/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070410.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, April 10, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 70 Headlines ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: In Talks to Settle Colo. Securities Lawsuit BROOKSTONE INC: Calif. Consumer Suit Settlement Hearing Set May CARIBOU COFFEE: Minn. Judge Recommends Class Status in FLSA Suit CIRCUIT CITY: Calif. Workers File Age Discrimination Lawsuit DEL MONTE: Recalls Pet Products Over Melamine Content DEL MONTE: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Over Recalled Pet Food DUKE ENERGY: Ohio Residents File Lawsuit Over Plant's Emissions EBAY INC: Texas Antitrust Lawsuit Refiled in California IMAGITAS INC: Seeks Consolidation of Multiple DPPA Lawsuits J2 GLOBAL: Calif. Court Dismisses Litigation Over eFax Service MASTEX INDUSTRIES: Recalls Twin Foot Warmers with Faulty Wiring MENU FOODS: Calif. Couple Files Lawsuit Over Tainted Pet Food MENU FOODS: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Recalled Pet Food MENU FOODS: Faces Lawsuit in Idaho Over Recalled Pet Food NISOURCE INC: W.Va. "Stand Energy" Suit Still in Discovery NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Appeals Certification of Mo. Securities Suit NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Faces New Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Mo. NOVASTAR HOME: Parties Settle FCRA Violations Lawsuit in La. NOVASTAR HOME: Resolves Lawsuits Over Settlement Service Fees NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Hearing in Wash. Consumer Suit Set April 23 NUVELO INC: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y. OKK TRADING: Recalls Baby Dolls with Parts Posing Choking Hazard OLD REPUBLIC: Faces Title Insurance Suits in Conn., N.J., Ohio REGENT PRODUCTS: Recalls Stuffed Fun Balls with Lead Paint REPUBLIC MORTGAGE: Settles S.C. Lawsuit Over Insurance Rates STEARNS INC: Recalls Inflator Pumps That Can Explode During Use TIER TECHNOLOGIES: May Hearing Set for Va. Securities Fraud Suit TRIBUNE CO: Shareholder Files Suit Over Planned $8.2B Sale WARNER CHILCOTT: D.C. Court Junks Motion to Dismiss Ovcon Case WARNER CHILCOTT: Mediator Appointed in D.C. Ovcon Litigation WASHINGTON: City Reaches Settlement in Lawsuit Over WTO Arrests New Securities Fraud Cases AROTECH CORP: KGS Files First Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Mich. ELI LILLY: Lerach Coughlin Announces Securities Suit Filing INTERNATIONAL COAL: Lerach Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing WIRELESS FACILITIES: Schoengold Files Ca. Securities Fraud Suit ********* ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: In Talks to Settle Colo. Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Allos Therapeutics Inc. is still in discussions to settle a purported securities class action filed against the company and one of its former officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in May 2004. An amended complaint was filed in August 2004. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's securities during the period from May 29, 2003 to April 29, 2004. It sought unspecified damages relating to the issuance of allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the cancer drug EFAPROXYN during this period and subsequent declines in the company's stock price. On Oct. 20, 2005, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice. In an opinion dated Oct. 20, 2005, the District Court concluded that the plaintiff's complaint failed to meet the legal requirements applicable to its alleged claims. On Nov. 20, 2005, the plaintiff appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. In October 2006, the parties held discussions to settle the matter, although the terms of any such potential settlement remain subject to negotiation and no binding agreement has been reached, the company said at its March 14 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The suit is "Noble Asset Mgmt LLC v. Allos Therapeutics, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01030-RPM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Richard P. Matsch. Representing the plaintiffs is Jeffrey Allen Berens of Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO 80218-1417, U.S.A, Phone: 303-861-3003, Fax: 303-830-6920, E-mail: jberens@dyershuman.com. Representing the defendants are: (1) Tara L. Acton of Berenbaum, Weinshienk & Eason, P.C., 370 - 17th Street, Republic Plaza #4800, Denver, CO 80202-5698, U.S.A., Phone: 303-825-0800, Fax: 303-629- 7610, E-mail: tacton@bw-legal.com; and (2) Paul Howard Schwartz of Cooley Godward, LLP, Colorado 380 Interlocken, Crescent #900, Broomfield, CO80021- 8023, U.S.A, Phone: 720-566-4000, Fax: 720-566-4099, E- mail: schwartzph@cooley.com. BROOKSTONE INC: Calif. Consumer Suit Settlement Hearing Set May --------------------------------------------------------------- A May 15 fairness hearing is set for a proposed settlement of a purported class action filed against Brookstone, Inc. by buyers or its air purifiers in California. The putative class action was commenced against the company on Sept. 15, 2004 in the California Superior Court in Los Angeles County. The complaint, as amended, alleges, among other things, that the company engaged in unfair business practices under California's Unfair Competition Laws by selling certain air purifiers that failed to perform as intended. It seeks unspecified damages and other relief. In December 2006 the parties agreed to settle the plaintiffs' claims, and on Jan. 31, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. A final fairness hearing is scheduled before the court for May 15, according to the company's March 29 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 30, 2006. Brookstone, Inc. on the Net: http://www.brookstone.com. CARIBOU COFFEE: Minn. Judge Recommends Class Status in FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeanne Graham in St. Paul, Minnesota, recommended that former and current employees of Caribou Coffee Co. should be allowed to pursue claims of labor laws violations against the company as a group, reports say. The employees are alleging that Caribou Coffee has violated the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act, the federal FLSA, and state common law. Judge Graham based her recommendation that the managers qualify as a "similarly situated" group on three factors: -- Caribou has a single job description for all of its store managers; -- the managers all consistently worked more than 40 hours a week; and -- Caribou's own internal analysis looked at the store managers as a collective whole -- not one at a time -- when deciding whether they are exempt from overtime pay. The opinion could affect 150 to 400 Caribou managers who say they should be paid time-and-a-half for the 10-15 extra hours they regularly work each week, the (Minneapolis) Star Tribune reports. The case now goes to U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz. Minnesota Federal Case A suit was filed on July 26, 2005 by three former employees of the company in the State of Minnesota District Court for Hennepin County. It is seeking monetary and equitable relief. The suit primarily alleges that the company misclassified its retail coffeehouse managers and managers in training as exempt from the overtime provisions of the Minnesota FLSA and the federal FLSA and that these managers and managers in training are therefore entitled to overtime compensation for each week in which they worked more than 40 hours from May 2002 to the present with respect to the claims under the federal FLSA and for weeks in which they worked more than 48 hours from May 2003 to the present with respect to the claims under the Minnesota FLSA. The plaintiffs are seeking to represent themselves and all of the company's allegedly similarly situated current and former (within the foregoing periods of time) coffeehouse managers. In addition, they are also seeking payment of an unspecified amount of allegedly owed and unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties under the Minnesota FLSA, a full accounting of the amount allegedly owed to the putative class, temporary and injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs. On Aug. 15, 2005, the company removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District for the District of Minnesota and filed its answer to the complaint. On Oct. 31, 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify an alleged nationwide class of current and former coffeehouse managers since May 25, 2002 for purposes of pursuing the plaintiffs' claim that the coffeehouse managers were and are misclassified as exempt under the FSLA. By order dated Dec. 21, 2005, the court approved a notice to be sent to all members of the conditionally certified class. The suit is "Nerland et al v. Caribou Coffee Co., Inc., Case No. 0:05-cv-01847-PJS-JJG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Patrick J. Schiltz, with referral to Judge Jeanne J. Graham. Representing plaintiffs are: (1) Jonathan W. Cuneo of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, 507 C. St., NE Washington, DC 20002, Phone: 202-789-3960, E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com; (2) Clayton D. Halunen of Halunen & Associates, 220 South 6th Street, Ste. 2000, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: (612) 605-4098, Fax: (612) 605-4099, E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com; and (3) Charles N. Nauen of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P., 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401, Phone: 612-339-6900, Fax: 612-339-0981, E- mail: cnnauen@locklaw.com. Representing defendants are: (i) Peter N. Hall of King & Spalding, LLP, 191 Peachtree St., Atlanta, GA 30303-1763, Phone: 404-572-4698, E- mail: phall@kslaw.com; and (ii) Joseph M Sokolowski of Parsinen Kaplan Rosberg & Gotlieb, 100 S. 5th St., Ste. 1100, Minneapolis, MN 55402-1298, Phone: 612-333-2111, Fax: 612-333-6798, E- mail: jsokolowski@parlaw.com. CIRCUIT CITY: Calif. Workers File Age Discrimination Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Three employees of Circuit City Stores Inc. who were laid off as part of the company's restructuring, filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging violations of California law prohibiting age discrimination, the Ventura County Star reports. Daniel Weidler, Michael Yezback and Eloise Garcia, who worked at the Circuit City store in Oxnard, are seeking class-action status for the case to represent all Circuit City employees 40 years old and older who were dismissed from stores in California. The suit accuses Circuit City of age discrimination and wrongful termination. According to the complaint, "the workers terminated were those with greater seniority and length of service -- mostly likely the older members of the work force." It cites California law, which states that "the use of salary as the basis for differentiating between employees when terminating employment may ... constitute age discrimination." The lawsuit seeks a jury trial and an unspecified amount in damages. In addition to the recent layoffs, the company's restructuring included closing seven domestic Superstores, a Kentucky distribution center and 62 company-owned stores in Canada. Plaintiffs' attorney is Gloria Allred of Allred, Maroko & Goldberg, 6300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1500, Los Angeles, CA 90048, Phone: (323)653-6530, Fax: (323)653-1660. DEL MONTE: Recalls Pet Products Over Melamine Content ----------------------------------------------------- Del Monte Pet Products is voluntarily recalling select product codes of its pet treat products sold under the Jerky Treats, Gravy Train Beef Sticks and Pounce Meaty Morsels brands as well as select dog snack and wet dog food products sold under private label brands. The company took this voluntary recall action immediately after learning from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that wheat gluten supplied to Del Monte Pet Products from a specific manufacturing facility in China contained melamine. Melamine is a substance not approved for use in food. The FDA made this finding as part of its ongoing investigation into the recent pet food recall. The adulteration occurred in a limited production quantity on select product codes. This recall removes all Del Monte pet products with wheat gluten procured from this manufacturing facility from retail shelves. No other Del Monte Pet Products treats, biscuits or wet dog food products are impacted by this recall, and no Del Monte dry cat food, dry dog food, wet cat food or pouched pet foods are subject to this voluntary recall. The affected products comprise less than one-tenth of one percent of Del Monte Pet Products' annual pet food and pet treat production. Del Monte Pet Products has proactively engaged and fully cooperated with the FDA since the start of its investigation. The adulterated ingredients were used in limited production over the last three months for those items identified by specific product codes. Del Monte Pet Products has not used wheat gluten from this manufacturing facility in China in any other pet products except those described below. Consumers should discontinue feeding the products with the Product Codes detailed below to their pets. Del Monte Pet Products are 100% guaranteed and all voluntarily recalled products will be refunded. Del Monte Pet Products customers can contact Consumer Hotline at (800) 949-3799 for further information about the recall and for instructions on obtaining a product refund. To see complete list of recalled products: http://www.delmonte.com/petfoodrecall.html DEL MONTE: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Over Recalled Pet Food --------------------------------------------------------- Sacramento law firms Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP and Wexler Toriseva Wallace, LLP have filed the first class action in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California against Del Monte Foods arising from its alleged sale of contaminated dog food and other pet foods to the public. The lawsuit alleges that Del Monte's Jerky Treats, Gravy Train Beef Sticks, and Pounce Meaty Morsels are contaminated with chemicals that can cause fatal kidney failure in animals that consume it. All of these brands were the subject of a recent nationwide recall and are believed to be contaminated by tainted wheat gluten from China. The lawsuit seeks reimbursement for all veterinary bills that were paid by affected pet owners. The recent Del Monte recall follows the Menu Foods Recall of more than 60 million cans of pet food. Sacramento attorney Stuart Talley commented, "This problem is massive. Since the recent wave of pet food recalls, more than 9,000 people have submitted complaints to the FDA. We believe this is just the tip of the iceberg. At the end of the day we expect several thousands claimants to be part of this Class." Veterinarians recommend that all animals known to have ingested recalled pet foods be examined immediately. "Acute kidney failure can be reversible if caught early," states Diane Roberts of Veterinary Medical Specialists in San Mateo, California, as reported by the San Mateo County Times. The law firms of Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP and Wexler Toriseva Wallace, LLP urge concerned pet owners to review the recommendations recently provided by the American Veterinary Medical Association. For more information, contact Stuart C. Talley of Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP, 980 9th Street, Suite 1900, Sacramento, CA 95814, Phone: 916-448-9800, Website: http://www.kcrlegal.com; and Mark J. Tamblyn of Wexler Toriseva Wallace, LP, Sacramento Office, 1610 Arden Way, Suite 290, Sacramento, CA 95815, Phone: 916-568-1100, Website: http://www.wtwlaw.us. DUKE ENERGY: Ohio Residents File Lawsuit Over Plant's Emissions --------------------------------------------------------------- Residents of the small river town of Moscow in Ohio are suing Duke Energy Corp. over emissions from one of the company's coal- fired power stations, WCPO reports. The residents claim that harmful emissions routinely fall on them, and they want it to stop. Previously, an appeals court upheld a lower court's ruling allowing the residents to file the suit as a group. According to the residents, the emissions all came after scrubbers designed to curb acid rain in the Northeast U.S. were installed at the Zimmer Station. They say that the by-product was Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR), reportedly designed to control Nitrogen Oxide emissions. Neighbors say on hot, humid days, the pollution falls down onto their homes. The residents want the company to make changes at the plant and/or are looking for compensation for houses and property that have lost their value as a result of the pollution. In the meantime, lawyers from both sides will try to draft a class action notice to be sent to residents of Moscow. Duke Energy Corp. on the Net: http://www.duke-energy.com/. EBAY INC: Texas Antitrust Lawsuit Refiled in California ------------------------------------------------------- An antitrust class action initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas against eBay Inc. has been refilled in California, where eBay is headquartered, AuctionBytes.com reports. Filed on March 8, the suit "Malone v. eBay Inc., Case No. 1:07- cv-00174-LY," accuses eBay of illegally tying and steering customers to use its wholly owned subsidiary, PayPal Inc., to monopolize payments and unjustly enrich itself (Class Action Reporter, March 14, 2007). The complaint alleges "sellers are forced to accept a payment procedure that imposes upon them the obligation to pay needless and supracompetitive fees to defendant." The suit contends "sellers are forced to accept eBay's payment process as a condition of being able to use the eBay auction process." Lead plaintiff in the suit is Michael Malone of Texas, who sold a pair of Sansui SP-2000 speakers on eBay for $200 in December 2005. He is representing all customer sellers of eBay who are and have been required to honor all payment methods encompassed by PayPal in respect of sales and purchases on eBay.com since 2002. Specifically, it alleges: (1) eBay leverages its monopoly in the on-line auction market by requiring that sellers utilize an on-line payment system that imposes needless and supracompetitive fees on them; (2) eBay has economic power in the on-line auction market sufficient to restrain competition in respect of payment methods; (3) eBay's coercion has achieved or has the dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power in the market for on-line payment systems for use in on-line auctions; and (4) the amount of commerce is substantial. Questions of law and fact common to the class include: (a) the definition of the relevant product and geographic markets; (b) whether defendant has sufficient economic power in the tying market to restrain appreciably competition in the tied product market; (c) whether defendant uses coercion in the market for on- line auctions to monopolize (or attempt to monopolize) the market for on-line payment systems for use in on- line auctions; (d) whether the amount of commerce affected is substantial; (e) antitrust impact; and (f) whether the practices are ongoing. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other members of the class, prays for judgment as follows: -- declaring this action to be a proper class action pursuant to rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the class, defined herein, declaring plaintiff to be an adequate representative of that class, declaring plaintiff's counsel to counsel to the class; -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period eBay illegally monopolized and maintained a monopoly in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2; -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period eBay illegally attempted to monopolize a market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2; -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period eBay engaged in unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2; -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period eBay violated California Business and Profession Code Section 16720 et seq.; -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period eBay violated California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.; -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period eBay was unjustly enriched; -- awarding judgment against eBay, in an amount to be proved at trial, treble the amount of damages suffered by the members of the class to their business and property interests, plus attorneys' fees, costs, and interest as allowable by law, for eBay's violations of the Sherman Act and applicable California law; -- enjoining eBay from continuing with its anticompetitive behavior (including the tie and the monopoly maintenance of the on-line payment services market) in violation of the Sherman Act; -- granting plaintiff and the other members of the class such other relief that the court may consider necessary or appropriate to restore competitive conditions in the markets affected by eBay's unlawful conduct; and -- granting such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. A copy of the Texas complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1b41 Representing plaintiffs is Joanne M. Cicala of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, 101 S. College St., Dripping Springs, TX 78620, Phone: (512) 858-1800, Fax: (512) 858-1801. IMAGITAS INC: Seeks Consolidation of Multiple DPPA Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------- Imagitas, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Pitney Bowes, Inc., is seeking the consolidation of several purported class actions filed against it alleging violations of the Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), according to Pitney Bowes' March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006. During the third quarter and the beginning of the fourth quarter, the company was sued in six purported class actions filed in five different states: -- "Rine v. Imagitas, Inc." (U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, filed Aug. 14, 2006; asserting class of allegedly affected residents of both the U.S. and of Florida only); -- "Mathias v. Imagitas, Inc." (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, filed Sept. 8, 2006; asserting a class of allegedly affected residents of Ohio); -- "Kracum v. Imagitas, Inc." (U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, filed Sept. 22, 2006; asserting a class of allegedly affected residents of Minnesota); -- "Ressler v. Imagitas, Inc." (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, filed Oct. 5, 2006; asserting a class of allegedly affected residents of Missouri); -- "Landree v. Imagitas, Inc." (U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, filed Oct. 6, 2006; asserting a class of allegedly affected residents of Minnesota); -- "Kendron v. Imagitas" (U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, filed Oct. 17, 2006; asserting a class of allegedly affected residents of the U.S.); -- "Mathias v. Imagitas, Inc." (U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, filed Nov. 13, 2006, asserting a class of allegedly affected residents in the U.S.); -- "Joao v. Imagitas, Inc." (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed Nov. 20, 2006, asserting a class of allegedly affected residents of New York); and -- "Bogard v. Imagitas, Inc." (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, filed Nov. 29, 2006, asserting a class of allegedly affected residents of Ohio). Each of these lawsuits alleges that the Imagitas DriverSource program violates the DPPA. Under the DriverSource program, Imagitas entered into contracts with state governments to mail out automobile registration renewal materials along with third party advertisements, without revealing the personal information of any state resident to any advertiser. The DriverSource program assists the state in performing its function of delivering these mailings and funding the costs of them. Plaintiffs in these actions are seeking both statutory damages under the DPPA and an injunction against the continuation of the program. In the hopes of achieving a quick resolution of these pending actions, Imagitas has filed a request to have all of these cases consolidated into a single multi-district litigation. In Rine, both parties have filed motions for summary judgment and the plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification. The court in "Rine" has stated that it will not rule on these motions until after the multi-district litigation panel has decided whether to consolidate these litigations. Pitney Bowes, Inc. on the Net: http://www.pb.com/. J2 GLOBAL: Calif. Court Dismisses Litigation Over eFax Service -------------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles Superior Court in California dismissed with prejudice a purported class action filed against j2 Global Communications, Inc. over alleged violations of California laws in relation to its eFax service. On Oct. 11, 2005, a complaint was filed against the company in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging violations of California law in relation to pricing policies applicable to its eFax service and, in particular, the manner in which users are notified about the terms and conditions of the pricing that applies once free service thresholds are met. The action included purported claims for false advertising, breach of contract, fraud and violations of Section 17200 of the California Business & Profession Code. The lawsuit sought damages and injunctive relief. In November 2006, the court sustained the company's demurrer in all respects and gave plaintiffs 10 days leave to file an amended complaint. Subsequently, on Nov. 29, 2006, the action was dismissed with prejudice according to the company's March 12 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. j2 Global Communications, Inc. on the Net: http://www.j2.com. MASTEX INDUSTRIES: Recalls Twin Foot Warmers with Faulty Wiring --------------------------------------------------------------- Mastex Industries LLC, of Petersburg, Virginia, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 3,000 Mastex Twin Foot Warmers. The company said the wiring in the foot warmer has a defect which can cause it to overheat. This poses a burn hazard to consumers. Mastex has received five reports of foot warmers overheating. No injuries have been reported. The recall includes model 400 twin foot warmers with date code FO4. The date code is located on the switch and the model number is written on the blanket. Model 405 full size foot warmers are not included in the recall. These recalled twin foot warmers were manufactured in the U.S. and are being sold through specialty and gift catalogs nationwide from September 2006 through October 2006 for about $40. Picture of recalled twin foot warmers: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07540.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using these foot warmers immediately and contact the firm for information on how to receive a refund or a free replacement product. For more information, call Mastex collect at (804) 732-8300 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or send an E-mail: Sales@mastex.com. MENU FOODS: Calif. Couple Files Lawsuit Over Tainted Pet Food ------------------------------------------------------------- Los Angeles couple Mitch and Jayne Englander filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court against Ontario, Canada-based Menu Foods Inc., alleging breach of contract, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress and fraudulent concealment, NBC4.tv reports. The Englanders allege the company's Iams dog food poisoned their two Golden Retrievers, killing one and leaving the other with kidney damage. They are seeking unspecified compensatory, general and special damages, and certification of their litigation as a class action. The Englanders' lawsuit is the third to be filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in a week related to allegedly tainted pet food, the report said. On March 17, 2007, Menu Foods issued a North American-wide recall of 48 brands of dog food and 42 brands of cat food in response to reported deaths of cats and dogs in the U.S. The nationwide recall includes popular brands such as Iams, Nutro, and Eukanuba and private-label brands sold by retailers Wal-Mart, Safeway, Petsmart, and others. Veterinary professionals estimate thousands of pets across the nation will die of kidney failure or become very sick with similar symptoms as a result of consuming the contaminated products. To see complete list of recalled products: http://www.menufoods.com/recall Menu Foods is facing other federal class actions in other parts of the country. MENU FOODS: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Recalled Pet Food ------------------------------------------------------------- A Calgary (Canada) law firm has filed the most recent lawsuit in Alberta against the Canadian manufacturer of recalled pet food suspected of causing death or sickness in hundreds of dogs and cats, CBC News reports. Clint Docken filed the suit on behalf of Jim O'Keefe and several other pet owners. It seeks compensation for people who have accrued veterinary bills after their pets got sick eating Menu Foods products. "This is a classic products liability claim ... in the same way that you may have an individual who's injured or killed as the result of a defective product," Mr. Docken said, adding that he expects more pet owners to come forward. Similar lawsuits have been filed in Ontario and the U.S against Ontario-based Menu Foods on behalf of pet owners who say their animals fell ill after eating tainted food. Plaintiffs' attorney, Clint Docken is with Docken & Co., 900, 800-6th Ave. SW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2P 3G3, Phone: (403) 269-3612, Fax: (403) 269-8246. MENU FOODS: Faces Lawsuit in Idaho Over Recalled Pet Food ---------------------------------------------------------- Three Idaho residents filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho against Canada's Menu Foods Inc., the manufacturer of recalled pet food suspected of causing death or sickness in hundreds of dogs and cats, the Associated Press reports. Larry Klimes, Paul Lavoie and Richard Mueller filed the lawsuit on behalf of all pet owners whose animals have allegedly been made sick by the tainted pet food. The three claim that Menu Foods engaged in unlawful and deceptive business practices and violated its warranties and breached its contracts with consumers by selling its "cuts and gravy" style wet pet foods. On March 17, 2007, Menu Foods issued a North American wide recall of 48 brands of dog food and 42 brands of cat food in response to reported deaths of cats and dogs in the U.S. The nationwide recall includes popular brands such as Iams, Nutro, and Eukanuba and private-label brands sold by retailers Wal-Mart, Safeway, Petsmart, and others. Veterinary professionals estimate thousands of pets across the nation will die of kidney failure or become very sick with similar symptoms as a result of consuming the contaminated products. To see complete list of recalled products: http://www.menufoods.com/recall Menu Foods is facing other federal class actions in other parts of the country. The suit is "Klimes et al. v. Menu Foods, Case No. 1:07-cv- 00160-MHW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho under Judge Mikel H. Williams. Representing plaintiffs are Philip Howard Gordon of the Gordon Law Offices, 623 W Hays, Boise, ID 83702-5512, Phone: (208) 345- 7100, Fax: 1-208-345-0050, E-mail: pgordon@gordonlawoffices.com; and Mick Hodges of Peterson Hodges & Harper, PO Box 3088, Twin Falls, ID 83303-5298, Phone: (208) 733-5500, E-mail: mick76hodges@aol.com. NISOURCE INC: W.Va. "Stand Energy" Suit Still in Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------- Discovery continues in a purported class action that alleges certain "select shippers," including certain subsidiaries and affiliates of NiSource, Inc., have engaged in an "illegal gas scheme" that constituted a breach of contract and violated state law. The suit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of West Virginia. On July 14, 2004, Stand Energy Corp. filed a complaint in Kanawha County Court in West Virginia styled, "Stand Energy Corp., et al. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., et al." The complaint contains allegations against various NiSource, Inc. subsidiaries and affiliates, including Columbia Transmission and Columbia Gulf, and asserts that those companies and certain "select shippers" engaged in an "illegal gas scheme" that constituted a breach of contract and violated state law. The "illegal gas scheme" complained of by the plaintiffs relates to the Columbia Transmission and Columbia Gulf gas imbalance transactions that were the subject of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission enforcement staff investigation and subsequent settlement approved in October 2000. Columbia Transmission and Columbia Gulf filed a notice of removal with the U.S. District Court for the District of West Virginia on Aug. 13, 2004 and a motion to dismiss on Sept. 10, 2004. In October 2004, however, the plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, which clarified the identity of some of the "select shipper" defendants and added a federal antitrust cause of action. On Jan. 6, 2005, the court denied the Columbia companies' motion to strike the second amended complaint and granted the plaintiffs leave to amend. To address the issues raised in the Second Amended Complaint, the Columbia companies revised their briefs in support of the previously filed motions to dismiss. In June 2005, the court granted in part and denied in part the Columbia companies' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The Columbia companies have filed an answer to the Second Amended Complaint. One of the plaintiffs, Atlantigas Corp., was dismissed from the case, and has appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals. On Dec. 1, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify this case as a class action. The court has ordered that discovery will proceed on the issue of class certification as well as the merits. The company reported no material development in the matter in its March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The suit is "Stand Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00867," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia under Judge Robert C. Chambers. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Joshua I. Barrett, Rudolph L. DiTrapano, Molly McGinley Han and Lonnie C. Simmons of Ditrapano Barrett & Dipiero, 604 Virginia Street, E Charleston, WV 25301, Phone: 304/342-0133, Fax: 304 342-4605; and (2) Robert C. Sanders, The Law Office of Robert C. Sanders, 12051 Upper Marlboro Pike, Upper Marlboro, MD 20772- 2922, Phone: 301/574-3400, Fax: 301 574-2153. Representing the company are: (i) Michael S. Becker, James W. Draughn, Jr., Avery Gardiner, Thomas M. McDermott of Kirkland & Ellis, Suite 1200, 655 Fifteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202/879-5000, Fax: 202 879-5200; and (ii) John H. Tinney of The Tinney Law Firm, P. O. Box 3752, Charleston, WV 25337-3752, Phone: 304/720-3310, Fax: 304/720-3315. NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Appeals Certification of Mo. Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- NovaStar Financial, Inc., filed a motion seeking reconsideration of a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri to grant class-action status to a consolidated securities fraud suit filed against the company. Since April 2004, a number of substantially similar securities class actions against the company and three of its executive officers were filed and consolidated into a single action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The consolidated complaint generally alleged that the defendants made public statements that were misleading or failed to disclose certain regulatory and licensing matters. The complaint names as defendants: -- the company; -- Lance W. Anderson, president, and chief operating officer; -- Michael L. Bamburg, senior vice president and chief investment officer; -- Scott Hartman, chairman of the board and chief executive officer; and -- Rodney E. Schwatken, vice president, secretary, treasurer, and controller. The plaintiffs purported to bring this consolidated action on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock and sellers of put options on the company's common stock during the period Oct. 29, 2003 through April 8, 2004. According to the complaint, NovaStar fostered an aggressive- growth culture throughout the class period. NovaStar touted its rapid growth in earnings, production, and its securities portfolio and highlighted the increasing number of NovaStar- affiliated branch offices. In 2003, the company reported that it had doubled the number of branch offices in operation and that its earnings had more than doubled in 2003 to $112 million. On Aug. 23, 2004, Judge Ortrie D. Smith issued an order consolidating all related cases into one class action as, "In re NovaStar Financial Securities Litigation" and appointed lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint on Nov. 12, 2004. On Jan 14, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss this action, and on May 12, 2005, the court denied such motion. On Feb. 8, the court certified the case as a class action. On Feb. 20, the company filed a motion for reconsideration. The suit is "In Re: Novastar Financial Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:04-cv-00330-ODS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri under Judge Ortrie D. Smith. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Bruce D. Bernstein and Michael B. Eisenkraft of Milberg, Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-5300; (2) James M. Evangelista of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, 1230 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 2300, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: (404) 607-6871, Fax: (404) 876-4476, E- mail: jevangelista@chitwoodlaw.com; and (3) William W. Wickersham of Entwitle & Cappucci, LLP, 299 Park Avenue, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10171, Phone: 212-894-7200. Representing the defendants are Erin Bansal and William F. Alderman of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, 405 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-773-5700, Fax: (415) 773-5759, E-mail: walderman@orrick.com. NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Faces New Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Mo. -------------------------------------------------------------- Novastar Financial, Inc. was named as a defendant in two putative class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on February 2007, according to the company's March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The complaints name the company, and three of its executive officers as defendants and generally allege, among other things, that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and financial results. The plaintiffs purport to have brought the actions on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock during the period May 4, 2006 through Feb. 20, 2007. The first identified complaint is "Robert W. Boyd, III, et al. v. NovaStar Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-00139," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri under Judge Howard F. Sachs. Plaintiff firms in this or similar case: (1) Law Offices of Alfred G. Yates of 519 Alleghany Bldg., 429 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15219, Phone: 412.391.5164; (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423; and (3) Saxena White PA, 2424 North Federal Highway. Suite 307, Boca Raton, FL, 33431, Phone: 800.361.5096, Fax: 888.782.3081, Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com. NOVASTAR HOME: Parties Settle FCRA Violations Lawsuit in La. ------------------------------------------------------------ Parties in a putative class action alleging violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act by NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc., a subsidiary of Novastar Financial, Inc., have agreed to settle the matter. The suit was filed in December 2005 and is currently pending in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. It claims that the company violated FCRA in connection with its use of pre-approved offers of credit and its failure to make certain disclosures required by federal law. Plaintiff sought, on his own behalf, as well as for others similarly situated, statutory damages, other nominal damages, punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs. In January 2007, the named plaintiff and NovaStar Home agreed to settle the lawsuit for a nominal amount, according to the company's March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The suit is "Pearson v. Novastar Home Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 3:05-cv-01377-JVP-DLD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana under Judge John V. Parker with referral to Judge Docia L. Dalby. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Philip Bohrer of Bohrer Law Firm, 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B, Baton Rouge, LA 70809, Phone: 225- 925-5297, Fax: 225-231-7000, E-mail: phil@bohrerlaw.com; and (2) Scott E. Brady, 8712 Jefferson Hwy, Ste. B, Baton Rouge, LA 70809, Phone: 225-924-7636, Fax: 225-231- 7000, E-mail: scott@bradylawfirmllc.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) James Rodney Chastain, Jr., Kean, Miller-B.R., P.O. Box 3513, Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3513, Phone: 225-387-0999, Fax: 225-388-9133, E-mail: sonny.chastain@keanmiller.com; and (ii) Tara E. Montgomery of Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, P.O. Box 3513, Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3513, Phone: 225-387-0999, Fax: 388-9133, E- mail: tara.montgomery@keanmiller.com. NOVASTAR HOME: Resolves Lawsuits Over Settlement Service Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc., a subsidiary of Novastar Financial, Inc., has reached nationwide settlement for several purported class actions related to settlement service fees. In April 2005, three putative class actions filed against NovaStar Home and certain of its affiliates were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, as "In Re NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc. Mortgage Lending Practices Litigation." These cases allege that NovaStar Home improperly shared settlement service fees with limited liability companies in which NovaStar Home had an interest alleging violations of the fee splitting and anti-referral provisions of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and alleging certain violations of state law and civil conspiracy. Plaintiffs seek treble damages with respect to the RESPA claims, disgorgement of fees with respect to the state law claims as well as other damages, injunctive relief and attorney fees. In addition, two other related class actions have been filed in state courts: -- "Miller v. NovaStar Financial, Inc. et al.," was filed in October 2004 in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois; and -- "Jones et al. v. NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc. et al., was filed in December 2004 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. In the Miller case, plaintiffs allege a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act and civil conspiracy and contend certain LLCs provided settlement services without the borrower's knowledge. Plaintiffs in the Miller case seek a disgorgement of fees, other damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees on behalf of the class of plaintiffs. In the Jones case, the plaintiffs allege the LLCs violated the Maryland Mortgage Lender Law by acting as lenders and/or brokers in Maryland without proper licenses and contend this arrangement amounted to a civil conspiracy. Plaintiffs in the Jones case seek a disgorgement of fees and attorney's fees. In January 2007, all of the plaintiffs and NovaStar Home agreed upon a nationwide settlement, according to the company's March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. Novastar Financial, Inc. on the Net: http://www.novastaris.com/. NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Hearing in Wash. Consumer Suit Set April 23 -------------------------------------------------------------- An April 23 trial is slated for a putative consumer fraud class action pending against NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., a subsidiary of Novastar Financial, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Filed in December 2005, the suit argued that the company failed to disclose prior to closing that a broker payment would be made on their loans, which was an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The suit sought a return of fees paid on the affected loans, excess interest charged, and damage to plaintiffs' credit and finances, treble damages as provided in the Washington Consumer Protection Act and attorney fees. On Oct. 31, 2006, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a Washington state class. NovaStar Mortgage sought to appeal the grant of class certification; however, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit denied the request for interlocutory appeal so review of the class certification order must wait until after a final judgment is entered, if necessary. The case is set for trial on April 23. The suit is "Pierce, et al. v. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 3:05-cv-05835-RJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under Judge Robert J. Bryan. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Matthew Phineas Bergman of Law Office Of Matthew Bergman, 705 2ND Avenue, Suite 1601, Seattle, WA 98104, Phone: 206-957-9510, E-mail: matt@bergmanlegal.com; and (2) Ari Y. Brown of Bergman & Frockt, 705 Second Avenue, Ste. 1601, Seattle, WA 98104, Phone: 206-957-9510, E- mail: ari@bergmanlegal.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Donald C Brown, Jr. of Weiner Brodsky Sidmann Kider, 1300 19TH ST., NW, 5TH FL., Washington, DC 20036, Phone: 202-628-2000, E-mail: brown@wbsk.com; and (ii) Sal Mungia of Gordon Thomas Honeywell Malanca Peterson & Daheim, P.O. BOX 1157, Tacoma, WA 98401-1157, Phone: 253-620-6500, Fax: 1-253-620-6565, E-mail: smungia@gth-law.com. NUVELO INC: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ Nuvelo, Inc. was named as a defendant in several purported securities fraud class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On Feb. 9, the company and certain of its former and current officers and directors were named as defendants in a purported securities class action. The suit alleges violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to the clinical trial results of alfimeprase, which the company announced on Dec. 11, 2006. The suit seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period between Jan. 5, 2006, and Dec. 8, 2006. Specifically, the suit alleges that the company misled investors regarding the efficacy of alfimeprase and the drug's likelihood of success. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief. A second lawsuit was filed on Feb. 16, and it is possible that other similar lawsuits will be filed, according to the company's March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. To the extent similar cases are filed, the company expects such cases to be consolidated. The first identified complaint is "Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, IBEW, et al. v. Nuvelo, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff firms in this or similar case: (1) Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, 1515 Locust Street, 2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215-561- 3600, Fax: 215-561-3000, E-mail: bmgross@bernardmgross.com; (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173; (3) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423; and (4) Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, 2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120, Walnut Creek, CA, 94598, Phone: 925.945.0200, Fax: 925.945.8792, E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com. OKK TRADING: Recalls Baby Dolls with Parts Posing Choking Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- OKK Trading Inc., of Commerce, California, in cooperation with U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 3,500 "Lovely Baby" and "Happy Baby" dolls. The company said these dolls contain small parts, which can pose a choking hazard to young children. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves the "Lovely Baby" and "Happy Baby" plastic dolls. The dolls come in different sizes ranging from six to 11 inches tall. Some dolls come in a basket and have a baby bottle and some sing when pressed on the abdominal area. The packaging is a clear plastic bag sealed at the top with a cardboard label with the name "Lovely Baby" or "Happy Baby" printed on it. These recalled "Lovely Baby" and "Happy Baby" dolls were manufactured in China and are being sold at Dollar stores nationwide from September 2006 through October 2006 for $1. Pictures of recalled "Lovely Baby" and "Happy Baby" dolls: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07146a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07146b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07146c.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately take these dolls away from children. Consumers should return the doll to the store where purchased for a refund. For additional information, contact OKK Trading toll-free at (877) OKK-TOYS between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. PT Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.okktrading.com. OLD REPUBLIC: Faces Title Insurance Suits in Conn., N.J., Ohio -------------------------------------------------------------- Old Republic National Title Insurance Co. (ORNTIC), a principal title insurance subsidiary of Old Republic International Corp., faces several purported class actions in state courts in Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey and Ohio. Generally, plaintiffs allege that, pursuant to rate schedules filed by ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the state insurance regulators, ORNTIC was required to, but failed to give consumers reissue credits on the premiums charged for title insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions. Substantially similar lawsuits have been filed against other unaffiliated title insurance companies in these and other states as well. The actions seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. ORNTIC has reached a tentative settlement in Florida for an amount not to exceed $1.2, exclusive of attorneys' fees and costs. The company reported no material development in any of the cases in its March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. Old Republic International Corp. (NYSE: ORI) on the Net: http://www.oldrepublic.com/. REGENT PRODUCTS: Recalls Stuffed Fun Balls with Lead Paint ---------------------------------------------------------- Regent Products Corp., in River Grove, Illinois, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 7,200 stuffed fun balls. The company said the stuffed balls contain lead paint, which is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects. No injuries have been reported. The Fun Ball is an orange stuffed ball toy that measures 4 inches in diameter and designed to look like a basketball. The ball is printed with colored numbers, letters and "Reg. #PA- 10623(HK)." These recalled stuffed fun balls were manufactured in China and are being sold at Dollar stores and other discount stores nationwide from June 2006 through March 2007 for about $1. Picture of the recalled stuffed fun balls: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07141.jpg Consumers are advised to take these balls away from young children immediately and return the toy to the store where purchased for a refund. For additional information, contact Regent Products at (800) 940-4869 between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.regentproducts.comor E- mail: recall@regentproducts.com. REPUBLIC MORTGAGE: Settles S.C. Lawsuit Over Insurance Rates ------------------------------------------------------------ Republic Mortgage Insurance Co., a wholly owned mortgage guaranty insurance subsidiary of Old Republic International Corp., has reached a settlement for a purported class action over a company decision to insure loans at a higher rate. The action, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, sought certification of a nationwide class of consumers who were allegedly required to pay for private mortgage insurance at a cost greater than Republic Mortgage's "best available rate." The action alleges that the was based on the consumers' credit scores and constituted an "adverse action" within the meaning, and in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, that requires notice, allegedly not given, to the consumers. The action sought statutory and punitive damages, as well as other costs. A settlement agreement was reached in the action on Nov. 29, 2006 and awaits final court approval, according to Old Republic's March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The suit is "Brantley, et al. v. Republic Mortgage, Case No. 2:04-cv-00805-PMD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina under Judge Patrick Michael Duffy. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Charlie Bridgmon of McCutchen Blanton Rhodes and Johnson, PO Box 11209, Columbia, SC 29211-1209, Phone: 803-252-4050, Fax: 803-253-6084, E-mail: cbridgmon@mbjb.com; and (2) Mario A. Pacella of Strom Law Firm, 2110 Beltline Boulevard, Suite A, Columbia, SC 29204, Phone: 803-252- 4800, Fax: 803-252-4801, E-mail: mpacella@stromlaw.com. Representing the defendants is Benjamin Rush Smith, III of Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, PO Box 11070, Columbia, SC 29211, Phone: 803-799-2000, Fax: 803-256-7500, E-mail: rush.smith@nelsonmullins.com. STEARNS INC: Recalls Inflator Pumps That Can Explode During Use --------------------------------------------------------------- Stearns Inc., of St. Cloud, Minnesota, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,400 West Marine inflator pumps. The company said the inflator pumps can explode during use, ejecting sharp plastic parts and posing a serious laceration hazard to consumers. Stearns has received three reports of pumps exploding. One consumer reported lacerations and two fractured ribs. Two other consumers received minor lacerations to the face and chest. The recalled inflator pump has a blue body with a black handle, hose, and pressure gage. The pump is 5-inches (12.7 cm.) high and weighs about 3 pounds. West Marine is printed on a white sticker on the top of the pump housing. A second label contains a "caution" statement along with Ho Lee Co., Ltd. and UL listing information. The manufacturer's model number HB-183BG and the date code 1203 are also on the label. These recalled West Marine inflator pumps were manufactured in China and are being sold at West Marine and BoatU.S. stores and through direct sales nationwide from August 2003 through January 2007 for about $60. Picture of recalled West Marine inflator pumps: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07140.jpg Consumers are asked to return their inflator pump to nearest West Marine or BoatU.S. store for a full refund. For more information consumers can contact West Marine or BoatU.S. at (800) 262-8464 anytime or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.westmarine.com. TIER TECHNOLOGIES: May Hearing Set for Va. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A May 4 hearing is set on separate motions to certify or dismiss a securities fraud suit pending against Tier Technologies, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On Nov. 10, 2006, a law firm issued a press release stating that a class action had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of Tier Technologies, Inc.'s common stock from Nov. 29, 2001 to Oct 25, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 8, 2007). According to the press release, the suit alleges that Tier and certain of its former and/or current officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act, but did not identify the level of damages being sought. On Jan. 26, 2007, the court appointed The Rosen Law Firm as Lead Counsel. On Feb. 23, 2007, lead counsel filed a First Amended Complaint and a motion to certify this lawsuit as a class action. On March 16, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint and opposed the class certification motion, which the Rosen Law Firm opposed to on April 6. While it is unclear when these pending motions will be decided by the court, the U.S. District Court has scheduled argument on these motions for May 4, 2007. The purported securities suit is "Shiring v. Tier Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01276-TSE-BRP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under Judge T. S. Ellis, III with referral to Judge Barry R. Poretz. Plaintiffs' counsel is Laurence Rosen, Esq. and Phillip Kim, Esq., both of The Rosen Law Firm P.A., Phone: (212) 686-1060 or (917) 797-4425 (Weekends) or 1-866-767-3653 (Toll Free), Fax: (212) 202-3827. Representing the defendants is Nicholas Ian Porritt of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC, 1700 K. St. NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20006-3817, Phone: (703) 734-3100, Fax: 703-973- 8899. TRIBUNE CO: Shareholder Files Suit Over Planned $8.2B Sale ---------------------------------------------------------- Tribune Co. shareholder Reed Simpson filed a lawsuit in Cook County (Illinois) Circuit Court to block real estate mogul Sam Zell's $8.2 billion proposal to take the company private, the Editor & Publisher reports. Earlier, Tribune Co. announced a transaction, which will result in the company going private and Tribune shareholders receiving $34 per share (Troubled Company Reporter, April 4, 20047). Upon completion of the transaction, the company will be privately held, with an Employee Stock Ownership Plan holding all of Tribune's then-outstanding common stock and Mr. Zell holding a subordinated note and a warrant entitling him to acquire 40% of Tribune's common stock. Mr. Zell will join the Tribune board upon completion of his initial investment and will become chairman when the merger closes. Mr. Simpson's suit alleges that Tribune top management and directors did not give good-faith consideration to the competing bid from Los Angeles billionaires Eli Broad and Ron Burkle. Mr. Simpson alleges that conflicts of interest led Tribune management to accept Sam Zell's offer of $34 a share, despite the price being "grossly inadequate and unfair." Further, he alleges that Tribune's board "stood on both sides of the transaction and engaged in self-dealing and obtained for themselves personal benefits, including personal financial benefits, not shared equally" by other stockholders. Mr. Simpson hopes to bring the lawsuit as class action on behalf of other shareholders. He is seeking a court order that would block the deal, unless a higher price can be obtained. Chicago, Ill.-based Tribune Co. (NYSE: TRB) -- http://www.tribune.com/-- is a media company, operating businesses in publishing and broadcasting. In publishing, Tribune operates 11 daily newspapers including the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and Newsday, plus a wide range of targeted publications. The company's broadcasting group operates 26 television stations, Superstation WGN on national cable, Chicago's WGN-AM and the Chicago Cubs baseball team. WARNER CHILCOTT: D.C. Court Junks Motion to Dismiss Ovcon Case -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed without prejudice a motion to dismiss a third-party-payors' complaint against Warner Chilcott Holdings, Ltd., and Barr Pharmaceuticals over agreements regarding the drug Ovcon. The third-party-payor plaintiffs seek to certify and represent a class of all third-party-payors in the U.S. who purchased, reimbursed and/or paid for Ovcon 35 after the Ovcon Agreements were entered into. The proposed class includes insurance companies and employee benefit plans. The third-party-payor plaintiffs allege in their first amended complaint that the Ovcon Agreements violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the antitrust laws of 23 states and the District of Columbia, the consumer protection acts of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. They also claim that the agreements constitute a cause of action for unjust enrichment in unspecified jurisdictions. The third-party-payor plaintiffs seek an injunction, treble damages, the amounts by which defendants have been unjustly enriched, restitution, disgorgement, a constructive trust, and costs including attorneys' fees. On April 14, 2006 the third-party-payor plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint. In response to defendants' previous motion to dismiss, the third-party-payor plaintiffs dropped antitrust claims in two states and consumer protection claims in 47 states and the District of Columbia. On May 3, 2006 defendants moved to partially dismiss the third- party-payor plaintiffs' claims. The third-party-payor plaintiffs opposed the motion. On Nov. 27, 2006, the court appointed Magistrate Judge Alan Kay as a mediator for settlement of the third-party-payor case at the parties' request. On March 2, the court dismissed without prejudice the company's motion to dismiss the third-party-payor plaintiffs' complaint and ordered the company's motion to dismiss to be automatically reinstated on April 20, if the case is not resolved by that date, according to the company's March 23 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. Warner Chilcott, Ltd. on the Net: http://www.warnerchilcott.com. WARNER CHILCOTT: Mediator Appointed in D.C. Ovcon Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Alan Kay of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia was appointed as mediator in a consolidated class action over agreements between Warner Chilcott, Ltd., and Barr Pharmaceuticals regarding the drug Ovcon. Initially, eight direct purchaser lawsuits were filed against the companies. The direct purchaser plaintiffs allege that the Ovcon Agreements violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. All of the direct purchaser plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, and costs including attorneys' fees. Six of the lawsuits, which were all filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, are class actions. The remaining two suits are brought on behalf of individual direct purchasers. On April 14, 2006 the six direct purchaser class action plaintiffs jointly filed an amended consolidated class action complaint and dismissed their complaints in the remaining five cases. On Nov. 27, 2006, the court appointed Magistrate Judge Alan Kay as a mediator for settlement of the direct purchaser cases at the parties' request, according to the company's March 23 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. Warner Chilcott, Ltd. on the Net: http://www.warnerchilcott.com. WASHINGTON: City Reaches Settlement in Lawsuit Over WTO Arrests --------------------------------------------------------------- The City of Seattle, Washington has agreed to settle the federal class action "Hankin et al. v. Seattle City of, et al.," which was filed in relation to the arrests of about 200 protesters during a 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in the city. In a landmark settlement, which was reached by Trial Lawyers for Public Justice on behalf of scores of people arrested in 1999 while protesting the WTO meeting, the city agreed to seal and expunge the records of what a jury earlier determined to be their unconstitutional arrests by Seattle police. In addition, the settlement mandates that the city improve police training in order to prevent unconstitutional mass arrests in the future. Finally, the city will pay $1 million to compensate the protesters for the violation of their constitutional rights and the costs of bringing the lawsuit. On Oct. 2, 2000, the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice filed the original suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The class action was brought on behalf of anyone detained during mass arrests at Westlake Park between 6 a.m. and noon on Dec. 1, 1999. Specifically, plaintiffs' lawyers alleged that the city engaged in a policy of suppressing First Amendment rights by arresting protesters without being ordered to disperse and jailing them using an incorrect arrest record. The complaint sought damages from the city, Mayor Schell, and former Police Chief Norman Stamper on behalf of more than 600 protesters and others arrested and imprisoned on Dec. 1 and 2, 1999, pursuant to the city's "no-protest zone" policy. Earlier this year, the jury found that the city violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the protesters, but determined the city was not guilty of violating the plaintiffs' free-speech rights (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 31, 2007). The suit is "Hankin et al. v. Seattle City of, et al., Case No. 2:00-cv-01672-MJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Representing the plaintiffs is Michael E. Withey of Law Office Of Mike Withey, Two Union Square, 601 Union St., Ste. 4200, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-405-1800, E-mail: mike@witheylaw.com. Representing the defendants is Theron A. Buck of Stafford Frey Cooper, 601 Union St., 3100 Two Union Sq., Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-9900, Fax: 624-6885, E-mail: tbuck@staffordfrey.com. New Securities Fraud Cases AROTECH CORP: KGS Files First Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Mich. --------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC filed the first class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or acquired the common stock of Arotech Corp. between March 31, 2005 and Nov. 14, 2005. Arotech and certain of its officers and directors are charged with issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Throughout the Class Period, Arotech conditioned investors to believe that the company was meeting or exceeding guidance and could foreseeably achieve sustained year-over-year quarterly revenue growth as high as 40%. Unbeknownst to investors, however, throughout the Class Period, Arotech suffered from a host of adverse conditions that negatively impacted its business and caused the company to fail to maintain its financial statements and reports in accordance with GAAP and SEC rules, including, that: (1) the integration of Armour of America, acquired by Arotech in August 2004 for approximately $22 million, was not proceeding according to plan; (2) profitability was overstated as a result of defendants' failure to write-down impaired assets and record rising impairment costs; and (3) defendants failed to maintain an adequate system of internal operational or financial controls necessary to operate the company. It was only on Nov. 14, 2005 -- only weeks after defendants completed a $17 million offering of debt convertible into shares of company stock -- that investors learned the truth about the company. At that time, defendants belatedly disclosed that Arotech was operating well below plan and that it would be forced to take significant asset impairment charges. As a result of these disclosures, the following day, shares of the company declined almost 27% in very heavy trading volume. For more information, contact Lewis Kahn of Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 106 (Toll Free), E-mail: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com, Website: http://www.kgscounsel.com. ELI LILLY: Lerach Coughlin Announces Securities Suit Filing ----------------------------------------------------------- Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announces that a class action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Eli Lilly and company publicly traded securities during the period between March 28, 2002 and Dec. 22, 2006. The complaint charges Lilly and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lilly is in the business of developing and marketing pharmaceuticals. Lilly produces and markets Zyprexa, a drug treatment for schizophrenia, among other things. Zyprexa is by far Lilly's largest-selling drug, with sales of $4.3 billion in 2006 alone. The complaint alleges that at the beginning of the Class Period, defendants contended that Zyprexa did not cause diabetes-related side effects. Once the publicly available clinical data rendered this position untenable, defendants argued instead that Zyprexa did not cause more side effects than its competitors. Eventually, more and more clinical data showed that, in fact, Zyprexa does cause such side effects and to a greater extent than its competitors. These revelations sharply curtailed the sales growth of Zyprexa and resulted in thousands of product liability lawsuits against Lilly and hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements. It has recently come to light that defendants intentionally suppressed and misrepresented data showing that Zyprexa causes weight gain, high blood sugar, and diabetes in a series of articles in The New York Times which excerpted internal Lilly documents detailing defendants' deception. The documents show for the first time that defendants intentionally misled patients, doctors, and investors about the side effects of Zyprexa. As a result of these revelations, the price of Lilly's stock declined almost 6% in the five trading days during which the series of articles was published. The members of the proposed class invested in Lilly securities unaware that defendants' fraud had artificially inflated the prices of those securities. When the truth was finally revealed, those investors lost many millions of dollars as a result of defendants' fraud. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Lilly publicly traded securities during the Class Period. Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from April 2, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins, both of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com. INTERNATIONAL COAL: Lerach Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announces that a class action has been commenced on behalf of institutional investors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on behalf of all persons who acquired International Coal Group, Inc. common stock in connection with and traceable to ICG's common stock offerings which took place on or about Nov. 21, 2005 and Dec. 7-8, 2005. The Class Period is Nov. 18, 2005 to Oct. 4, 2006. The complaint charges ICG and certain of its officers and directors and its underwriters with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Further, the complaint alleges that in November and December 2005, ICG undertook two integrated stock transactions involving Registration Statements filed and effective with the SEC. The Offerings were mutually interdependent. The statements in the November and December 2005 Registration Statements concerning the company's business, the strength of its management team, its safety and maintenance practices, its ability to capitalize on favorable market conditions, its ability to deliver optimum selections of coal to meet increasing demand, and its acquisition of the Anker Coal Co. and company reorganization were all false and misleading when made. In fact, the company was suffering from serious shortfalls in its maintenance and safety procedures, its mines were ill- equipped, as were its miners, the Anker acquisition had been a mistake, saddling the company with outmoded and dangerous mining operations, the company's top management team was distracted by work involved in the November 2005 reorganization and December 2005 offering and the company would be unable to produce sufficient amounts of coal in desired mixes to meet its revenue and earnings and production forecasts. After the November and December 2005 Registration Statements became effective, information entered the marketplace in a series of company-specific negative revelations contradicting the prior representations made and demonstrating the falsity of the Registration Statements. As a result, the company's stock price declined sharply, damaging Class members who purchased the stock issued by the company in the Offerings. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all persons who acquired ICG common stock in connection with and traceable to ICG's common stock offerings in November and December 2005. The Class Period is Nov. 18, 2005 to Oct. 4, 2006. ICG is a coal producer with operations in West Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland and Illinois. 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. WIRELESS FACILITIES: Schoengold Files Ca. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C. filed a class action on behalf of the Laborers Local 190 Pension Fund against Wireless Facilities Inc. and certain key officers and/or directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. This action has been brought on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired WFI securities during the period between March 29, 2002 and March 12, 2007, inclusive. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants violated Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the company's business, accounting practices and financial results to artificially inflate the value of WFI stock. Specifically, it is alleged that throughout the Class Period, defendants engaged in improper practices of backdating of stock option grants to the company's executive management, resulting in option grants with lower exercise prices and thereby improperly increasing the value of the options and improperly reducing the amounts the options recipients had to pay the company upon exercise of the options, and unfairly transferring shareholder equity to defendants. Defendants' conduct also violated the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code relating to deduction of option payments. Thus, the Complaint alleges, Wireless Facilities' financial statements, Form 10-K filings for the years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 and Form 10-Q quarterly filings, were materially false and misleading. The company shocked the investing public when, on March 12, 2007, it disclosed that it has been conducting an ongoing internal review of past practices for granting stock options and that it would delay its 2006 annual financial results after an internal review uncovered incorrect measurement dates for stock option grants issued between 1998 and 2003. The company further revealed that "there is a strong likelihood" that it will restate financial results issued during this period. As a result, on March 13, 2007, WFI stock price plummeted to $1.62 per share from its prior day close of $2.10, a 23% drop in one day, on massive volume. Since then, on March 28, 2007, WFI announced in a press release that, as a result of not having timely filed "its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006," it received "as expected," "a NASDAQ Staff Determination notice on March 22, 2007, indicating the company is not in compliance with the NASDAQ requirements for continued listing... and its securities, therefore, are subject to delisting from NASDAQ." Interested parties may move the court no later than May 18, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact Ashley Kim, Esq. or Ms. Rachel Conaboy, both of Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C., 19 Fulton Street, Suite 406, New York, New York 10038, Phone: (212) 964-0046 or 866) 348-7700 (Toll Free), Fax: (212) 267-8137, Website: http://www.spornlaw.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 * * *