/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070419.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, April 19, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 77
Headlines
ALABAMA: City Sued for Arresting Minors in Possession of Alcohol
AWB LTD: Retired Farmer Named Lead Plaintiff in $25M Lawsuit
CARDINAL DISTRIBUTING: Recalls Trinkets for Lead Poisoning Risk
COLORADO: Police Officers Sue City Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CONNECTICUT: City Faces Litigation Over Vehicle Towing Practice
CONTINENTAL MILLS: Recalls Pancake Mix Containing Undeclared Egg
HA BERKHEIMER: Reserves $2M for Suit Over Tax "Collection Costs"
HOSPITAL SYSTEMS: S.Dak. Court Upholds Pricing Suits Dismissals
LEAD PAINT LITIGATION: Calif. Judge Strikes Legal Fees Agreement
MACY'S DEPARTMENT: Recalls Candies Over Undeclared Egg Content
MENU FOODS: Consumer Lawsuit Filed in N.J. Over Pet Food Recall
MERRILL LYNCH: Research Reports Suit Settlement Hearing Set July
MINNESOTA: May 7 Trial Set for Suit Against Airport Authority
MISSISSIPPI: Settles Suit Over Child Welfare; May Hearing Set
MISSOURI: Jackson County Seeks Release from Jail Oversight
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Merrimack Residents Plan Suit Over Turnpike Tolls
NEW JERSEY: Ruling in Suit Against Educ. Dept. Expected in Weeks
NEW JERSEY: NAACP Sues Fire Department for Alleged Racial Bias
NEW YORK: Ordered to Reveal 2004 Republican Meeting Arrests Info
NORTH DAKOTA: Fargo Seeks to Dismiss Suit Over Traffic Fines
OHIO: NOPEC Sued Over $5M Award from Green Mountain Energy
OHIO: Firefighter Sues Newark Township, Chief Over Policy
OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Recalls Shrek Headbands Distributed by Pepsi
PARMALAT SPA: July 19 Hearing Set for $50M N.Y. Suit Settlement
PHLX: Depositions in Lawsuit Over 2005 Sale Due This Week
REUTERS LTD: Court Mulls Appeal on Dismissal of "Gilstrap" Case
SMITH & NEPHEW: Recalls Mislabeled Spine RF Denervation Probes
SUN-TIMES MEDIA: Ill. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit
SUN-TIMES MEDIA: Still Faces Multiple Securities Suits in Canada
SUPPORTSOFT INC: Oct. 29 Trial Set for Calif. Securities Lawsuit
TANOX INC: Faces Tex. Stockholders' Suit Over Genentech Deal
THOMAS WEISEL: Court Reverses Nixing of First Horizon Stock Suit
THOMAS WEISEL: Discovery Ongoing in AirGate PCS Securities Suit
THOMAS WEISEL: Nixing of Leadis Securities Fraud Suit Appealed
THOMAS WEISEL: N.Y. Suits Over Vonage IPO Transferred to N.J.
THOMAS WEISEL: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of Merix Securities Suit
THOMAS WEISEL: Still Faces Securities Suit Over Intermix Sale
THOMAS WEISEL: Still Faces Suit in Calif. Over SeraCare Offering
TNS INC: Va. Court Stays Discovery in Securities Fraud Lawsuit
TRIAD GUARANTY: Discovery Ongoing in Mortgage Borrowers' Lawsuit
T.W. ENTERPRISES: Recalls Dog Chews for Salmonella Contamination
UNITED STATES: Immigrants' Suit Over Benefit Cuts to Go Ahead
UNITED WESTERN: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Munoz" Lawsuit
WAVE SYSTEMS: Mass. Court OKs $1.75M Securities Suit Settlement
WINSTON HOTELS: Faces N.C. Shareholder's Suit Over Wilbur Deal
New Securities Fraud Cases
AMGEN INC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Lawsuit in Calif.
*********
ALABAMA: City Sued for Arresting Minors in Possession of Alcohol
----------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Tuscaloosa faces a purported class action that was
filed by a University of Alabama (UA) student, who was arrested
in September 2006 and charged with being a minor in possession
of alcohol, Adam Jones of Dateline Alabama reports.
Andrea Kathleen Dixon filed the suit in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama on April 4, naming the city
and Police Officer Thomas E. Burroughs as defendants.
Ms. Dixon is now suing the city, claiming that the drink she was
holding on her arrest last year was not hers and that
Tuscaloosa's police force did not gather enough evidence to
prove that she was in possession of alcohol.
The Nashville, Tennessee-native is seeking class-action status
for her suit so as to include everyone younger than 21 who has
been cited or prosecuted as a minor in possession of alcohol in
Tuscaloosa in the past six years. She is also seeking a refund
of fees and court costs.
According to the lawsuit filed in federal court, "[The city]
knew, or should have known, that no arrest or conviction upon
the charge of 'minor in possession of alcohol' could be
sustained in the absence of a chemical analysis of the alleged
alcoholic beverage and which analysis neither [the city], nor
its agents, ever intended to conduct."
Ms. Dixon asserts in her lawsuit that prosecuting minors for
possessing alcohol has become a cash cow for the city,
generating "substantial revenues." She questions whether
Tuscaloosa has unjustly profited from the practice.
Ms. Dixon filed the case in state civil court, but the city had
it moved to federal court since the student claims violation of
her constitutional rights.
The suit is "Dixon v. Tuscaloosa, City of et al., Case No. 7:07-
cv-00604-LSC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama under Judge L. Scott Coogler.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Milton Brown, Jr., 2608 8th Street, Tuscaloosa, AL
35401, Phone: 1-205-391-0620, E-mail:
brownattorney1@yahoo.com; and
(2) John T. Fisher, Jr. of Fisher Skidmore & Strickland,
P.C., P.O. Box 1428, Tuscaloosa, AL 35403-1428, Phone:
1-205-344-4414, E-mail:
johnfisher@tuscaloosa-lawyers.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Christopher L. McIlwain of Hubbard Smith Mcilwain
Brakefield & Browder, P.C., P.O. Box 2427, Tuscaloosa,
AL 35403-2427, Phone: 1-205-345-6789, E-mail:
cmcilwain@hsmbb.com; and
(ii) Timothy H. Nunnally of The Tuscaloosa City Legal
Department, P.O. Box 2089, Tuscaloosa, AL 35403, Phone:
1-205-349-0100, E-mail: tnunnally@ci.tuscaloosa.al.us.
AWB LTD: Retired Farmer Named Lead Plaintiff in $25M Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman commenced a $25 million
class action in Federal Court in Sydney against AWB Ltd. on
behalf of John Watson, a retired wheat farmer from Moama on the
Victorian-New South Wales border of shareholders, ABC Online
reports.
A group of shareholders who lost money on their B-class shares
allege AWB did not meet its disclosure obligations when it
failed to tell the stock market it was paying trucking fees to
Iraqi officials in breach of U.N. sanctions.
Mr. Watson, who claims to have lost $10,000, said, "The market
relies on honest information to be supplied to it so investors
can be assured that when they're investing so they can have
confidence in the market."
IMF (Australia) Ltd. is reportedly funding the proceedings and
has offered to fund litigation for AWB shareholders who are
eligible to participate.
The suit would, generally, cover those shareholders who
purchased AWB shares on ASX between 11 March 2002 and Jan. 13,
2006 and held some or all of those shares as at Jan. 13, 2006
(Class Action Reporter, Apr. 16, 2007).
AWB Ltd. -- http://www.awb.com.au/-- is Australia's leading
agribusiness and one of the world's largest wheat marketing
companies. It is also one of Australia's top 100 publicly
listed companies.
For more information, contact Ben Slade, Jason Geisker or
Juliana Tang, all of Maurice Blackburn Cashman, Phone: (02) 9261
1488.
CARDINAL DISTRIBUTING: Recalls Trinkets for Lead Poisoning Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Distributing Co., of Baltimore, Maryland, in
cooperation with U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 900,000 children's charm bracelets and
"Sportswear" necklaces.
The company said the paint on this jewelry contains high levels
of lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can
cause adverse health effects. No injuries have been reported.
The recalled necklaces have sports-themed pendants including
blue or green basketballs, yellow stars, "01," and "Perfect 10."
The pendants hang from a black cord.
The bracelets include green or pink painted heart-shaped charms
and silver-colored charms shaped as suns, moons, stars,
padlocks, keys, rattles, and fishbones.
Pictures of recalled children's charm bracelets and "Sportswear"
necklaces:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07157a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07157b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07157c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07157d.jpg
These recalled children's charm bracelets and "Sportswear"
necklaces were manufactured in India and are being sold in
vending machines located in malls, discount, department and
grocery stores nationwide from January 2006 through April 2007
for 25 cents.
Consumers should immediately take the recalled necklaces and
charm bracelets away from children and discard them.
For additional information, contact Cardinal Distributing Co.
Inc. at (800) 368-2062 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, or visit http://www.vendingdepot.com.
COLORADO: Police Officers Sue City Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Colorado Springs, Colorado was named as one of the
defendants in a purported federal class action that was filed by
several police officers who claim that they haven't been
properly paid overtime for a six-year period.
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado on April 13, naming as defendants, the city, the
Colorado Springs Police Department, and Police Chief Richard
Myers.
Identified as plaintiffs in the suit, who are all represented by
Scott William Johnson of Sparks, Willson, Borges, Brandt &
Johnson, P.C., are:
-- Alexander Trujillo,
-- David Henrichsen,
-- Gilbert Lucero,
-- Alan Roman, and
-- Colby Doolittle
Generally, the suit alleges that officers should have been paid
overtime for tasks like putting on bulletproof vests, inspecting
equipment, checking e-mail, car inspections that took place
outside a police officers' regular shift. It is asking for up
to $35 million in damages for about 400 officers.
The suit is "Trujillo et al. v. Colorado Springs, City of et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00753-MSK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Marcia S.
Krieger.
Representing the plaintiffs is Scott William Johnson of Sparks,
Willson, Borges, Brandt & Johnson, P.C., 24 South Weber Street,
Suite 400, P.O. Box 1678, Colorado Springs, CO 80903, Phone:
719-634-5700 Fax: 719-633-8477, E-mail:
swjohns@sparkswillson.com.
CONNECTICUT: City Faces Litigation Over Vehicle Towing Practice
---------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Hartford, Connecticut faces a purported class action
that was filed by two individuals who seek to stop a practice by
the police of having recovered stolen vehicles towed before
contacting their owners.
The suit was filed by the law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C.
on behalf of Tracey Crawley and Preston Garcia in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut on April 13.
Under state statutes and police guidelines police are required
to first attempt to contact the owner of a stolen vehicle before
turning the car over to a private towing firm, according to
Jeffrey Nobel of Schatz Nobel Izard.
Mr. Nobel's clients are asking for an injunction to prohibit the
practice and for restitution to the perhaps thousands who had to
pay for towing and storage of their vehicles.
Plaintiffs are seeking class-action status so that everyone hurt
by the practice, including insurance companies that frequently
pick up the tab, can be included in the suit.
Generally, the suit alleges that the practice violates the U.S.
Constitution's due process clause, as well as state law and
internal Hartford police guidelines, according to a report by
The Hartford Courant.
The suit is "Garcia et al. v. Hartford, Case No. 3:07-cv-00574-
RNC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut under Judge Robert N. Chatigny.
Representing the plaintiffs is Jeffrey S. Nobel of Schatz Nobel
Izard, P.C., One Corporate Center, 20 Church St., Suite 1700,
Hartford, CT 06103, Phone: 860-493-6292, Fax: 860-493-6290, E-
mail: jnobel@snlaw.net.
CONTINENTAL MILLS: Recalls Pancake Mix Containing Undeclared Egg
----------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Mills, of Seattle, Washington, is recalling 2976, 5
lb. boxes of GFS Buttermilk Pancake Mix UPC #93901 24580 because
they may contain undeclared egg.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to eggs run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume the product.
GFS Buttermilk Pancake Mix was distributed since January 2007 to
these states through Gordon Food Service, Inc. (GFS) delivery
and GFS Marketplace stores: Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
Florida, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky.
The recalled GFS Buttermilk Pancake is packaged in a 5 lb.
cardboard box with the code date printed on the top flap. The
code dates involved have the first six digits KB6313 and KB6314.
No illnesses have been reported to date from this product.
The company has discovered that another pancake mix product
which contains eggs was packed into a number of these 5 lb.
boxes, which do not declare eggs as an ingredient or allergen.
The company has notified its distributors and customers where
the product was distributed.
Customers who have GFS Buttermilk Pancake Mix with either of
these codes should destroy the product and bring their receipt
back to the GFS Marketplace store for a full refund.
Contact Continental Mills at 1-800-426-0955 Monday through
Friday 8:00-5:00 PST for additional information.
HA BERKHEIMER: Reserves $2M for Suit Over Tax "Collection Costs"
----------------------------------------------------------------
H.A. Berkheimer, Inc. is setting aside $2 million to settle a
purported class action over alleged illegal fees charged to
delinquent taxpayers in more than 1,000 Pennsylvania
communities, The Valley Independent reports.
Letters have been sent to individuals who may have paid the
additional fees to Berkheimer, alerting them that they could be
eligible for a payment up to $48.50.
In 2002, Robert and Kathleen Cheeseman of Bucks County initiated
a lawsuit against H.A. Berkheimer after being served with two
bills totaling $57 for "collection costs" that they believed to
be unfair.
The suit alleges that H.A. Berkheimer violated the Pennsylvania
Local Tax Enabling Act, 53 Pa. C.S.A. Section 6901 et. seq., by
assessing and collecting unauthorized costs, other than interest
and penalties, from taxpayers delinquent in payment of their
local Earned Income Tax for tax years 1995 through 2001.
Plaintiffs allege that Berkheimer, who contracts with numerous
political subdivisions in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for
the collection of the local Earned Income Tax, is not authorized
to assess or collect any costs of collection on unpaid taxes
unless and until a suit is brought against the delinquent
taxpayer for such collection.
They further allege that H.A. Berkheimer retained all the monies
it assessed and collected in unauthorized costs from delinquent
taxpayers.
A Bucks County judge certified the suit as a class action in
2005 after ruling the company's fees for "collection costs" were
illegal and served no purpose other than to add to the company's
profits.
After H.A. Berkheimer admitted that its costs are improper,
Judge Mellon ruled that all taxpayers who paid collection costs
to H.A. Berkheimer between 1995 and 2001 are members of the
class.
Under the settlement, inked by both sides in October and
advertised in area newspapers, H.A. Berkheimer admits no
wrongdoing. As part of the settlement, the Cheesemans agree to
drop their complaint.
The settlement calls for H.A. Berkheimer to pay up to $250,000
to cover administrative costs related to the settlement,
according to court records (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 31,
2007).
The company also would have to put $1.75 million into an
interest-bearing bank account that would be used to repay the
taxpayers.
Those eligible for some of that cash, according to court papers,
are:
-- taxpayers who could receive up to $48.50, without
interest, for any given tax year that they paid the
collection costs. If they can prove a claim in excess of
that amount, they may be able to recoup more;
-- The Philadelphia law firm of Bernard M. Gross, which
filed the suit, could seek up to 26.25 percent of the
settlement amount, or $525,000, and legal costs up to
$15,000; and
-- The Cheesemans, as class representatives, who could
receive up to $7,500.
An estimated 115,000 taxpayers stand to receive a share of the
proposed settlement awaiting approval by a Bucks County,
Pennsylvania court.
If any money is left unclaimed, 75 percent would be returned to
H.A. Berkheimer and 25 percent would go to a charity determined
by Judge Fritsch and the attorneys in the case.
If the total allowable claims exceed $2 million, the taxpayers
would receive a prorated share. The settlement does not
preclude H.A. Berkheimer from pursuing back taxes still owed.
Judge Theodore Fritsch of Bucks County Court is scheduled to
rule on the proposed settlement May 22 (Class Action, Reporter,
Feb. 5, 2007).
For more details, contact Bernard M. Gross, Suite 450, John
Wanamaker Building, Juniper and Market Streets, Philadelphia, PA
19107, Phone: (215) 561-3600 or (866) 561-3600, Fax: (215) 561-
3000.
HOSPITAL SYSTEMS: S.Dak. Court Upholds Pricing Suits Dismissals
---------------------------------------------------------------
The South Dakota Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of three
class actions that alleged the state's three largest hospital
systems charge unreasonable prices to patients who are not
covered by health insurance or government programs, The
Associated Press reports.
Earlier, circuit judges, ruling that the patients had no legal
grounds to pursue their claims, dismissed the suits. The high
court, in a unanimous vote, upheld the respective dismissals,
and refused to reinstate the lawsuits.
The uninsured patients behind the lawsuits had sought damages
because they were charged prices that exceeded those for
patients who had insurance or were covered by Medicare or
Medicaid.
However, in its ruling upholding the dismissals, the Supreme
Court pointed out that the patients signed agreements to pay
unspecified, and undiscounted charges that had already been set
by the hospitals. Since the prices were fixed and could be
determined, courts cannot calculate different prices, according
to the Supreme Court.
Additionally, the Supreme Court also rejected the patients'
claims on deceptive trade practices, ruling that the hospitals
had no duty to give uninsured patients the same discounts given
to those with insurance or coverage under government programs.
Case Background
The three suits that were affected by the appeal are:
-- "Sherry Nygaard v. Sioux Valley Hospitals and Health
System." In this case plaintiff sued over charges she
felt were excessive for intestinal surgery at Sioux
Valley's hospital in Vermillion. Court records do not
indicate how much she was charged, what she paid or
how much she owed.
-- "Robert Dosch v. Avera Health." In this case plaintiff
sued after treatment of a broken hip at Avera St.
Luke's Hospital in Aberdeen. He was charged more than
$30,000 and paid $200 a month, but interest and fees
offset his monthly payment, according to court
documents.
-- "Brett and Debra Burgher v. Rapid City Regional
Hospital." In this case, a couple sued for charges
covering the husband's broken arm, the wife's cancer
treatment, and their son's shoulder injury. The total
bill exceeded $100,000 and they were unable to make
payments.
The patients argued that the hospitals breached an implied
contract by charging more than an implied reasonable rate and
violated a state law on deceptive trade practices.
An attorney for the patients told the high court in arguments
back in 2006 that the hospitals charge uninsured patients two or
three times more than other patients.
The hospital systems though countered that they have done
nothing wrong. They pointed out that there is no law requiring
that uninsured patients get discounted rates. Insurance
companies negotiate rates and government programs set prices for
Medicare and Medicaid patients, according to the hospital
systems.
LEAD PAINT LITIGATION: Calif. Judge Strikes Legal Fees Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Santa Clara County Superior Judge Jack Komar has granted a
request of the defense in the suit "County of Santa Clara v.
Atlantic Richfield Co. et al." to scrap an agreement that
stipulates payment of plaintiffs' attorneys contingent on the
outcome of the suit, The San Mateo Times reports.
The agreement states that the county wouldn't have to pay its
lawyer unless a settlement or judgment was reached in the case,
in which case, the firm would have commanded reimbursement for
all of its expenses for the case, plus 17 percent of the
settlement, unless the court demanded a higher additional payout
from the defendants specifically for attorney's fees.
The suing entities have 30 days to come up with new fee
agreements, unless they appeal.
The ruling followed a precedent set by the California Supreme
Court in the 1985 case, "People ex rel. Clancy v. Superior
Court, the city of Corona."
The current suit was filed by Santa Clara County Superior Court
in 2000. It alleges that several manufacturers and the Lead
Industries Association promoted the sale of lead-based paint for
decades while disregarding the health risks to children.
In addition, the suit also alleges public nuisance, liability,
fraud and negligence, and demands the companies remove paint
from buildings and pay restitution.
Named plaintiffs in the suit are Alameda, Solano and Santa Cruz
counties, the city and county of San Francisco and the city of
Oakland, along with their unified school districts, housing
authorities and Oakland's redevelopment agency. Recent
additions are Monterey and San Mateo counties as well as the
cities of Los Angeles and San Diego.
Defendants in the case include:
-- Atlantic Richfield Co. (ARCO),
-- NL Industries Inc.,
-- American Cyanamid Co.,
-- ConAgra Grocery Products Cos.,
-- E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (DuPont),
-- Millenium Inorganic Chemicals Inc.,
-- The Sherwin-Williams Co.,
-- O'Brien Corp.,
-- The Glidden Co.,
-- SCM Chemicals
In 2003, the Santa Clara County Superior Judge Jack Komar
dismissed the suit saying that the public nuisance claim could
not be filed on a class action basis. In March 2006, the
California 6th District Court of Appeals reinstated the suit.
For more details, contact Bruce Simon of Cotchett, Pitre, Simon
& McCarthy, San Francisco Airport Office Center, 840 Malcolm
Road, Suite 200, Burlingame, California 94010, Phone: (650) 697-
6000, Fax: (650) 697-0577, (650) 692-1112 and (650) 692-3606,
Web site: http://www.cpsmlaw.com/.
MACY'S DEPARTMENT: Recalls Candies Over Undeclared Egg Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
Macy's Department Stores are recalling Frango Cheggs branded
Mint Chegg, Double Chocolate Chegg, Marshmallow Chegg, Peanut
Butter Chegg, Caramel Chegg and Toffee Chegg Egg confectionary
Products.
These Harry London candies contain egg product (egg whites) and
milk, which have not been disclosed on their labels.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to eggs, egg
whites, or milk run the risk of a serious or life threatening
allergic reaction if they consume the Products. The Products
may also contain corn starch, dextrose, Red #40, Yellow #6, and
Blue #2.
No illnesses or injuries have been reported to date.
The Products are packaged in 4 and 8-ounce packages and have one
of the following bar code numbers on them:
-- The following bar coded number candy products contain
undeclared egg products (egg whites):
2179500565 2179500573
2179500566 2179500588
2179500567 2179500589
2179500568 2179500590
2179500570 2179500592
2179500572 2179500594
-- The following bar coded number candy products contain
undeclared egg products and milk:
751756019807 751756019869
751756019814 751756019876
751756019821 751756019883
751756019852 751756019890
751756019838 751756019906
Working in cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, the companies will also issue an alert through
The Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network --
http://www.foodallergy.org.
Consumers with the allergies identified in this Alert should
avoid contact with, and consumption of, the Product, and have it
destroyed by a non-allergic person. Consumers with questions
may call toll-free 1-800-321-0444 Monday through Friday 8:30 am-
5:00 EDT and ask for customer service.
MENU FOODS: Consumer Lawsuit Filed in N.J. Over Pet Food Recall
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Audet & Partners, LLP filed a nationwide class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
on behalf of purchasers of pet food recalled by Menu Foods
Income Fund based in Ontario, Canada.
The class action complaint alleges the Canadian pet food
manufacturer knew by late December 2006, but waited too long
before recalling more than 60 million containers of contaminated
pet food.
The suit seeks damages and also request creation of an animal
medical monitoring program, paid for by the Defendants. Pets
that weren't killed by this product will have to undergo years
of periodic testing to ensure proper liver functioning, and this
suit seeks to reimburse pet owners for this cost.
"We are pet owners too, and we want justice for those people
who've lost their companions, it could have just as easily been
any one of us here at the firm," says Audet & Partners attorney,
William M. Audet. "I don't often get personally angry with our
cases, but I'm angry here. This is just wrong."
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
For more information on this suit: http://www.audetlaw.com/pet-
food/index.html
Menu Foods is facing other federal class actions in other parts
of the country.
The suit is "Bonier et al. v. Menu Foods, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-01477-NLH-AMD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Noel L. Hillman with referral
to Judge Ann Marie Donio.
Representing plaintiffs are Michael A. Ferrara, Jr. of The
Ferrara Law Firm, 601 Longwood Avenue, Cherry Hill, NJ 08002,
Phone: (856) 779-9500, E-mail: mferrara@ferraralawfirm.com; and
William Audet or Kevin Thomason of Audet & Partners, LLP, Phone:
+1-415-982-1776, E-mail: kthomason@audetlaw.com, Website:
http://www.audetlaw.com.
MERRILL LYNCH: Research Reports Suit Settlement Hearing Set July
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on July 18, 2007 at 11:00 a.m. on a
$125,000,000 settlement of a suit related to research reports
issued by Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. regarding securities of:
Company Ticker Symbol Class Period
Aether Systems AETH 11/15/1999 - 02/07/2001
B2B Internet HOLDRs Trust BHH 02/24/2000 - 04/08/2002
CMGI, Inc. CMGI 03/23/1999 - 11/14/2000
Doubleclick, Inc. DCLK 11/29/1999 - 04/15/2001
ETOYS, Inc. ETYS 06/17/1999 - 11/08/2000
EXCITE@HOME ATHM 06/07/1999 - 04/26/2001
Exodus Communications, Inc. EXDS 12/08/1999 - 06/19/2001
GoTo.com, Inc. GOTO 01/11/2001 - 06/06/2001
Homestore.com, Inc. HOMS 09/08/1999 - 09/21/2001
InfoSpace, Inc. INSP 12/06/1999 - 01/22/2001
Internet Architecture
HOLDRs Trust IAH 02/24/2000 - 04/08/2002
Internet Capital Group, Inc. ICGE 08/30/1999 - 11/08/2000
Internet HOLDRs Trust HHH 09/23/1999 - 04/08/2002
Internet Infrastructure
HOLDRs Trust IIH 02/24/2000 - 04/08/2002
iVillage, Inc. IVIL 11/09/1999 - 05/07/2001
Lifeminders Inc. LFMN 09/28/2000 - 01/31/2001
Looksmart, Ltd. LOOK 05/25/2000 - 01/11/2001
Openwave Systems, Inc. OPWV 10/16/2000 - 08/13/2001
PETS.COM, INC. IPET 03/08/2000 - 11/07/2000
Quokka Sports, Inc. QKKA 08/23/1999 - 01/09/2001
The class consists of all persons who purchased the common stock
(or depository receipts) of these companies during the periods
listed or who purchased, in a private placement, Quokka Sports,
Inc. 7% convertible subordinated promissory notes due Sept. 15,
2005.
The hearing will be before the Honorable John F. Keenan, U.S.
District Judge of the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl
Street, New York, NY 10007
Claims filing deadline is Aug. 31, 2007. Objections and
exclusions are due May 18, 2007. Requests for objections and
exclusions must be sent to:
(1) Clerk of the Court U.S. District Court Southern
District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New
York 10007;
(2) Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel: Frederic S. Fox at Kaplan
Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New
York, NY 10022;
(3) Attorneys for Defendants Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc. and certain
Individual Defendants: Jay B. Kasner and Scott D.
Musoff at Skadden Arps Slate Meacher & Flom LLP, Four
Times Square, New York, NY 10036;
(4) Attorneys for Defendant Henry M. Blodget: Marc B.
Dorfman at Foley & Lardner LLP, 3000 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 500, Washington, DC 2007; and
(5) Attorneys for Defendant Virginia Syer Genereux: Andrew
W. Stern at Sidley Austin LLP, 787 Seventh Avenue, New
York, New York 10019.
Plaintiffs' firms:
(1) Frederic S. Fox at Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, 805
Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022, on the
Net: http://www.kaplanfox.com;
(2) Jacqueline Sailer at Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP,
275 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York
10016; on the Net: http://www.murrayfrank.com;
(3) Herbert E. Milstein and Joshua S. Devore at Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld, & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York
Avenue, N.W., West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, DC
20005; On the Net: http://www.cmht.com;
(4) Edward F. Haber at Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP,
53 State Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02109, on the
Net: http://www.shulaw.com.
Merrill Lynch was named in dozens of class actions since 2001
that challenged the objectivity of the company's research
recommendations related to securities of Internet companies.
Merrill Lynch Litigation Settlement, c/o Analytics Inc. Claims
Administrator, P.O. Box 2004, Chanhassen, MN 55317-2004; or by
calling 1-888-217-2225; on the Net:
http://www.merrilllynchsettlement.com.
MINNESOTA: May 7 Trial Set for Suit Against Airport Authority
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hennepin County District Judge Stephen Aldrich set a May 7, 2007
trial date for a class action filed by Minneapolis and Richfield
homeowners complaining of noise pollution against Metropolitan
Airports Commission (MAC), The Star Tribune reports.
According to plaintiff lawyer Carolyn Anderson, Judge Aldrich
will ultimately decide at the trial how many homes and which
homes are included in the suit, which potentially includes at
least 3,500 homes around the airport.
Residents near the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
accuse the commission of reneging in its promise to install
noise protection for more homes under airplane flight paths
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 11, 2006). Plaintiffs claim the
promise was part of an agreement to expand the airport rather
than build a new one farther out.
The homeowners contend there was both an expressed and implied
contract with the MAC. The estimated cost of the insulation is
$37,100 per home and includes repair and replacement of exterior
windows, the addition of storm windows, repair or replacement of
doors, addition of storm doors, attic insulation and central air
conditioning.
The plaintiffs are seeking more than $140 million in additional
money for noise-proofing their homes near the airport. The
lawsuit seeks full noise insulation at a cost of over $157
million.
Plaintiffs' attorney, Carolyn G. Anderson, is with Zimmerman
Reed, P.L.L.P., 651 Nicollet Mall, Suite 501, Minneapolis, MN
55402, Phone: (612) 341-0400, Fax: (612) 341-0844.
MISSISSIPPI: Settles Suit Over Child Welfare; May Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
National advocacy organization Children's Rights and the local
Mississippi counsel, along with lawyers for the state of
Mississippi, reached a preliminary agreement to improve the
state's child welfare system and resolve a federal class action,
which was scheduled for trial beginning May 7.
Children's Rights and local Mississippi counsel filed a federal
suit in 2004 on behalf of approximately 3,500 foster children in
Mississippi Department of Human Services custody. The May trial
would have determined whether the constitutional rights of the
children had been violated.
In the settlement agreement, Governor Haley Barbour and Attorney
General Jim Hood did not dispute that children's constitutional
rights were violated, and agreed that the case should move
immediately into the remedial stage to determine the relief
required to protect children in the state's care.
The agreement provides that during the next six months
Mississippi will work with outside experts and Children's Rights
to create a detailed plan to reform the system. If the
plaintiffs agree that the plan is adequate, it will be submitted
to the court to become a binding court order. If plaintiffs
determine that the plan is insufficient to reform the system,
the district court will decide what relief should be granted
after a hearing scheduled to begin on Dec. 3.
"Now that Mississippi has stopped defending the failures of its
child welfare system, it's time for the state to take the
urgently needed steps to reform the system so that it will
provide for and protect the children entrusted into state
custody," said Marcia Robinson Lowry, founder and executive
director of Children's Rights.
A hearing for approval of the settlement is scheduled for May
17.
The suit charges Mississippi with failing to provide legally
required safety, protection and basic health care services to
thousands of abused and neglected children in state custody,
while denying them the opportunity for a permanent, loving home.
Longstanding problems identified in the suit include dangerously
overburdened and untrained caseworkers, a shortage of safe
foster homes and a lack of basic health services.
"Mississippi's foster children have been without protection and
care for far too long," said Eric Thompson, lead counsel on the
case and senior staff attorney at Children's Rights. "Reforms
should now be swiftly put in place, before another child is
harmed."
"The decision by the state not to contest the
unconstitutionality of its system will allow the court to
implement an effective remedial plan for Mississippi's abused
and neglected children. This is a great day for the children,
and for the people of Mississippi, who will soon have a child
welfare system that treats our children legally and humanely,"
said Wayne Drinkwater, a partner at Bradley Arant Rose & White
in Jackson, Mississippi.
Plaintiffs' counsel on the case include Children's Rights; Wayne
Drinkwater and Melody McAnally, Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP,
Jackson, M.S.; Stephen Leech, Attorney at Law, Jackson, M.S.;
John Lang, John Piskora and Christian D. Carbone, Loeb & Loeb
LLP, New York, N.Y.
Children's Rights is a national watchdog organization advocating
on behalf of abused and neglected children in the U.S. Since
1995, the organization has used legal action and policy
initiatives to create lasting improvements in child protection,
foster care and adoption.
MISSOURI: Jackson County Seeks Release from Jail Oversight
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer for Jackson County asked U.S. District Judge Dean
Whipple to scrap an agreement to regulate the number of inmates
housed at the county jail under a settlement of a 1980 class
action regarding overcrowding at the prison, The Kansas City
Star reports.
The county has addressed past overcrowding issues and no longer
needs federal court supervision, said David L. Marcus, a private
attorney who represents the county.
In 1999, the county entered into a class action settlement that
limits jail population to 800. The jail uses a court matrix
system to automatically release prisoners who have been involved
in less-serious crimes once jail population exceeds 800. The
matrix has been used only once in the last four years, said
Pamela Taylor, the jail's population control coordinator.
Judge Whipple said he would review the county's request and rule
on it soon, according to the report.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Merrimack Residents Plan Suit Over Turnpike Tolls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merrimack residents are exploring alternative plans to eliminate
or reduce turnpike tolls, including a possible class action
against the state, after five bills pertaining to it were
rejected in March, The Union Leader reports.
"Everyone knows that the toll system is unfair and no one has
the guts to help us out," said representative Bob L'Heureux.
"Filing a class action may be the only way we are going to get
anywhere."
According to a recently completed Department of Transportation
study, the Merrimack Equity Study, Merrimack is the only New
Hampshire municipality to be entirely gated, with tolls at Exits
9,10 and 11 on the F.E. Everett Turnpike. Residents pay as much
as 42 cents per mile in tolls. The average cost of traveling
the 44.6-mile Turnpike is three cents per mile.
The representatives submitted six bills for review that included
plans to eliminate tolls and mandate uniformity in the toll
system, but five of them were rejected. After the bills were
junked, state legislators held a public hearing in March to
discuss what options to take to address the matter.
NEW JERSEY: Ruling in Suit Against Educ. Dept. Expected in Weeks
----------------------------------------------------------------
The state is asking state Superior Court Judge Neil Shuster to
dismiss a class action seeking immediate relief for New Jersey's
alleged failure to provide essential basic education to
thousands of its children, John Mooney of the Star-Ledger
reports.
The state argued in court on April 10 that the matter should be
left to the executive and legislative branches to decide.
Judge Shuster said he would rule on the motion within 30 days,
according to the report.
The suit, "Crawford v. Davy," was filed in the Superior Court of
New Jersey in Newark, against State Commissioner of Education
Lucille Davy and 30 more defendants in July.
The case represents a class of more than 60,000 students in 96
failing schools in 25 districts. The lawsuit argues that the
denial of basic educational opportunities violates the
children's right to a thorough and efficient education under the
state constitution, and to equal protection of the laws under
the state and federal constitutions.
It seeks two interrelated remedies:
-- an end to district-based residential school assignments,
in which children are forbidden to cross attendance zone
lines to attend a different state-supported public
school; and
-- a pro rata share of public funds allocated for the
child's education, so that the family can secure a
better education in another public or private school.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?ded
The suit was filed in Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division, General Equity, Essex County.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Patricia Bombelyn at Perez & Bombelyn, P.C. 402
Livingston Avenue, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901,
Phone: (732) 213-1166, Fax: (732) 846-6667; and
(2) Julio C. Gomez, Attorney at Law LLC, 152 Paterson Road,
Fairwood, New Jersey 07023-1065, Phone: (908) 490-0360,
Fax: (908) 490-0362.
Richard Shapiro is attorney for eight districts. Michelle
Miller represents the state Department of Education.
Richard E. Shapiro, LLC, 5 Mapleton Road. Princeton, New Jersey
08540 (Mercer Co.), Phone: 609-919-1888, Fax: 609-919-0888.
NEW JERSEY: NAACP Sues Fire Department for Alleged Racial Bias
--------------------------------------------------------------
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP) filed a purported racial discrimination class action
against North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue, Peter J. Sampson
and Eric Hsu of NorthJersey.com reports.
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey on April 10. Identified as plaintiffs in the case
are:
-- NAACP;
-- Newark Branch, NAACP;
-- New Jersey State Conference, NAACP;
-- Katrina Hall;
-- Keith Reeves;
-- Lamara Wapples; and
-- Altarik White.
Generally, the suit alleges that the regional fire department,
which is serving North Bergen and four other Hudson County
municipalities, hasn't hired a single black firefighter since it
was created nearly nine years ago.
It contends that that department's preference for recruiting and
hiring employees who are residents of North Bergen, Union City,
Weehawken, West New York, and Guttenberg discriminates against
African-Americans.
The suit pointed out that the five towns, which merged their
departments in 1998, had a combined population of about 195,000
residents at the time of the 2000 census with less than 5
percent of which is African-American.
According to the suit, the department is passing up qualified
candidates simply because they don't live in the towns.
Four of the plaintiffs, namely, Ms. Hall, Mr. Reeves, Ms.
Wapples, and Mr. White, passed the state's firefighter exam and
applied for entry-level positions with the department.
However, according to the suit, because of the residency
preference, the four individuals and other outsiders from
predominately black municipalities such as Newark, East Orange,
Irvington, Jersey City and Orange are denied opportunities. The
suit pointed out that one black firefighter in 300-member
department was hired by North Bergen before the merger.
Plaintiffs are seeking an injunction barring North Hudson
Regional from discriminating against black candidates on the
basis of race and directing it to implement a vigorous
recruitment program designed to attract qualified minorities in
proportion to the labor market.
The suit is "The National Association For The Advancement Of
Colored People (NAACP) et al. v. North Hudson Regional Fire &
Rescue, Case No. 2:07-cv-01683-DRD-ES," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge
Dickinson R. Debevoise with referral to Judge Esther Salas.
Representing the plaintiffs is David H. Ben-Asher of Rabner,
Allcorn, Baumgartner & Ben-Asher, 52 Upper Montclair Plaza,
Montclair, NJ 07043, Phone: 973-744-4000, Web site:
http://www.rabnerallcorn.com.
NEW YORK: Ordered to Reveal 2004 Republican Meeting Arrests Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge James Francis IV partially granted and
partially denied discovery requests in a class-action complaint
against New York City and its officials over arrests of
protesters during the Republican National Convention in New York
City in the summer of 2004, the CourtHouse News Service reports.
Plaintiffs in the case sought an order to compel production of
documents after the city refused to produce them citing "the
self-critical analysis privilege, the attorney-client privilege,
and the deliberative process privilege.
Judge Francis IV granted the class's request "with respect to
documents withheld or redacted on the basis of the self critical
analysis privilege and the deliberative process privilege," but
denied it with respect to the attorney-client privilege,
according to the report.
NORTH DAKOTA: Fargo Seeks to Dismiss Suit Over Traffic Fines
------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney for the city of Fargo filed court papers requesting
dismissal of a suit over its traffic fines.
Attorney Stacey Tjon claims Fargo has the legal authority to set
higher traffic fines than the state, and immunity laws prevent
Stephanie Sauby from suing the city, The Forum reports.
Ms. Sauby filed a lawsuit, seeking class-action status, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota earlier
this year (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 5, 2007).
The lawsuit claims Fargo's traffic fees are "arbitrary,
unreasonable and irrational and bears no substantial
relationship or close correspondence to the public health,
safety or welfare."
The complaint, filed on behalf of anyone receiving a ticket by
Fargo police since Aug. 30, 2001, cites three rulings by
district judges saying the city's fines can't exceed the amount
set by state lawmakers. The plaintiff wants a judge to order
the city to pay back excess fees to thousands of drivers who
received non-criminal traffic tickets.
"The city of Fargo continues to establish and collect fees for
non-criminal traffic violation," the lawsuit states.
In court papers, Ms. Tjon argues that state judge rulings
claiming the city can't charge higher fees are irrelevant and
North Dakota's federal court doesn't have jurisdiction in the
case.
The suit is "Sauby v. Fargo, City of, Case No. 3:07-cv-00010-
RSW-KKK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
North Dakota under Judge Rodney S. Webb with referral to Judge
Karen K. Klein.
Representing plaintiffs are Mark A. Friese and Robert B. Stock
both of the Vogel Law Firm, 218 NP Avenue, PO BOX 1389, Fargo,
ND 58107-1389, Phone: 701-237-6983, E-mail: jbye@vogellaw.com;
and Timothy Q. Purdon and Monte Lane Rogneby both of the Vogel
Law Firm, PO BOX 2097, 200 N 3 St Ste 201, Bismarck, ND 58502-
2097, Phone: 701-258-7899, Fax: 701-258-9705, E-mail:
tpurdon@vogellaw.com and mrogneby@vogellaw.com.
Representing Fargo is Stacey Elizabeth Tjon of Solberg, Stewart,
Miller & Johnson, PO Box 1897, 1129 Fifth Avenue South, Fargo,
ND 58107-1897, Phone: (701) 237-3166 or (877) 237-3166 (Toll
free), Fax: (701) 237-4627, Web site: http://www.solberglaw.com.
OHIO: NOPEC Sued Over $5M Award from Green Mountain Energy
----------------------------------------------------------
A resident of Shaker Heights in Ohio is suing the Northeast Ohio
Public Energy Council to get a part of a $5 million arbitration
award the council received from a former electric supplier, The
Plain Dealer reports
Robert Falkner filed the suit, seeking class-action status, in
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. His lawyers say the council
has a duty to turn over the $5 million that Texas company Green
Mountain Energy paid for breaking a contract.
The council negotiates utility agreements for more than 120
communities in nine counties. It has more than 400,000 electric
customers, which translates to average rebates of as little as
$11 if the money is returned to them. But Mr. Falkner says he
is standing on principle that the money should be returned to
customers.
Mr. Falkner and his lawyer Edward Cochran is suggesting the
money could be used to pay a supplier to give customers a
discount, a plan that the board is also considering.
OHIO: Firefighter Sues Newark Township, Chief Over Policy
---------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati attorney Alphonse Gerhardstein, on behalf of Newark
firefighter Bruce Gutridge and his wife Carol, filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio against Newark Township and the township fire chief, The
Columbus Dispatch reports.
According to Mr. Gerhardstein, it took 20 minutes before
firefighters arrived at the Gutridge home on Manning Street in
the township on Feb. 5. The city of Newark Fire Department can
respond much quicker then the township volunteers, he said.
The suit alleges that policies of Chief Tim Ridenbaugh
instructing the all-volunteer department to be the first
responder on fires and other emergencies puts residents and
their property at risk.
"Refusing to call the closest equipment to respond to fires and
other emergencies actually increases the risk of injury to
Newark Township residents," Mr. Gerhardstein said.
The court has scheduled a hearing on an injunction at 10 a.m.,
Friday.
The suit is "Gutridge et al. v. Ridenbaugh et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-00337-MHW-NMK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, under Judge Michael H. Watson, with
referral to Judge Norah McCann King.
Representing plaintiffs are Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein and
Jennifer Lynn Branch, both of Gerhardstein Branch & Laufman Co.
LPA, 617 Vine Street # 1409, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-
621-9100 x13, Fax: 513-345-5543, E-mail:
agerhardstein@GBfirm.com or jbranch@gbfirm.com.
OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has
yet to rule on OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities class action filed against it, certain
of its current and former executive officers, and the members of
its board of directors.
According to a regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, the company has requested an oral argument
on this motion and are awaiting a decision from the court.
Briefing on this motion was completed on June 21, 2006.
On or about Dec. 16, 2004, several purported shareholder class
actions were filed against the defendants. These suits were
brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired
the company's common stock during certain periods in 2004, which
periods differed in the various complaints.
On Feb. 17, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint seeking to represent a class of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
common stock during the period from April 26, 2004 through Nov.
22, 2004.
The consolidated complaint alleges that defendants made material
misstatements and omissions concerning the survival benefit
associated with the company's product, Tarceva, and the size of
the potential market of Tarceva upon approval of the drug by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
The suit alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under. It seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.
On April 7, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. Briefing on this motion was
completed on June 21, 2006. The company has requested an oral
argument on its motion and is awaiting a decision from the
court, according to its March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.
The first identified suit is "Kassover, et al. v. OSI
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-CV-05505," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
under Judge Joanna Seybert.
Plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(1) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
mail: info@dyershuman.com; and
(2) Schoengold & Sporn, P.C., 233 Broadway 39Th Floor, New
York, NY, 10279, Phone: 212.964.0046.
PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Recalls Shrek Headbands Distributed by Pepsi
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paramount Pictures Corp., of Hollywood, California, under
contract with DreamWorks Animation SKG, of Glendale, California,
in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
is recalling about 6,000 Shrek ears headbands.
The company said a small wire can protrude through the fabric of
the ears on these headbands, posing a risk of cuts to consumers.
No injuries have been reported.
The item is a plastic headband covered in bright green fabric
with two ears similar to the character Shrek from the DreamWorks
film series. A tag attached to one of the ears reads
"DREAMWORKS" and "THE THIRD," and shows the top of the Shrek
character's head.
These recalled Shrek ears headbands were manufactured in China
and are being distributed by Paramount Pictures to Pepsi
Bottlers, which distributed the headbands as a giveaway product
to their employees from Feb. 23, 2007 through April 1, 2007.
The recall does not include any ear headbands purchased, or
distributed free of charge, before Feb. 23, 2007 and after April
1, 2007.
Headband owners are advised to stop using the recalled headbands
immediately and call for information on returning the headbands
to receive a free replacement item.
Consumers who received the headbands through Pepsi Bottlers
should call (800) 782-6116 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday.
For more information, contact Dave DeCecco, of PepsiCo., Phone:
(914) 253-2655; and Rich Sullivan, of DreamWorks Animation SKG,
Phone: (818) 695-3521.
PARMALAT SPA: July 19 Hearing Set for $50M N.Y. Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on July 19, 2007 for a proposed $50
million settlement by Banca Nazionale del Lavoro S.p.A. (BNL),
Credit Suisse Group, Credit Suisse, Credit Suisse International,
and Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited of the matter, "In
re Parmalat Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-0030 (LAK).
The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl St.,
New York, New York, USA.
The settlement covers all investors, brokers, financial
institutions, and other nominees who bought the common stock or
bonds of Parmalat Finanziaria S.p.A. and its subsidiaries and
affiliates from Jan. 5, 1999, through and including Dec. 18,
2003.
The deadline for exclusions and objections to and from the
settlement must be made on or before June 19.
Case Background
Generally, the lawsuit alleges that Parmalat and numerous other
defendants participated in a fraudulent financial scheme,
resulting in the understatement of Parmalat's debt by nearly $10
billion and the overstatement of its net assets by over $16
billion. Parmalat ultimately filed for bankruptcy, and the
value of its stock and bonds dramatically declined.
Though some defendants agreed to settle the case, it will still
proceed against Parmalat S.p.A. (the successor to Parmalat
Finanziaria S.p.A.), financial institutions, two auditing firms,
and certain individuals.
In particular, the defendants not settling, against whom claims
are still pending in the class action, are:
-- Bank of America Corp.,
-- Bank of America, N.A.,
-- Banc of America Securities Ltd.,
-- Citigroup Inc.,
-- Citibank N.A.,
-- Eureka Securitisation plc,
-- Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu,
-- Deloitte & Touche USA LLP,
-- Grant Thornton International,
-- Grant Thornton LLP,
-- Pavia e Ansaldo,
-- Parmalat S.p.A., and
-- numerous individuals.
In May 2004, the court appointed the law firms of Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C, of Washington, D.C., Grant &
Eisenhofer, P.A., of Wilmington, Del., and Spector Roseman &
Kodroff, P.C., of Philadelphia, Pa., to represent the plaintiffs
in the case. These firms have been litigating this case since
that time, and they negotiated the partial settlement.
The money in the settlement fund will not be distributed yet.
In part because the litigation is still proceeding against the
remaining defendants, there is no plan to allocate the money
now; thus it is not possible to determine the amount of class
member payments, or what the average payment will be on a per
share or per bond basis.
Payments will depend on the number of valid claim forms that
Class members eventually send in, how many shares of Parmalat
stock they bought or how many bonds they bought, when they
bought and sold them, and the prices they paid.
For more details, contact:
(1) Parmalat Notice Administrator, P.O. Box 4068, Portland,
OR 97208-4068, Web site:
http://www.ParmalatSettlement.com;
(2) Mark S. Willis, Esq. of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
Toll, P.L.L.C., Phone: +1-202-408-4606;
(3) James Sabella, Esq. of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Phone:
+1-646-722-8500; and
(4) Robert M. Roseman, Esq. of Spector Roseman & Kodroff,
P.C., Phone: +1-215-496-0300.
PHLX: Depositions in Lawsuit Over 2005 Sale Due This Week
---------------------------------------------------------
Depositions from executives of the Philadelphia Stock Exchange
and six Wall Street firms are due this week in a lawsuit brought
on behalf of shareholders of the PHLX, Pensions & Investments
reports.
Last year, Chuck Ginsburg, a former member of the demutualized
PHLX, filed the suit seeking class-action status, in the
Delaware Court of Chancery in Georgetown.
The suit aims to return ownership of the exchange -- of which
six Wall Street firms bought 90% in 2005 -- back to the former
PHLX members who are shareholders.
Named defendants in the suit are the Board of Governors of the
Philadelphia Stock Exchange and six Wall Street firms:
-- UBS Securities, LLC;
-- Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.;
-- Citigroup Financial Products, Inc.;
-- Credit Suisse First Boston;
-- Citadel Derivatives Group, LLC; and
-- Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith.
The firms bought a non-dilutable 90% interest of the 100%
interest held by Class A shareholders of PHLX in 2005.
In December 2006, Chancellor William Chandler of the Delaware
Court of Chancery denied all defendants' motions to dismiss the
lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 14, 2006).
Lawrence Deutsch, Esquire, of Berger & Montague, P.C. argued the
motions on behalf of representative plaintiff Chuck Ginsburg and
the class of injured Class A shareholders regarding the
challenged transactions.
Chancellor Chandler ordered a June 18 trial for the case.
Plaintiff's Counsel Lawrence Deutsch, Esquire and Robin
Switzenbaum, Esquire are with Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622
Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 800-424-6690 or
215-875-3000, Fax: 215-875-5715, E-Mail: ldeutsch@bm.net or
rswitzenbaum@bm.net, Website: http://www.bergermontague.com.
REUTERS LTD: Court Mulls Appeal on Dismissal of "Gilstrap" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has yet to rule on
an appeal regarding a dismissal of a purported class action
filed against:
-- Radianz Ltd.;
-- Radianz Americas, Inc.;
-- Reuters Ltd.;
-- Blaxmill (Six) Ltd.;
-- Reuters C LLC;
-- Reuters America LLC; and
-- British Telecommunications plc
by Douglas Gilstrap, former Radianz chief executive and Myron
Tataryn, former employee.
The suit was filed on Sept. 12, 2005 as a class action
purportedly on behalf of Radianz option holders in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, in relation to
the cash cancellation of Radianz options, in conjunction with
Reuters sale of Radianz to British Telecommunications. The
complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought.
Under the claims and indemnification provision of the Radianz
Sale Agreement between British Telecommunications and Reuters,
Reuters elected to take control of the defense of this
litigation as to all defendants.
On Dec. 15, 2005, a first amended complaint was filed, which
among other things, added Myron Tataryn, a former Radianz
employee based in the United Kingdom, as an additional named
plaintiff and purported class representative.
On Jan. 30, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
case in its entirety on forum non conveniens grounds.
On July 27, 2006, the court dismissed the complaint holding that
England is the proper forum for this matter. On Aug. 25, 2006,
plaintiffs filed an appeal of the dismissal with the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. A date for oral argument on the
appeal has not yet been set, according to the company's March 16
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
Reuters Group PLC on the Net: http://www.about.reuters.com/.
SMITH & NEPHEW: Recalls Mislabeled Spine RF Denervation Probes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Nephew Inc. is initiating a nationwide recall of 539 RF
Denervation probes indicated for use exclusively with the Smith
& Nephew ELECTROTHERMAL(TM) 20S SPINE SYSTEM in RF heat lesion
procedures for the relief of pain.
The RF Denervation Probes, which are provided in a non-sterile
condition, were mislabeled as sterile which potentially could
result in a patient infection.
The recall includes the following products and lot numbers:
Part # Description Lot numbers
7210270 RF Denervation Probe 602549, 602550,
602846, 602847
7210271 RF Denervation Probe 602541, 602542,
602556, 602557,
602558, 602559,
602560, 602561,
602562, 602848,
602849, 602999
7210272 RF Denervation Probe 602543, 602570,
602571, 602850,
603000
The company voluntarily recalled the products after learning of
the labeling error. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has
been apprised of this action. No injuries have been reported to
date associated with this issue.
Product was distributed to 134 domestic and international
customers. It can be identified by the product number, name,
and lot numbers identified above. Smith & Nephew has notified
its distributors and customers and is arranging for return and
replacement of all recalled products.
Customers who have product that is being recalled are advised to
return it to Smith & Nephew per the recall instructions.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-343-
5717.
SUN-TIMES MEDIA: Ill. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss a third amended complaint
in the suit, "In re Hollinger Inc. Securities Litigation, No.
04C-0834," which names Sun-Times Media Group, Inc. as a
defendant.
In February and April 2004, the Teachers' Retirement System of
Louisiana, Kenneth Mozingo, and Washington Area Carpenters
Pension and Retirement Fund initiated purported class actions
against:
-- the company;
-- certain of the company's former executive officers and
former directors of the company;
-- The Ravelston Corp. Ltd.;
-- certain affiliated entities; and
-- KPMG LLP, the company's independent registered public
accounting firm.
The suit asserts claims under federal and Illinois securities
laws and claims of breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting in breaches of fiduciary duty.
On July 9, 2004, the court consolidated the three actions for
pretrial purposes. The consolidated action is "In re Hollinger
Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 04C-0834," (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 2, 2006).
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint
on Aug. 2, 2004, and a second consolidated amended class action
complaint on Nov. 19, 2004.
The named plaintiffs in the second consolidated amended class
action complaint are Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana,
Washington Area Carpenters Pension and Retirement Fund, and E.
Dean Carlson.
They are purporting to sue on behalf of an alleged class
consisting of themselves and all other purchasers of securities
of the company between and including Aug. 13, 1999 and Dec. 11,
2002.
The second consolidated amended class action complaint asserts
claims under federal and Illinois securities laws and claims of
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting in breaches of
fiduciary duty in connection with misleading disclosures and
omissions regarding: certain "non-competition" payments, the
payment of allegedly excessive management fees, allegedly
inflated circulation figures at the Chicago Sun-Times, and other
alleged misconduct.
On Sept. 13, 2006, plaintiffs filed a third consolidated amended
class action complaint. The new complaint adds an additional
named plaintiff, Cardinal Mid-Cap Value Equity Partners, L.P.,
but is otherwise identical to the prior complaint and asserts
the same claims.
On Oct. 27, 2006, the company moved to dismiss the third
consolidated amended class action complaint. The company's
motion is pending.
The company reported no development in the matter in its March
16 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: Hollinger Int'l Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:04-cv-00834," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge David H. Coar.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York),
200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone:
631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173;
(2) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com;
(3) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com;
(4) Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., 1201 N. Market Street, Suite
2100, Wilmington, DE, 19801, Phone: 302.622.7000, Fax:
302.622.7100, E-mail: info@gelaw.com;
(5) Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC,
Chicago, IL, Phone: 800-470-6824, Fax: 312-621-1750;
and
(6) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.
SUN-TIMES MEDIA: Still Faces Multiple Securities Suits in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sun-Times Media Group, Inc. remains a defendant in several
purported securities class actions pending in Saskatchewan,
Ontario, and Quebec courts, according to its March 16 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
On Sept. 7, 2004, a group allegedly comprised of those who
purchased stock in one or more of the defendant corporations
initiated purported class actions by issuing Statements of Claim
in Saskatchewan and Ontario, Canada.
The Saskatchewan claim, issued in that province's Court of
Queen's Bench, and the Ontario claim, issued in that province's
Superior Court of Justice, are identical in all material
respects.
The defendants include the company, certain former directors and
officers of the company, Hollinger, Inc., The Ravelston Corp.
Limited (Ravelston) and certain affiliated entities, Torys LLP,
the company's former legal counsel, and KPMG LLP.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, breach of fiduciary
duty, violation of the Saskatchewan Securities Act, 1988, S-
42.2, and breaches of obligations under the Canadian Business
Corporations Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C.-44 and seek unspecified
monetary damages.
On July 8, 2005, the company and other defendants served motion
materials seeking orders dismissing or staying the Saskatchewan
claim on the basis that the Saskatchewan court has no
jurisdiction over the defendants or, alternatively, that
Saskatchewan is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate the
matters in issue.
On Sept. 6, and 7, 2005, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench
heard the motion. On Feb. 28, 2006, the court stayed the action
until Sept. 15, 2007.
The claimants may apply to have the stay lifted prior to that
date if they are unable effectively to pursue their claims by
way of the Illinois or Ontario class actions or in an SEC
proceeding.
On Feb. 3, 2005, substantially the same group of plaintiffs as
in the Saskatchewan and Ontario claims initiated a purported
class action by issuing a Statement of Claim in Quebec, Canada.
The Quebec claim, issued in that province's Superior Court, is
substantially similar to the Saskatchewan and Ontario claims and
the defendants are the same as in the other two proceedings.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, breach of fiduciary
duty, violation of the Ontario Securities Act and breaches of
obligations under the Canada Business Corporations Act and seek
unspecified money damages.
Sun-Times Media Group, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.thesuntimesgroup.com/.
SUPPORTSOFT INC: Oct. 29 Trial Set for Calif. Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 29, 2007 trial is scheduled for "In re SupportSoft, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-5222."
Between Dec. 9, 2004 and Jan. 21, 2005, several purported
securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California against SupportSoft,
Inc., the company's chief executive officer, Radha R. Basu, and
former chief financial officer, Brian M. Beattie.
These actions were consolidated on March 22, 2005 as "In re
SupportSoft, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-5222 SI."
The consolidated complaint alleges generally violations of
certain federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock
between Jan. 20, 2004 and Oct. 1, 2004.
Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that defendants made
false and misleading statements concerning the company's
business and guidance for the third quarter 2004, purportedly
violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
On June 1, 2006, the action was certified to proceed as a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of the company from Jan. 29,
2004 to Oct. 1, 2004 and who were allegedly damaged thereby.
The case is currently in discovery. A trial date has been set
for Oct. 29, 2007, according to the company's March 16 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 SupportSoft, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 04-5222 SI," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Susan Illston.
Representing the plaintiffs is Peter A. Binkow of Glancy &
Binkow, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles,
CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, Fax: 310-201-9160, E-mail:
pbinkow@glancylaw.com.
Representing the company are Sherry Hartel Haus, David L.
Lansky, and Peri Nielsen of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
650 Page Mill Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone: (650) 493-9300,
E-mail: sherry.haus@wilmerhale.com, dlansky@wsgr.com and
pnielsen@wsgr.com.
TANOX INC: Faces Tex. Stockholders' Suit Over Genentech Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Tanox, Inc. faces a purported class action in the District Court
of Harris County, Texas in relation to a proposed acquisition of
Tanox by Genentech, Inc.
The suit was filed against Tanox and the current members of its
board of directors on Dec. 5, 2006. It also names Genentech and
Green Acquisition Corp. as defendants.
The petition is captioned, "Superior Partners v. Nancy T. Chang,
Julia Brown, Heinz W. Bull, Tse-Wen Chang, Gary Frashier, Osama
Mikhail, Peter G. Traber, Danong Chen, Tanox, Inc., Genentech,
Inc. and Green Acquisition Corp., Case No. 2006-77015."
Among other things, the petition alleges that company directors,
in approving the proposed merger, breached fiduciary duties owed
to its stockholders, and that Genentech and Green Acquisition
aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.
The petition also alleges that the preliminary proxy statement
Tanox filed in connection with the merger on Nov. 24, 2006
contains false or misleading statements or omissions.
On Dec. 19, 2006, plaintiff amended the petition to allege that
the definitive proxy statement, filed by Tanox on Dec. 7, 2006,
contains false and misleading statements or omissions.
The amended petition seeks class certification, damages and
certain forms of equitable relief, including enjoining the
consummation of the merger.
Tanox, Inc. on the Net: http://www.tanox.com/.
THOMAS WEISEL: Court Reverses Nixing of First Horizon Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit allowed
plaintiffs in a consolidated class action "In re First Horizon
Pharmaceutical Corp. Securities Litigation," which names Thomas
Weisel Partners Group, Inc., as one of the defendants to re-
plead their claims. The decision reversed the dismissal of the
case by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.
The purported class action was brought in connection with a
secondary offering of First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corp. in
April 2002.
The consolidated amended complaint, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia on Sept. 2, 2003,
alleges violations of federal securities laws against First
Horizon and certain of its directors and officers as well as the
its underwriters, including the company, based on alleged false
and misleading statements in the registration statement and
other documents.
The underwriters' motion to dismiss was granted by the court in
September 2004. The plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 11th 1Circuit, and on Sept. 26, 2006, it
vacated the dismissal and remanded the case to the district
court, which was instructed to permit the plaintiffs to re-plead
their claim.
The suit is "In re First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-02332-JOF," on appeal from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge
J. Owen Forrester.
The company reported no development in the matter in its March
16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
Representing the plaintiffs is David Andrew Bain of Chitwood
Harley Harnes, LLP, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade
II, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-873-3900, E-mail:
dab@classlaw.com.
Representing the defendants is John Patterson Brumbaugh of King
& Spalding, 191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30303-1763,
Phone: 404-572-5100, E-mail: pbrumbaugh@kslaw.com.
THOMAS WEISEL: Discovery Ongoing in AirGate PCS Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated class action brought in
connection with a secondary offering of AirGate PCS, Inc. in
December 2001.
The complaint, filed on May 17, 2002 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, alleges violations of
federal securities laws against AirGate and certain of its
directors and officers as well as the company's underwriters,
including Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., based on alleged
misstatements and omissions in the registration statement.
The underwriters' motion to dismiss was granted by the court in
September 2005, but the court permitted plaintiffs to amend
their complaint.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and the
underwriters again moved to dismiss. The court granted in part
and denied in part the second motion to dismiss, dismissing all
claims and allegations against the firm except a single claim
under Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933.
The company has answered the one surviving claim, and the case
has proceeded to the discovery phase.
The company reported no development in the matter in its March
16 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 AirGate PCS, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:02-cv-01291-JOF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia under Judge J. Owen Forrester.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) David Andrew Bain and Martin D. Chitwood of Chitwood
Harley Harnes, LLP, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300
Promenade II, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-873-3900,
Fax: 404-876-4476, E-mail: dab@classlaw.com and
mdc@classlaw.com; and
(2) Howard K. Coates, Jr. of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman, 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900, Boca Raton,
FL 33486, Phone: 561-361-5000.
THOMAS WEISEL: Nixing of Leadis Securities Fraud Suit Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing a dismissal by the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California of a complaint in a
consolidated class action "In re Leadis Technology, Inc.
Securities Litigation," which names Thomas Weisel Partners
Group, Inc., as one of the defendants.
The suit was brought in connection with Leadis Technology,
Inc.'s initial public offering in June 2004.
The consolidated complaint, filed in on Aug. 8, 2005, alleged
violations of federal securities laws against Leadis and certain
of its directors and officers as well as its underwriters,
including the company, based on alleged misstatements and
omissions in the registration statement.
On March 1, 2006, the court dismissed with prejudice the
complaint against the company in this matter. Subsequently, on
March 28, 2006, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.
The company reported no development in the matter in its March
16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
The suit is "Safron Capital Corp. v. Leadis Technology, Inc. et
al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00882-CRB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California under Judge
Charles R. Breyer.
Representing the plaintiffs is Patrick J. Coughlin, Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 100 Pine Street,
Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415/288-4545, Fax:
415-288-4534, E-mail: patc@mwbhl.com.
Representing the defendants are Grant P. Fondo and Laura R.
Smith of Cooley Godward LLP, Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El
Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155, Phone: 650 843-5458, Fax:
650 857-0663, E-mail: gfondo@cooley.com or smithlr@cooley.com.
THOMAS WEISEL: N.Y. Suits Over Vonage IPO Transferred to N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Several class actions filed in New York that arose out of a May
2006 initial public offering of Vonage Holdings Corp., have been
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.
Initially, several complaints were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey and in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of Kings starting June 2006.
The suits are alleging misuse of Vonage's directed share program
and violations of federal securities laws against Vonage and
certain of its directors and senior officers as well as Vonage's
underwriters, including Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc.,
based on alleged false and misleading statements in the
registration statement and prospectus.
In January 2007, the plaintiffs' complaints were transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
according the company's March 16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.
The reference complaint is "Gibbons, et al. v. Vonage Holdings
Corp., et al., Case No. 06-CV-02531," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Freda L.
Wolfson.
Plaintiff firms named in complaint:
(1) Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf, Park 80
Plaza West-One, Saddle Brook, NJ, 7663, Phone: 201-845-
9600, E-mail: info@njlawfirm.com;
(2) Spector, Roseman & Kodroff (Philadelphia), 1818 Market
Street; Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone:
215.496.0300, Fax: 215.496.6610, E-mail:
classaction@srk-law.com; and
(3) Trujillo, Rodriguez & Richards, 20 Brace Road, Cherry
Hill, NJ.
THOMAS WEISEL: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of Merix Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
9th Circuit a dismissal of a class action pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon against Thomas Weisel
Partners Group, Inc. in connection with a share offering of
Merix Corp. in which Thomas Weisel served as co-lead manager.
Plaintiffs filed the suit, "In re: Merix Securities Litigation,
Lead Case No. 3:04-cv-00826-MO," against Merix and certain of
its directors and senior officers as well as Merix's
underwriters, alleging false and misleading statements in the
registration statement.
On Sept. 15, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon entered an order dismissing all claims against the
underwriter defendants, including the firm, and the Merix
defendants.
A portion of the claim under Section 12(a)(2) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 was dismissed with prejudice,
and the remainder of that claim and the Section 11 claim were
dismissed with leave to re-file.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint and on Sept.
28, 2006, the court dismissed the remaining claims with
prejudice.
Following the Sept. 28 dismissal, plaintiffs have filed a notice
of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
The company reported no development in the matter in its March
16 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: Merix Securities Litigation, Lead Case No.
3:04-cv-00826-MO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon under Michael W. Mosman. Representing the
plaintiffs are:
(1) Stuart L. Berman, Gregory M. Castaldo, Darren J. Check,
Sean M. Handler, Andrew L. Zivitz, Schiffrin &
Barroway, LLP, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: (610) 667-7706, Fax: (610)
667-7056, E-mail: sberman@sbclasslaw.com,
dcheck@sbclasslaw.com, shandler@sbclasslaw.com,
azivitz@sbclasslaw.com
(2) Gary M. Berne, David F. Rees, Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting
& Shlachter, PC, 209 S.W. Oak Street, Fifth Floor,
Portland, OR 97204, Phone: (503) 227-1600, Fax: (503)
227-6840, E-mail: gberne@ssbls.com or drees@ssbls.com
(3) Lori G. Feldman, Steven G. Schulman, Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman, LLP, 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite
2550, Seattle, WA 98154, Phone: (206) 839-0730, Fax:
(206) 839-0728, E-mail: lfeldman@milbergweiss.com
Representing the company are:
(i) Bruce L. Campbell and Ky Fullerton of Miller Nash, LLP,
111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3400, Portland, OR 97204,
Phone: 503 205-2419, Fax: (503) 224-0155, E-mail:
bruce.campbell@millernash.com and
ky.fullerton@millernash.com; and
(ii) Darryl S. Lew of White & Case, LLP, 701 Thirteenth
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 626-
3600, Fax: (202) 639-9355, E-mail: dlew@whitecase.com.
THOMAS WEISEL: Still Faces Securities Suit Over Intermix Sale
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc. remains a defendant in a
purported class action arising out of the sale of Intermix
Media, Inc. to News Corp. in September 2005.
The complaint was filed August 2006 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California and alleges various
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material information that
would have demonstrated that the sale was not fair from a
financial point of view to the shareholders of Intermix.
Thomas Weisel acted as a financial advisor to Intermix in
connection with the sale and rendered a fairness opinion with
respect to the sale.
The company reported no development in the matter in its March
16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.tweisel.com/.
THOMAS WEISEL: Still Faces Suit in Calif. Over SeraCare Offering
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc. was named as one of the
defendants in a consolidated securities fraud class action
arising out of alleged false and misleading financial statements
issued between 2003 and 2006 by SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc.
The company was named a defendant in the purported class action,
"In Re SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc. Securities Litigation," in
July 2006.
The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, and alleges violations of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 against certain of SeraCare's current and former
officers and directors, its former auditor, and its controlling
shareholders and investment bankers, including the company due
to the firm having been a co-manager of SeraCare's 2005
secondary offering of common stock.
SeraCare filed for bankruptcy in March 2006.
The company reported no development in the matter in its March
16 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: SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-02335," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California under Judge
Marilyn L. Huff.
Plaintiff firms named in complaint:
(1) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington,
DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower,
Washington, DC, 20005, Phone: 202.408.4600, Fax:
202.408.4699, E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com; and
(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.
TNS INC: Va. Court Stays Discovery in Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
stayed discovery in a purported securities class action filed
against TNS, Inc. pending a mediation of the matter.
The company and John J. McDonnell, Jr., chief executive officer,
and Henry H. Graham, Jr., chief financial officer, are
defendants in a putative class action filed in connection with
the company's secondary public offering of common stock in
September 2005.
The Cement Masons and Plasterers Joint Pension Trust,
purportedly on behalf of itself and others similarly situated,
filed the putative class action as, "Cement Masons & Plasterers
Joint Pension Trust v. TNS, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06 CV 363,
CMH/BRP," on April 4, 2006.
Plaintiff claims that the Registration Statement filed in
connection with the secondary offering negligently failed to
disclose that:
-- TNS' agreement with the Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc.
to provide cashless vending to Pepsi had been
delayed beyond Aug. 7, 2005;
-- TNS was generating less revenues and income than it had
anticipated from its contract with the Royal Bank of
Scotland, because Royal Bank purportedly had overstated
the number of transactions that TNS would be
responsible for processing for Royal Bank; and
-- TNS' International Services Division was experiencing
declining revenues during that time period because of
unfavorable foreign exchange rates.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on July 14,
2006. Plaintiff filed its memorandum in opposition to TNS'
motion to dismiss on Aug. 4, 2006, and TNS filed its reply
memorandum on Aug. 18, 2006.
The court denied the motion to dismiss on Sept. 12, 2006, and
has since ordered the parties to conduct discovery in the case.
In March 2007, the court stayed further discovery in the case
pending a mediation of the matter, according to the company's
March 16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
The first identified complaint is "Cement Masons and Plasters
Joint Pension Trust, et al. v. TNS Inc., et al.," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:
(1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax: 610-660-
0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;
(2) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com;
(3) Goldman Scarlato & Karon, PC, Phone 888-753-2796;
(4) Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, 650 Poydras St. Suite 2150,
New Orleans, LA, 70130, Phone: (504) 455-1400, E-mail:
lewis.kahn@kglg.com;
(5) 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;
(6) Roy Jacobs & Associates, 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000,
New York, NY, 10118, E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.com; and
(7) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
sn06106@AOL.com.
TRIAD GUARANTY: Discovery Ongoing in Mortgage Borrowers' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still underway in a purported class action filed
against Triad Guaranty Insurance Corp. in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky.
The action was commenced on Jan. 15, 2004 with a filing of a
complaint in Kentucky federal court seeking class-action status
on behalf of a nationwide class of home mortgage borrowers.
The complaint alleged that Triad violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act by failing to provide notices to certain borrowers
when mortgage insurance was offered to lenders with respect to
those borrowers' mortgage loans at a rate in excess of Triad's
lowest available rate.
Discovery is currently underway with respect to class
certification.
The company reported no development in the matter in its March
16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
The suit is "Broessel v. Triad Guaranty Insurance Corp., C.A.
1:04-cv-00004-JHM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky under Judge Joseph H. McKinley Jr.
with referral to Judge E. Robert Goebel.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Douglas Bowdoin of Douglas Bowdoin, PA, P.O. Box 2254,
255 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 800, Orlando, FL 32802-
2254, Phone: 407-422-0025, Fax: 407-843-2448, E-mail:
dbowdoin@bowdoinlaw.com;
(2) Dana E. Deering of Parry, Deering, Futscher & Sparks,
PSC, 411 Garrad Street, P.O. Box 2618, Covington, KY
41012-2618, Phone: 859-291-9000, Fax: 859-291-9300, E-
mail: ddeering@pdfslaw.com; and
(3) W. Christian Hoyer, Kathleen Clark Knight and Kathleen
Clark Knight of James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich,
PA, 4830 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 550, Tampa, FL 33609,
Phone: 813-286-4100, Fax: 813-286-4174, E-mail:
kknight@jameshoyer.com and kknight@jameshoyer.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Nolan C. Leake, Jennifer R. Vala and Lisa Wolgast of
King & Spalding, LLP, 1180 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30309-3521, Phone: 404-572-4600, Fax: 404-
572-5140; and
(ii) Ronald G. Sheffer of Sheffer & Sheffer, 101 S. 5th St.,
Ste. 1600, Louisville, KY 40202, Phone: 502-582-1600,
Fax: 582-1193.
T.W. ENTERPRISES: Recalls Dog Chews for Salmonella Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
T.W. Enterprises of Ferndale, Washington is recalling certain
dog chews it markets because they may be contaminated with
Salmonella.
Samples tested by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of the
product indicate that the dog chew products manufactured by T.W.
Enterprises may be contaminated. People handling these treats
can become infected with Salmonella, especially if they have not
thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with the
chews or any surfaces exposed to these products.
Salmonella can potentially be transferred to people handling
these pet treats, especially if they have not thoroughly washed
their hands after having contact with the products or any
surfaces exposed to these products.
Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor
themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea,
vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and
fever. Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments,
including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle
pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms.
Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this
product should contact their healthcare providers.
Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets
will have only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain.
Well animals can be carriers and infect other animals or humans.
If a pet has consumed the recalled product and has these
symptoms, contact a veterinarian.
The following is a list of the recalled products (Product Name/
A.B. Dog Chew - Size / UPC):
-- A.B. Small Chew, 3 - 4 inch / 833234001105
-- A. B. Puppy Chew, 4 - 6 inch / 83323401112
-- A.B. Dog Chew Medium, 6 inch / 833234001051
-- A.B. Dog Chew Large, 10 inch / 833234001068
-- A. B. Dog Chew XL, 13 inch / 833234001075
-- A. B. Dog Chew Mega, 16 inch / 833234001082
-- A. B. Dog Chew Jumbo, 26 inch / 833234001099
T.W. Enterprises Inc. manufactured these dog chews and
distributed them throughout the U.S. under its name. The
affected products were distributed before March 22, 2007 to
retail locations and are non-coded, i.e. they have no batch code
or other identifying marks.
T.W. Enterprises has made contact with all of its consignees and
has been informed the affected product has been pulled from
store shelves.
T.W. Enterprises has informed FDA of its action and is fully
cooperating with the agency. The firm, FDA and other
authorities are actively investigating this matter to determine
the source of this problem, and will take any additional steps
necessary to protect the public health. No reports of illness
to date in connection with this problem.
Consumers who have the non-coded pet chews should not feed them
to their pets, but should dispose of them in a safe manner
(e.g., in a securely covered trash receptacle). Anyone who is
experiencing the symptoms of Salmonella infection after having
handled one of these pet products should seek medical attention,
and report their use of the product and illness to the nearest
FDA office.
People should thoroughly wash their hands after handling any pet
treat -- especially those made from animal protein such as meat
-- to help prevent infection. People may risk bacterial
infection not only by handling the chews, but by contact with
pets or surfaces exposed to the chews, so it is important that
they thoroughly wash their hands with hot water and soap.
Since elderly people, young children, and people with weakened
immune systems are particularly at risk from exposure they
should avoid handling these products.
Consumers with questions may contact T.W. Enterprises at 1-360-
366-0408.
UNITED STATES: Immigrants' Suit Over Benefit Cuts to Go Ahead
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno denied a request by the
federal government to dismiss a class action that alleges the
Social Security Administration and several other federal
agencies are cutting the benefits of thousands of disabled
immigrants, Herald News reports.
Arguments are scheduled to begin in June.
Filed on Dec. 6, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, the suit charges that thousands of
elderly and disabled refugees who qualify for government
benefits while awaiting U.S. citizenship are being cut off
because their citizenship applications are mired in post Sept.
11 delays (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 26, 2006).
According to the suit, the refugees have been told that they
can't receive Social Security benefits until they're re-approved
for U.S. citizenship, which falls under a seven-year limit. It
adds that some are even expected to lose their benefits by 2012
as they wait for approval.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include:
-- Mashaalah,
-- Eshetu Meri,
-- Feride Mandija,
-- Lidiya Burtseva,
-- Mary Amrezaei Aliaghaei,
-- Nelli Olevskaya,
-- Rouzbeh Aliaghaei,
-- Shmul Kaplan, and
-- Tasim Mandija.
Legal advocates like Jonathan M. Stein of Community Legal
Services in Philadelphia, who filed the class action, had called
the cutoffs unconstitutional, saying they are beyond the control
of the refugees.
The suit names the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the
U.S. Office of Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Federal
Bureau, SSA, and others as defendants.
Plaintiffs want to reinstate the benefits, which pay about $600
a month to individuals, and $900 to couples who are severely
disabled, blind or elderly.
The suit is "Kaplan et al. v. Chertoff et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-
05304-ER," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under Judge Eduardo C. Robreno.
Representing the plaintiffs is Jonathan M. Stein of Community
Legal Services, Inc., 1424 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA
19102-2505, Phone: 215-981-3762, E-mail: jstein@clsphila.org.
UNITED WESTERN: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Munoz" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of United Western
Bancorp, Inc., and certain other defendants in the class action,
"Heraclio A. Munoz, et al. v. Sterling Trust Co., et al.," which
was filed in Superior Court of the State of California.
Sterling Trust Co., United Western Bancorp, United Western Bank,
The Vintage Group, Inc. and Vintage Delaware Holdings, Inc. were
named as defendants in the action, which was filed in December
2001.
The complaint sought class action status, requested unspecified
damages and alleged negligent misrepresentation, breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of written contract on the part of
Sterling Trust.
In the fourth quarter of 2005, Sterling Trust was granted
summary judgment as to all claims against it. In April 2006,
the court granted a motion for summary judgment, dismissing
Sterling Trust, United Western Bancorp, United Western Bank, The
Vintage Group, Inc. and Vintage Delaware Holdings, Inc. from the
action.
On Sept. 27, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with
the California Superior Court. Plaintiffs' appeal brief is to
be filed with the appellate court on March 27, 2007.
United Western Bancorp, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.matrixbancorp.com/.
WAVE SYSTEMS: Mass. Court OKs $1.75M Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
granted final approval to a $1.75 million settlement of all
claims asserted by plaintiffs in a consolidated securities class
action filed against Wave Systems Corp., its chief executive
officer and its chief financial officer.
A consolidated amended class action complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, names Wave,
its chief executive officer and its chief financial officer as
defendants.
The suit is "Brumbaugh et al. v. Wave Systems Corp. et al., Civ.
No. 04-30022 (D. Mass.)(MAP)." It was filed by alleged
purchasers of Wave's Class A Common Stock during the purported
class period July 31, 2003 through Feb. 2, 2004.
The complaint claims that Wave and the named individuals
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Rule 10(b)-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
1934 Act by publicly disseminating materially false and
misleading statements, relating to Wave's agreements with Intel
and IBM.
The complaint did not specify the amount of alleged damages
plaintiffs seek to recover.
In January 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss. The court dismissed two but let
stand seven alleged misrepresentations or omissions. This is
not a finding of fault or liability, it is a decision not
entirely to dismiss plaintiffs' pleading.
Without admitting liability, the defendants recently reached a
mediated settlement in principle of all claims asserted by the
plaintiffs.
Wave's insurer has agreed to pay the plaintiffs a total of
$1,750,000 in exchange for the dismissal with prejudice and
release of the claims against all defendants.
On Jan. 10, 2007, the court conducted a settlement fairness
hearing resulting in an Order and Final Judgment approving the
settlement and dismissing the action with prejudice.
The suit is "Brumbaugh v. Wave Systems Corp. et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-30022-MAP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Michael A. Ponsor.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Stuart L. Berman and Darren Check of Schiffrin &
Barroway LLP, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706;
(2) David Pastor, Gilman and Pastor, LLP, 60 State Street,
37th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-742-9700, Fax:
617-742-9701, E-mail: dpastor@gilmanpastor.com;
(3) John C. Martland, Martland & Brooks LLP, Stonehill
Corporate Center, Suite 500, 999 Broadway, Saugus, MA
01906, Phone: 617-742-9700, Fax: 617-742-9701, E-mail:
jcmartland@gilmanpastor.com; and
(4) Karen Reilly and Marc I. Willner, Schiffrin & Barroway,
LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone:
610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056.
Representing the company are:
(i) Michael D. Blanchard and Robert A. Buhlman of Bingham
McCutchen LLP - Hartford, One State Street, Hartford,
CT 06103, Phone: 860-240-2700, Fax: 860-240-2818, E-
mail: michael.blanchard@bingham.com or
robert.buhlman@bingham.com; and
(ii) Eunice E. Lee and Raquel J. Webster, Bingham McCutchen
LLP, 150 Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-
951-8000, Fax: 617-951-8736, E-mail:
eunice.lee@bingham.com or raquel.webster@bingham.com.
WINSTON HOTELS: Faces N.C. Shareholder's Suit Over Wilbur Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Winston Hotels, Inc. faces a purported shareholder class action
in Wake County Superior Court in North Carolina that seeks to
prevent the real estate investment trust and hotelier from
consummating its sale to Wilbur Acquisition Holding Co.
Douglas Whitney, a Wake County resident and company shareholder,
filed the suit on March 6, 2007. He named as defendants in the
case:
-- Winston Hotels;
-- Charles Winston, board member;
-- Edwin Borden, board member;
-- Richard Daugherty, board member;
-- Bob Winston, board member;
-- Thomas Darden II, board member;
-- David Sullivan, board member;
-- Wilbur Acquisition Holding Co., LLC; and
-- Wilbur Acquisition, Inc.
The lawsuit, "Whitney v. Winston Hotels, Inc., et al.," alleges,
among other things, that $14.10 per share in cash to be paid to
the holders of shares of the company's common stock in
connection with the merger is inadequate and that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to its common
shareholders in negotiating and approving the merger agreement.
In addition, the lawsuit alleges that the company, as
defendants, have aided and abetted the individual defendants in
their breaches of fiduciary duty.
It also claims that the individual defendants have failed to
disclose adequate information to the company's shareholders
concerning the merger.
The complaint seeks the following equitable relief:
-- declare the lawsuit to be a proper class action;
-- enjoin, preliminarily and permanently, any acquisition
of the company under the terms presently proposed until
the Board of Directors of the company has taken all
steps to ensure a fair and proper process to maximize
value for all shareholders of the company;
-- declare the termination fee provisions in the merger
agreement to be unfair, unreasonable and improper deal
protection devices, and enjoin the payment of any
termination fee to the Buyer Parties or its affiliates;
-- declare that the individual defendants have breached
their fiduciary duties to plaintiff and the class and
that the defendants aided and abetted such breaches;
-- award pre-and post judgment interest, attorney's fees,
expert fees and other costs to the extent permitted by
law, in an amount to be determined; and
-- grant such other and further relief as the court deems
appropriate including damages plus interest.
Winston Hotels, Inc. on the Net: http://www.winstonhotels.com/.
New Securities Fraud Cases
AMGEN INC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Lawsuit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announces that
a class action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Amgen Inc. publicly traded securities during the period between
May 4, 2005 and March 9, 2007.
The complaint charges Amgen and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
marketed Aranesp and Epogen to doctors for off-label uses. As a
result, Amgen sold several hundred million dollars worth of
drugs each year for these off-label uses.
In October 2006, a group of researchers halted a clinical study
of head and neck cancer patients treated with Aranesp because
more deaths occurred in patients taking Aranesp than in those
taking a placebo. Defendants did not disclose these results to
investors.
On Feb. 16, 2007, a publication called The Cancer Letter
published an article about the results of the study and on March
9, 2007, the FDA mandated a "black box" warning regarding the
off-label use of Aranesp and Epogen. These revelations caused
Amgen's stock price to decline.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Amgen publicly traded securities during the Class Period.
Amgen, the largest biotechnology company in the world, makes and
sells Epogen and Aranesp, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, a
type of drug which encourages the creation of oxygen carrying
red blood cells.
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.
*********
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 * * *