees and commitments to venture partners and third parties; and (iii) its financial results were overstated due to options back-dating. Accordingly, the complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b), 20(a), 20A and 14(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act. On May 9, 2006, the company announced it was rescheduling its 2006 earnings release to allow additional time for review of the accounting treatment applied to the company's investments in unconsolidated senior living communities. In response to this announcement, the price of Sunrise common stock dropped from $39.30 per share on May 8, 2006, to $32.35 on May 9, 2006, and continued to decline during the remainder of the Class Period, to as low as $28.54 per share on June 15, 2006. On May 10, 2006, Sunrise further disclosed that its internal review is focused on the allocation of profits and losses for certain joint ventures where Sunrise was a minority partner and its capital partner received a preference. Thereafter, on May 11, 2006, Sunrise announced that, as a result of its review, the company decided to use a different methodology to allocate profits and losses from its joint ventures in the future. On July 31, 2006, Sunrise announced that it would restate its financial statements for the years ended 1999 through 2005 to adjust the accounting treatment related to the company's ventures that contain partner preferences and its recognition of income from prior sales of real estate. The company further announced that the cumulative impact of the restatement was expected to be between $60 million and $110 million. In connection with its recent disclosures, Sunrise also announced that it is currently the subject of ongoing investigations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Specifically, on Aug. 8, 2006, the company announced that the SEC had requested information regarding the company's accounting method and its interpretation of certain accounting principles. Thereafter, on Dec. 11, 2006, the company announced that the SEC had requested information regarding the company's stock option grant practices and its executives' insider trading. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than March 19, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq., Shareholder Relations Dept. of Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, 280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West New York, New York 10017, Phone: (212) 894-7200, Fax: (212) 894-7272, E-mail: rcappucci@entwistle-law.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, and Janice Mendoza, Editors. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *