/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070522.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, May 22, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 100
Headlines
ALLEGIANCE TELECOM: Class Certification in Tex. Suit Reversed
ANCHOR DISTRIBUTING: Former Sales Rep. Claims FLSA Violations
APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Calif. Suit Over MacBook Display Quality
BAUSCH & LOMB: Investor Files N.Y. Suit Over Warburg Pincus Deal
BOOKSPAN: Recalls Books With Squeaker Toys Posing Choking Hazard
CELESTICA CORP: Minnesota FLSA Violations Lawsuit Builds Up
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Suit for Alleged Unlawful Tariffs Increase
CHENANGO VALLEY: Recalls Pet Foods Possibly Contaminated
CITIZENS INSURANCE: Fla. Court Certifies Suit by Policyholders
GEETA & ARUN: Employees File Suit in Fla. to Claim Unpaid Wages
GREAT AMERICAN: Settles Lawsuit Over American Financial Merger
HEARTLAND REGISTRY: Fla. Suit Seeks to Collect Unpaid Wages
HSBC MORTGAGE: Loan Officers File Labor Suit in California
IMAGITAS INC: Seeks Consolidation of Fla. DPPA Violations Suits
IMMUCOR INC: Agrees to Settle Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Ga.
KAPLAN INC: Calif. Lawyer Challenges $49M Antitrust Suit Deal
KAYEM FOODS: Recalls Chicken Sausages with Undeclared Wheat
LYONS TRANSPORTATION: Faces Suit Filed for Non-exempt Drivers
MASCO CONTRACTORS: Two More Lawyers Join Latinos' Wage Claims
MERCURY INSURANCE: Settlement of CLRA Violations Suit Rejected
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: N.M. HMO Unit Still Faces Pharmacy Fees Suit
NBTY INC: Parties Settle Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.
NETFLIX INC: Calif. Court Consolidates Suits Over DVD Business
NETZERO: New Class Representatives Named in Internet Fees Suit
NETZERO: Plaintiff in Internet Access Account Suit Withdraws
NEW CINEMA: Accused of Antitrust Violation in Crocs Shoes Market
POZEN INC: Pretrial Discovery Underway in N.C. Securities Suit
PPL ELECTRIC: Faces Lawsuits Over Illinois Power Supply Auction
PREMIER MORTGAGE: "Vondriska" Gets Conditional Certification
PUBLIC GAS: Okla. Consumers Sue Over Alleged Fraud, Negligence
PREMIERE GLOBAL: Gibson & Co. Amends TCPA Violations Lawsuit
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: "Burch" Plaintiff Amends Labor Complaints
ROBERT BOSCH: Settles Suit Over Mislabeling of Products for $5M
SOURCEFIRE INC: Suit Filed to Recover Investors' Losses in IPO
SUPPORTSOFT INC: Agrees to Settle Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Accused of Breaking Pa. Credit Transactions Act
TJX COS: Customers File Lawsuit in Ohio Over Privacy Violations
TUESDAY MORNING: Still Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in Calif.
UNITED SERVICES: N.Y. Court Allows FLSA Violations Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Four Law Firms File Suit Over Toxic FEMA Trailers
WASHINGTON: Teachers Union Files Suit Over Loss of Gain Sharing
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Ex-Loan Processor Files FLSA Lawsuit in Fla.
WATERVIEW PRECAST: Fla. Suit Claims Overtime Compensation Denial
WILLIAMS COS: Court Mulls Class Certification Motion in "Price"
New Securities Fraud Cases
OCCAM NETWORKS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in Cal.
YAHOO INC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
*********
ALLEGIANCE TELECOM: Class Certification in Tex. Suit Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit vacated the class
certification order issued by the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas in the matter, "Oscar Private Equity
Investments v. Allegiance Telecom Inc et al."
The securities fraud lawsuit was filed back in Nov. 13, 2003
under Case No. 3:03-cv-02761. In it, plaintiffs allege
violations of section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Commission.
The class included all investors who purchased the common stock
of Allegiance Telecom between April 24, 2001 and Feb. 19, 2002.
Three investors bring this suit, Oscar Private Equity
Investments, its managing partner, Brett Messing, and his wife,
Marla Messing.
They sue Royce Holland, former chairman and chief executive of
Allegiance, and Anthony Parella, former executive vice president
for sales. Allegiance Telecom was named in the suit but filed
for bankruptcy and is not now a party.
Allegiance was a national telecommunications provider based in
Dallas, Texas. It sold local telephone service, long distance,
broadband access, web hosting, and telecom equipment with
maintenance to small and medium sized businesses.
Founded in 1997, by February 2002 it was providing service in
thirty-six U.S. markets. At the beginning of the class period,
April 24, 2001, there were over 112 million common shares of
Allegiance stock trading on the NASDAQ.
Institutional investors held approximately 68 percent of
Allegiance's stock and over fifty active market makers traded
it.
Plaintiffs allege that Messrs. Holland and Parella fraudulently
misrepresented Allegiance's line-installation count in the
company's first three quarterly announcements of 2001, and that
Allegiance's stock dropped after Messrs. Holland and Parella
ultimately restated the count in the 4Q01 announcement.
Defendants explain that the restatement occurred because
Allegiance installed a new billing system in 2001 and reported
line-count information from the new billing system instead of
from the order management system, which it replaced. Defendants
further argue that the 4Q01 restatement did not cause the stock
price to drop.
The relevant announcement history is as follows. Allegiance's
stock, like that of the rest of the telecom industry, was
plunging during what is now the class period, losing nearly 90%
of its value during 2001.
On April 24, 2001, the first day of the class period, Allegiance
announced its 1Q01 results, including:
-- 126,200 new lines installed;
-- revenues of $105.9 million, an 11% increase over 4Q00;
-- positive sales force growth; and
-- improved gross margin.
The following trading day Allegiance's stock rose 9%, from
$14.90 to $16.20, but soon declined again.
On July 24, 2001, Allegiance announced its 2Q01 results,
including:
-- 135,800 new lines installed;
-- revenues of $124.1 million;
-- an earnings loss of $0.92 per share, $0.03 better than
the analysts' consensus estimate; and
-- positive EBITDA (earnings before taxes, depreciation
and amortization) results in thirteen markets.
The following trading day Allegiance's stock rose 20%, from
$10.90 to $13.08 per share, but soon declined again.
On Oct. 23, 2001, Allegiance announced its 3Q01 results,
including:
-- the installation of its one-millionth line;
-- revenues of $135 million; and
-- an earnings loss of $0.94 per share, $0.03 better than
the analysts' consensus estimate.
The next trading day Allegiance's stock rose 29%, from $5.21 to
$6.74 per share, but remained volatile, falling to $3.70 per
share by Feb. 18, 2002, the day before the curative statements
of the 4Q01 announcement.
On Feb. 19, 2002, Allegiance announced its 4Q01 results,
including:
-- a restatement of the total installed-line count from
1,140,000 to 1,015,000, a difference of 125,000;
-- missed analysts' expectations on 4Q01 and 2001 earnings
per share;
-- greater EBITDA loss than some analysts expected; and
-- a very thin margin of error for meeting revenue
covenants for 2002.
The next trading day Allegiance's stock continued its downward
move, falling %28, from $3.70 to $2.65 per share. Less than 90
days later, Allegiance missed its covenants putting its credit
lines in default and on May 14, 2003, filed for bankruptcy.
Six months after Allegiance's bankruptcy, plaintiffs filed the
class action, alleging that Allegiance's officers misrepresented
the number of installed lines in their 1Q01, 2Q01, and 3Q01
announcements.
Plaintiffs moved for class certification, relying on the fraud-
on-the-market presumption for evidence of class-wide reliance.
The district court certified the class, and the 5th Circuit
granted interlocutory review.
In a ruling issued in May 16, 2007, the Fifth Circuit stated
that it "vacates the certification order and remand the case,
persuaded that the class certified fails for wont of any showing
that the market reacted to the corrective disclosure."
The appeals court further states, "Given the lethal force of
certifying a class of purchasers of securities enabled by the
fraud-on-the-market doctrine, the Fifth Circuit now in fairness
insist that such a certification be supported by a showing of
loss causation that targets the corrective disclosure appearing
among other negative disclosures made at the same time."
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1fbf
The suit is "Oscar Private Equity Investments v. Allegiance
Telecom Inc et al., Case No. 3:03-cv-02761," on appeal from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas under
Judge Ed Kinkeade.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg
1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310/201-9150
E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
- and -
Roger F. Claxton, Esq.
Claxton & Hill
3131 McKinney Ave., Suite 700 LB 103
Dallas, TX 75204-2471
Phone: 214/969-9029
Fax: 214/953-0583
E-mail: claxtonhill@airmail.net
Representing the defendants is:
William L. Banowsky, Esq.
Thompson & Knight
1700 Pacific Ave., Suite 3300
Dallas, TX 75201-4693
Phone: 214/969-1231
Fax: 214/969-1751
E-mail: bill.banowsky@tklaw.com
ANCHOR DISTRIBUTING: Former Sales Rep. Claims FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anchor Distributing, L.L.C. is facing a class action filed May
16 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
alleging Labor Code violations.
Plaintiff John Joyer brings this action to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, declaratory relief, and other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b).
Mr. Joyer brings this action on behalf of all route sales
representatives of the company to recover overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
Plaintiff claims that during the course of her employment, he
was not paid time and one-half her regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per work week during one or more
weeks.
The complaint alleges that defendants failed to comply with 29
U.S.C. Sections 201-209 because plaintiff performed services for
defendants for which no provisions were made to properly pay
them for those hours worked in excess of 40 within a work week.
As a result of defendants' intentional, willful, and unlawful
acts in refusing to pay plaintiff time and one-half her regular
rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 per work week
in one or more work weeks, plaintiff suffered damages plus
incurring reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff contends that as a result of defendants' willful
violation of the FLSA, she is entitled to liquidated damages, as
well.
Mr. Joyer demands judgment against defendants for the payment of
all overtime hours at one and one-half the regular rate of pay
for all hours worked by them for which defendant did not
properly compensate her, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs incurred, declaratory relief and for
such other relief the court deems just and proper.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f9f
The suit is "Joyer v. Anchor Distributing, L.L.C. et al., Case
No. 8:07-cv-00842-RAL-MSS," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida under Judge Richard A. Lazzara,
with referral to Judge Mary S. Scriven.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
Morgan & Morgan, PA
20 N Orange Ave - Ste 1600
PO Box 4979
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Phone: 407/420-1414
Fax: 407/423-7928
E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com
APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Calif. Suit Over MacBook Display Quality
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer Inc. is facing a class action in San Diego County
Superior Court accusing the company of falsely advertising its
MacBook and MacBook Pro screen displays, reports say.
The suit accuses Apple of improperly playing up the capabilities
of the displays for the MacBook Pros and MacBooks launched in
the first part of last year.
For example, it notes that Apple advertised the MacBooks as
capable of displaying "millions of colors" when they can only do
that using a technique called "dithering."
Dithering is a procedure used in computer displays in order to
trick the human eye into seeing a color by painting nearby
pixels with different shades of a color to produce the desired
shade, Ed Oswald of BetaNews said.
Also, it points to complaints lodged by MacBook users on various
Apple discussion boards about the "grainy" or "shiny" quality of
their displays.
Plaintiffs Fred Greaves and Dave Gatley of California claim that
these display problems are not visible when they boot Windows XP
on their Intel-based MacBooks and MacBook Pros, suggesting that
Apple's operating system is to blame.
The complaint claims Apple's assertions that the displays can
support "millions of colors" are false, as those colors are made
possible through a process called dithering.
In addition to false advertising and misrepresentation, Apple is
also charged with violating the Unfair Competition Law and the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act with its failure to address and
rectify the situation.
Due to the large number of customer complaints, including
complaints on the company's own website, it is apparent that
Apple is well aware of the problems, the suit claims.
It adds, however, that the Mac maker has taken it upon itself to
heavily redact many of the posted complaints, and has even gone
to the lengths of "taking down" entire threads devoted to the
subject.
Plaintiffs are seeking relief and reimbursement as well as
class-action status for their suit. In addition, they are asking
the court to prevent Apple from using its claims of supporting
"millions of colors" in advertising.
BAUSCH & LOMB: Investor Files N.Y. Suit Over Warburg Pincus Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch & Lomb Inc. and its directors face a purported class
action in New York that was filed by a company shareholder in an
attempt to block a proposed purchase by Warburg Pincus LLC,
David Tyler of The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle reports.
The lawsuit by Philadelphia-based First Derivative Traders L.P.
alleges that B&L's board settled for too little in accepting
Warburg's $65 per share offer.
Warburg Pincus, a private equity firm, announced recently that
it would take over Bausch & Lomb in a $4.5 billion deal.
The plaintiff - represented by Rochester attorney Jules Smith --
seeks an injunction against the sale and asks for unspecified
damages, saying the deal would deprive shareholders of the true
value of their investment.
Plaintiff is also seeking class-action status for the case,
which was brought in state Supreme Court in Rochester.
For more details, contact:
Jules L. Smith, Esq.
Blitman & King LLP
Suite 207, 16 West Main Street
Rochester, New York 14614
Phone: 716-232-5600
Fax: 716-232-7738
Web site: http://www.bklawyers.com/
BOOKSPAN: Recalls Books With Squeaker Toys Posing Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bookspan, of Garden City, N.Y., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling
about 16,000 Discovery Bunny Books.
The company says the seam on the bunny's left hind leg can open
exposing a plastic squeaker toy contained inside a cloth bag,
posing a choking hazard to young children.
Bookspan has received one report of a 4-month-old infant who
began to choke on the plastic squeaker. The parent noticed the
infant beginning to choke and cleared the squeaker from his
throat.
This recall involves Discovery Bunny yellow cloth books. The
mid-section of the yellow and white plush stuffed bunny opens to
a six-page cloth book. The plush bunny has black & white-
checkered ears and feet. The "SoftPlay" logo is printed on a
tag sewn into the bunny toy.
The cloth books were manufactured by Animal Magic Ltd., of Hong
Kong and imported by SoftPlay Inc., of Chicago, Ill. These
products were sold through Bookspan mail order catalogues and
http://www.bookspan.com(to book club members only) from
February 2006 through March 2007 for about $8 and $16.
Consumers should immediately take the recalled bunny books from
children and either discard it or return it to Bookspan.
Consumers will receive a full credit on their book club account.
Bookspan has directly notified purchasers of the product recall
by mail.
The picture of the cloth books involved in the recall is found
at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07551.html
For additional information, call Bookspan at (888) 793-6514
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.bookspan.com.
The media may contact: Paula Batson, at (212) 930-4531 or
paula.batson@bmgch.com.
CELESTICA CORP: Minnesota FLSA Violations Lawsuit Builds Up
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nichols, Kaster & Anderson LLP mailed on April 23, 2007 a court-
approved notice of a collective action seeking compensation for
unpaid work to over 13,500 current and former Celestica Corp.
manufacturing employees, including those placed at Celestica
through Addecco, USA Inc. and Spherion Corp.
Since then, over 1,100 of those individuals have already
contacted Kaster & Anderson to join this suit and reclaim their
lost wages, the law firm said.
Nichols, Kaster filed the complaint on July 6, 2006 on behalf of
current and former employees of Celestica, Addecco, and Spherion
who worked at Celestica's manufacturing facility in Arden Hills,
Minnesota. These current and former employees seek compensation
for overtime wages as well as other damages related to
violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act.
The suit was filed on behalf of workers Ibrahim Roble, Abshir
Aden, Abdirhman Ahmed, Kalid Ahmed, Lord Joseph Bunyan, Adil
Gatur, Faysal Haliye, burhan Abdi, Mohamed Ahmed, Suleyman Arab,
Abdulkadir Elmi, Ahmed Elmi, Ahmed Hassan, Amin Hassen, Hussein
Jama, Abdulkadir Matan, Fozi Mustapha, Zabiti Omer, Joey Bunyan,
Jack Rosenquist, and Fartun Suleiman.
The proposed class is composed of all individuals performing
circuit-board production, inspection, and packaging work at
Celestica's Arden Hills facility during any time within the past
three years, and who are exempt from the coverage of the
Minnesota FLSA.
Allegations in the suit includes, violations of the minimum wage
requirements by not paying employees for the time they spent
donning and doffing protective gear and waiting in line to have
the gear pass through an electro-static discharge station; and
of keeping records for the time spent on such activities.
Plaintiffs are seeking, among others, unpaid back wages, and
compensatory damages.
The suit (06cv2934 JRT/FLN) was filed in U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota.
Representing plaintiffs are:
James H. Kaster, Esq.
Sarah M. Fleegel, Esq.
Sofia B. Andersson, Esq.
Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP
4600 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2242
Phone: 612-256-3200
Toll-free: 877-448-0492 toll-free
Fax: 612-215-6870
Web site: http://www.overtimecases.com/
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Suit for Alleged Unlawful Tariffs Increase
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. was served with a lawsuit and a request for
certification of the lawsuit as a class action on May 20, 2007.
The case was filed in the District Court of Tel-Aviv.
The plaintiffs, claiming to be subscribers of the defendants,
contend that the Company raised its tariffs unlawfully and in
violation of its license, in pricing plans that include a
commitment to purchase certain services for a fixed period.
If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the amount
claimed is estimated by plaintiffs to be approximately $219.48
million.
The plaintiffs maintain the right to increase the sum after
receiving further information.
At this preliminary stage, the company is unable to assess the
lawsuit's chances of success.
For more information, contact:
Shiri Israeli
Investor Relations Coordinator
Phone: +972-52-998-9755
E-mail: investors@cellcom.co.il
- and -
Ehud Helft
Ed Job
Investor Relations Contact
CCGK Investor Relations
Phone: +1-866-704-6710 (US) or +1-646-213-1914
E-mail: ehud@gkir.com or ed.job@ccgir.com
CHENANGO VALLEY: Recalls Pet Foods Possibly Contaminated
--------------------------------------------------------
Chenango Valley Pet Foods previously recalled dry pet foods
manufactured with a shipment of rice protein concentrate
supplied by Wilbur-Ellis that possibly contained melamine
contamination.
Chenango Valley Pet Foods is now expanding the recall action to
include those pet foods that do not contain rice protein
concentrate but were manufactured during periods when rice
protein concentrate formulas were processed. The recall of
these products is precautionary due to the possibility of cross-
contamination.
The following dry pet foods are involved in this recall action:
-- DOCTORS FOSTER & SMITH LAMB & BROWN RICE FORMULA ADULT
DOG FOOD, NET WT. 6 LBS. (UPC 25141 28244), 15 LBS.
(25141 30074), and 30 LBS. (UPC 25141 06043); Date
Codes: Best By Feb 09 09 and Best By Feb 26 09;
-- SHOP RITE REDI-MIXT DOG FOOD FOR DOGS, NET WT. 25 LB.
(UPC 41190 00555), Date Code: Code C7107;
-- LICK YOUR CHOPS KITTEN & CAT FOOD, NET WEIGHT 4 LBS.
(UPC 32976 25915), and 18 LBS. (UPC 32976 25925); Date
Code: Best Used By April 29 08;
-- SHEP chunk style dog food, NET WT. 20 LBS. (UPC 41498
14142); Date Code: Best By March 14 08;
-- 8 in 1 Ferret ULTRA-BLEND ADVANCED NUTRITION DIET, NET
WT. 20 LBS, UPC 26851 00413, Code: C7072;
-- Bulk Lamb & Brown Rice Formula Dog Food, Date Code: Feb
09, 08, sold to one consignee SmartPak;
-- Health Diet Cat Food Chicken & Rice Dinner NET WT. 1.81
kg/4 LB (UPC 78198 01594), 4 kg/8.8 LB (UPC 78198
01599), and 8 kg/17.6 LB (UPC 78198 01585); Code C7072;
and
-- EVOLVE KITTEN FORMULA, NET WT. 3 LBS. (UPC 73657 00250)
and 7 LBS. (UPC 73657 00251); Date Code: Best Used By
Sept 13 08. Evolve has recovered 99.5% of the product
from its distributors and is working with dealers to
recover the remaining inventory.
No illnesses or injuries related to these products have been
reported to date.
Pet owners who have purchased the pet foods listed above should
immediately discontinue using the products and return them to
the place of purchase for full refund. Pet owners should
consult with a veterinarian if they have any health concerns
with their pet. Consumers with questions may contact the
company at 1-610-821-0608.
CITIZENS INSURANCE: Fla. Court Certifies Suit by Policyholders
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leon County (Fla.) Circuit Judge Terry Lewis has certified anew
a class action against Citizens Property Insurance, Paige St.
John of The News-Press reports.
This is the second time in two years that a circuit judge in
Leon County has certified a class action brought by homeowners
who are still trying to claim their policy limits from the 2004
hurricane.
Sometime in 2005, Leon County Judge Kevin Davey initially
approved the class action, which got stuck in the First District
Court of Appeals and was sent back to the circuit court for
class certification rehearing in December.
Citizens, the state-created insurer for people who can't get
policies from private companies, appealed Judge Davey's ruling.
The firm claimed it should not be paying for losses caused by
flood.
At the center of the suit is the question of whether Citizens
must pay policy limits on homes destroyed by a combination of
wind and water, even when flood damage is excluded from the
policy.
Homeowners' attorneys argued though that state law requires
insurers to pay the full amount of a policy even if an uncovered
catastrophe causes a portion of the damage (Class Action
Reporter, May 30, 2005).
Pensacola resident Jan Horsefield, whose home was ruined by
hurricane Ivan in September 2004, received $29,200 on her
$350,000 policy from Citizens. It was not good enough for her
and said she wants the policy limit because it was what she paid
for.
According to the plaintiffs' lawyers, there may be hundreds of
homeowners left who rely on their case to help get their claims
paid but they don't have the exact number.
The insurer originally came up with 586 policyholders with wind-
and-water claims, 112 of them refused to become members of the
class.
Citizens spokesman Rocky Scott believes there are about 400
cases pending that would be affected by the class-action ruling.
One of the plaintiffs' attorneys is Scott Maddox, Esq. of
Tallahassee, Florida.
Representing Citizens is Attorney Alan Howard.
GEETA & ARUN: Employees File Suit in Fla. to Claim Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Geeta & Arun Inc. dba Quiznos Subs, is facing a class action
filed May 15 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida alleging Labor Code violations.
Plaintiff Wendee Ashmore brings this action for unpaid overtime
compensation, declaratory relief, and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).
This action is brought under the FLSA to recover from defendants
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's
fees and costs. This action is intended to include all
restaurant workers who worked for the defendants at any time
within the past three years.
Plaintiff claims that during the course of her employment, she
was not paid time and one-half her regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per work week during one or more
weeks.
The complaint alleges that defendants failed to comply with 29
U.S.C. Sections 201-209 because plaintiff performed services for
defendants for which no provisions were made to properly pay
them for those hours worked in excess of 40 within a work week.
As a result of defendants' intentional, willful, and unlawful
acts in refusing to pay plaintiff time and one-half her regular
rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 per work week
in one or more work weeks, plaintiff suffered damages plus
incurring reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff contends that as a result of defendants' willful
violation of the FLSA, she is entitled to liquidated damages, as
well.
Ms. Ashmore demands judgment against defendants for the payment
of all overtime hours at one and one-half the regular rate of
pay for all hours worked by them for which defendant did not
properly compensate her, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs incurred, declaratory relief and for
such other relief the court deems just and proper.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f9d
The suit is "Ashmore v. Geeta & Arun, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-00410-JHM-TEM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida under Judge John H. Moore, II, with
referral to Judge Thomas E. Morris.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
Morgan & Morgan, PA
20 N Orange Ave - Ste 1600
PO Box 4979
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Phone: 407/420-1414
Fax: 407/423-7928
E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com
GREAT AMERICAN: Settles Lawsuit Over American Financial Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Great American Financial Resources, Inc. entered into an
agreement to settle two lawsuits filed against it over a May
2006 merger deal it entered into with American Financial Group,
Inc., and GAFRI Acquisition Corp., a newly-formed, wholly owned
subsidiary of AFG.
Under the terms of the Agreement, GAFRI Acquisition Corp. will
be merged with and into the company, and as a result of the
merger, the separate corporate existence of GAFRI Acquisition
Corp. will cease with Great American continuing as the surviving
corporation.
Pursuant to the Agreement, Great American would acquire the
shares of common stock of the company that AFG does not
currently beneficially own at a price of $24.50 per share in
cash for a total purchase price of approximately $225 million.
On February 27, 2007, a purported class action was filed
challenging the terms of the unsolicited offer received from AFG
to acquire all of the shares of Great American Financial
Resources, Inc. not owned by AFG.
The suit names Great American and AFG as defendants as well as
all persons serving as directors of the Registrant on February
22, 2007, the date the offer was received. The suit seeks
injunctive relief.
The case is captioned "Webb, et al. v. Great American Financial
Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. A0701905," filed in the Court
of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Ohio.
Also, as previously reported, on February 28, 2007, a separate
purported class action was filed that makes similar allegations
against the same defendants as the case outlined immediately
above. The suit seeks both injunctive relief and monetary
damages. The case is "Call4U, Ltd., et al. v. Carl H. Linder, et
al., Case No. A0701929," filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Hamilton County, Ohio.
On May 17, 2007, the counsel to the parties in both of the above
actions entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle
both actions, subject to approval of the court. The principal
terms of the proposed settlement are:
-- AFG agrees that it will acquire the outstanding
shares of GAFRI that it does not own at $24.50 per
share;
-- the defendants in the action will provide
plaintiffs' counsel the opportunity to review and
comment upon the Agreement and disclosures
contained in the publicly-filed disclosure
documents relating to the Merger, including those
yet to be filed, which comments will be considered
in good faith by defendants.
-- counsel for plaintiffs will conduct discovery of
AFG's Board of Directors, the Special Committee of
the Board of GAFRI, and a representative of Cochran
Coronia Waller, financial advisor to the Special
Committee of the Board of GAFRI (CCW), regarding
the Merger and the events and negotiations leading
up to the Merger.
-- defendants shall provide plaintiffs' counsel with
the opportunity to review all documents not yet
produced by defendants, which were considered by
GAFRI's Board, the Special Committee of the Board
of GAFRI, and CCW with respect to the Merger and
the events and negotiations leading up to the
Merger.
HEARTLAND REGISTRY: Fla. Suit Seeks to Collect Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heartland Registry, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint
filed on May 17 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, alleging Labor Code violations.
Plaintiff Darlene Needles brings this action for unpaid overtime
compensation, declaratory relief, and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).
This action is brought on behalf of all non-exempt health
services employees of Heartland who worked for Lyons
Transportation at any time within the past three years.
Plaintiff claims that during the course of her employment at
Heartland, she was not paid time and one-half her regular rate
of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per work week during
one or more work weeks.
The complaint alleges defendant failed to comply with 29 U.S.C.
Sections 201-209, because plaintiff has performed services for
which no provisions were made to properly pay her for all hours
worked in excess of 40 within a work week.
Plaintiff claims that as a result of defendant's intentional,
willful and unlawful acts by refusing to properly compensate her
of her regular rate of pay, she has suffered damages plus
incurring reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. She further
claims that as a result of defendant's willful violation of the
FLSA, she is entitled to liquidated damages.
Ms. Needles demands judgment for payment of the proper regular
rate of pay for all hours worked for defendant for which she was
not properly compensated, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action, declaratory
relief, and any and all further relief that the court deems to
be just and proper.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1fab
The suit is "Needles v. Heartland Registry, Inc., Case No. 2:07-
cv-00324-JES-DNF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida under Judge John E. Steele, with
referral to Judge Douglas N. Frazier.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Kelly Allyssha Amritt, Esq.
Morgan & Morgan
7450 Griffin Rd., Suite 230
Davie, FL 33314
Phone: 954/318-0268
Fax: 954/333-3515
E-mail: KAmritt@forthepeople.com
HSBC MORTGAGE: Loan Officers File Labor Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Nichols, Kaster & Anderson LLP said it filed a lawsuit against
HSBC Mortgage Corp. The lawsuit, filed as a putative class and
collective action, alleges that HSBC failed to pay proper
overtime compensation to its loan officers, and retaliated
against an employee who complained about the practice.
The lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Northern District
of California alleging violations of both federal and state wage
and hour laws. The law firm is now waiting for the defendant to
answer the Complaint.
The case is "Wong et al. v. HSBC Mortgage et al., case no. 07-
2446."
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP
4600 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2242
Phone: 612-256-3200
Toll-free: 877-448-0492
Fax: 612-215-6870
IMAGITAS INC: Seeks Consolidation of Fla. DPPA Violations Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Imagitas, Inc., a subsidiary of Pitney Bowes, Inc., is seeking
the consolidation of several class actions alleging it violated
the Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA).
During the first quarter of 2007, an additional purported
national class action was filed against Imagitas, alleging that
the Imagitas DriverSource program violates DPPA.
That suit is "Gentile v. Imagitas, Inc.," which was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
March 8, 2007.
The federal panel on multi-district litigation held a hearing on
the company's motion to consolidate the 10 purported class
actions that have now been filed against Imagitas.
Pitney Bowes, Inc. -- http://www.pb.com/-- is a provider of
mail processing equipment and integrated mail solutions.
IMMUCOR INC: Agrees to Settle Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Immucor, Inc. (Nasdaq: BLUD) entered into an agreement to settle
previously reported class actions against the company and
certain of its current and former directors and officers
consolidated as, "In re Immucor, Inc. Securities Litigation" in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.
Under the settlement agreement, the company's insurance carrier
has agreed to pay $2.5 million to the plaintiff class in
consideration of an absolute and unconditional release of all
claims against the company and the individual defendants. The
only costs to the company are legal expenses, which have been
expensed as incurred.
Between Aug. 31 and Oct. 19, 2005, a series of 10 class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia against the company and certain of its current and
former directors and officers alleging violations of the
securities laws.
The court has consolidated these cases for disposition as, "In
re Immucor, Inc. Securities Litigation, File No. 1:05-CV-2276-
WSD," designated lead plaintiffs, permitted the filing of an
amended consolidated complaint, and established a schedule for
briefing the company's motion to dismiss the claims.
The consolidated complaint, brought on behalf of a putative
class of shareholders who purchased the company's stock between
Aug. 16, 2004 and Aug. 29, 2005, alleges that company stock
prices during that period were inflated as a result of material
misrepresentations or omissions in the company's financial
statements and other public announcements regarding its
business.
The Court has given its preliminary approval to the terms of the
recent settlement. The settlement is contingent upon various
conditions, including but not limited to final approval by the
Court after notice to the class and a hearing scheduled for
September 20, 2007.
The suit is "In re Immucor, Inc. Securities Litigation, File No.
1:05-CV-2276-WSD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Georgia under Judge William S. Duffey, Jr.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Martin D. Chitwood, Esq.
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: mdc@classlaw.com
Michael Ira Fistel, Jr.Esq.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC
1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
Atlanta, GA 30338
Phone: 770-392-0090
E-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com
- and -
Jack Landskroner, Esq.
Landskroner Grieco
1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44113
Phone: 216-522-9000
E-mail: jack@landskronerlaw.com
Representing the defendants are:
Emmet J. Bondurant, II, Esq.
Jeffrey O. Bramlett, Esq.
Bondurant Mixson & Elmore
1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W.
3900 One Atlantic Center
Atlanta, GA 30309-3417
Phone: 404-881-4126 and 404-881-4100
E-mail: bondurant@bmelaw.com and bramlett@bmelaw.com
KAPLAN INC: Calif. Lawyer Challenges $49M Antitrust Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eliot Disner, a veteran antitrust litigator and a partner at the
McGuireWoods, LLP, raised objections against a $49 million
settlement of a class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against BAR/BRI and
Kaplan, Inc., Joseph Rosenbloom of The American Lawyer reports.
Mr. Disner's brief argues that the case against BAR/BRI and West
Publishing is strong enough to justify a more stringent
settlement.
The case was filed by former law students in California,
Michigan and Louisiana, who had brought it on behalf of all
persons who purchased a bar review course from BAR/BRI Bar
Review from August 1997 (Class Action Reporter, July 17, 2006).
Specifically, the suit accuses defendant West Publishing, d/b/a
BAR/BRI of violating the federal antitrust laws and conspiring
with Kaplan, Inc. to prevent competition in the market for full-
service bar review courses. Kaplan is an international provider
of educational and career services.
BAR/BRI provides bar review courses throughout the U.S. to
assist would-be attorneys in their preparation for taking one or
more bar examinations required by each state and the District of
Columbia prior to the issuance of a license to practice law.
Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of defendants' conduct,
consumers had to pay more for BAR/BRI bar review courses than
they should have (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 19, 2007).
Class members are all individuals who purchased a full-service
bar review course from BAR/BRI anywhere in the U.S. where
BAR/BRI directly operated a course anytime from August 1997 up
to the present time.
Therefore, any individual who purchased a full-service bar
review course from BAR/BRI to prepare for the winter 1998 bar
examination or any subsequent bar examination is a class member.
In early December 2006, the parties agreed to a settlement of
the litigation. On Feb. 2, 2007, the parties filed a settlement
agreement with the court together with documents setting forth a
procedure for class notice (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 29,
2007).
The settlement calls for West Publishing to pay $36 million and
Kaplan to pay $13 million. After $12 million in attorney fees,
this translates into an average award of $125 each to the
roughly 300,000 law students who took West Publishing's BAR/BRI
courses between 1997 and 2006.
As a part of the settlement, defendants have agreed to establish
a $49 million fund. The settlement also provides for other non-
monetary relief.
Class Members are eligible to obtain up to 30% of the total
amount they paid for a bar review course from the fund.
The class includes persons who purchased a BAR/BRI full-service
bar review course between August 1, 1997 and July 31, 2006,
unless they requested exclusion on or before Aug. 13, 2006.
BAR/BRI and Kaplan acknowledge having signed a joint marketing
agreement, but deny that it violated any antitrust laws.
According to Rosenbloom, for several months, three of the seven
lead plaintiffs -- Loredana Nesci, Lisa Gintz and Ryan Rodriguez
-- have been demanding stronger terms and prodding McGuireWoods
and Mr. Disner to try to strike a better deal. The three want a
larger payout and injunctive relief to protect BAR/BRI's future
customers against anti-competitive behavior. The remaining four
lead plaintiffs have agreed to the settlement.
In a 13-page brief, Mr. Disner, argued that the settlement lets
West Publishing off the hook too lightly. The dissenting
plaintiffs filed his brief with the court as part of their
objection to the settlement.
Mr. Rosenbloom contends that the settlement that the court has
preliminarily approved does not include injunctive relief of the
sort that the dissenting plaintiffs say they want: for example,
an order to split BAR/BRI into two or more competing companies.
The current settlement proposal, however, would compel BAR/BRI
and Kaplan to dissolve their marketing agreement. Mr. Disner
has no objections to the portion of the settlement relating to
Kaplan.
In his brief, Mr. Disner argues that if the case against BAR/BRI
were to go to trial, it could result in a judgment of more than
$400 million, based on the treble damages available under
antitrust law. A breakup of BAR/BRI into at least two competing
companies could be "routinely obtained" as part of the judgment,
he writes.
"Eliot's brief does not represent the position of McGuireWoods
as lead class counsel," said William Allcott, a partner in the
Richmond office of McGuireWoods. "We will be addressing the
substance of Disner's brief in a later filing," Mr.Allcott
added.
A June 18, 2007 fairness hearing is set for the $49 million
settlement in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California (Class Action Reporter, May 14, 2007).
BAR/BRI Class Action Litigation on the net:
http://www.barbri-classaction.com
The suit is "Ryan Rodriguez et al. v. West Publishing Corp. et
al., Case No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Manuel
L. Real with referral to Judge James W. McMahon.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Eliot G. Disner, Esq.
Noah E Jussim, Esq.
McGuireWoods, LLP
1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310-315-8299
Fax: 310-315-8298
E-mail: edisner@mcguirewoods.com
Sidney K. Kanazawa, Esq.
Tracy Evans Moyer, Esq.
Colleen M. Regan, Esq.
Van Etten Suzumoto and Becket
1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310-315-8200
E-mail: skanazawa@vsblaw.com or cregan@vsblaw.com
- and -
Joanna Shally, Esq.
Shearman and Sterling
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-848-4700
Representing the defendants are:
Edward A. Klein, Esq.
Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif
1100 Glendon Ave, 14th Fl.
Los Angeles, CA 90024-3503
Phone: 310-500-3500
Stuart N. Senator, Esq.
Lee Scott Taylor, Esq.
Munger Tolles & Olson
355 S Grand Ave., 35th Fl.,
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
Phone: 213-683-9100
E-mail: stuart.senator@mto.com
- and -
Jeffrey A. LeVee, Esq.
Courtney M. Schaberg, Esq.
Brian A. Sun, Esq.
Jones Day
555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-489-3939
E-mail: jlevee@jonesday.com or
cmschaberg@jonesday.com or basun@jonesday.com
For more details, contact:
BAR/BRI Class Action Administrator
P.O. Box 24639
West Palm Beach, FL 33416
Phone: 1-888-285-7850
E-mail: BARBRI@completeclaimsolutions.com
KAYEM FOODS: Recalls Chicken Sausages with Undeclared Wheat
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kayem Foods Inc., based in Chelsea, Mass., is recalling
approximately 35,580 pounds of raw chicken sausage products due
to the presence of an undeclared allergen (wheat), the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
announced.
The product label fails to list wheat, a potential known
allergen, as an ingredient.
Products subject to recall are:
-- 1-pound packages of "al fresco;
-- MANGO CHIPOTLE; and
-- sweet and spicy CHICKEN SAUSAGE.
Each label bears the establishment number "P-18388" inside the
USDA mark of inspection.
The chicken sausage products were produced on various dates
between April 16, 2005 and May 8, 2007 and were distributed to
retail establishments and distribution warehouses in Florida,
Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, New
York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.
The company discovered the problem.
FSIS has received no reports of illness due to consumption of
these products. Anyone concerned about an allergic reaction
should contact a physician.
Media with questions about the recall should contact company
Media Relations Manager Scott Farmelant at (617) 939-6582.
Consumers with questions about the recall should contact company
Customer Service Manager Robert Rocco at (617) 939-1600 ext.
224.
Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Food_Safety_Education/Ask_Karen/index.a
sp#Question. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-
MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish
and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday
through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day.
LYONS TRANSPORTATION: Faces Suit Filed for Non-exempt Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lyons Transportation Services, Inc. is facing a class-action
complaint filed on May 17 in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida alleging Labor Code violations.
Plaintiff Diane Hall brings this action for unpaid overtime
compensation, declaratory relief, and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).
This action is brought on behalf of all non-exempt drivers of
Lyons Transportation who worked for Lyons Transportation at any
time within the past three years.
Plaintiff claims that during the course of her employment at
Lyons Transportation, she was not paid time and one-half her
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
work week during one or more work weeks.
The complaint alleges defendant failed to comply with 29 U.S.C.
Sections 201-209, because plaintiff has performed services for
which no provisions were made to properly pay her for all hours
worked in excess of 40 within a work week.
Plaintiff claims that as a result of defendant's intentional,
willful and unlawful acts by refusing to properly compensate her
of her regular rate of pay, she has suffered damages plus
incurring reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. She further
claims that as a result of defendant's willful violation of the
FLSA, she is entitled to liqiuidated damages.
Ms. Hall demands judgment against Lyons Transportation for
payment of the proper regular rate of pay for all hours worked
for defendant for which she was not properly compensated,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
incurred in this action, declaratory relief, and any and all
further relief that the court deems to be just and proper.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1fa9
The suit is "Hall v. Lyons Transportation Services, Inc., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00323-JES-DNF," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida under Judge John E. Steele, with
referral to Judge Douglas N. Frazier.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Kelly Allyssha Amritt, Esq.
Morgan & Morgan
7450 Griffin Rd., Suite 230
Davie, FL 33314
Phone: 954/318-0268
Fax: 954/333-3515
E-mail: KAmritt@forthepeople.com
MASCO CONTRACTORS: Two More Lawyers Join Latinos' Wage Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two leading civil rights lawyers join forces in pushing a class
action against Masco Contractor Services Inc. and its California
subsidiary Schmid Insulation Contractors Inc., d/b/a Paragon
Schmid Building Products, Teresa Watanabe of Los Angeles Times
reports.
The law firm of Sullivan Taketa, of Westlake Village, initially
filed the lawsuit against the companies in October. The firm
invited Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
Annabelle Gonzalves as well as civil rights lawyer Bill Lann
Lee, saying it needs their expertise in class actions.
The suit involves Latino workers who filed relatively few wage
and hour claims in California. The lawyers believe that the
workers are hesitant because of fear over their immigration
status, ignorance about their rights or their desperate need for
jobs.
Daniel Gutierrez, native of Los Angeles and lead plaintiff,
recounted the torment he went through while at Masco. He said
the employees only receive five hours' pay for 10 to 12 hours
work, which is awfully remote from the promised salary of $8 an
hour when he first joined Paragon Schmid in 2006.
Mr. Gutierrez said he said he wants to help other workers left
at Schmid. According to him, most of them hesitate to complain
because they lacked citizenship and English fluency. He added
that they only want to get what they deserve and right pay for
their work.
Masco, with net annual sales of $12.7 billion, said the
allegations are groundless and intend to argue the case
vigorously.
The lawsuit seeks to change Masco's wage and hour practices.
The plaintiffs' legal team has not yet determined the exact
amount it would seek in restitution. It would definitely be in
the millions of dollars.
The lawsuit is believed to be one of the largest class actions
in California that involve wage claims.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Joel R. Villase¤or, Esq.
Sullivan Taketa LLP
31351 Via Colinas, Suite 205
Westlake Village, California 91362
Phone: (818) 889-2299
Fax: (818) 889-4497
E-mail: joel.villasenor@calawcounsel.com
Web Page: http://www.calawcounsel.com
-- and --
Bill Lann Lee, Esq.
Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C.
1330 Broadway, Suite 1800
Oakland, California 94612
Phone: (510) 839-6824
Fax: (510) 839-7839
E-mail: blee@lewisfeinberg.com
Web Site: http://www.lewisfeinberg.com
MERCURY INSURANCE: Settlement of CLRA Violations Suit Rejected
--------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court Judge Victoria G. Chaney of the Los Angeles
Superior Court rejected a proposed settlement of a class action
accusing Mercury Insurance Co. of collecting millions of dollars
in illegal overcharges.
Judge Chaney rejected the proposal in part because it would have
allowed the company to pay in the form of coupons that required
the policyholders to buy more insurance from the company. The
ruling came after lawyers for the Foundation for Taxpayer and
Consumer Rights submitted a brief opposing the proposed
settlement as unfair, inadequate and unreasonable
The case "Donabedian v. Mercury Insurance (BC249019)" charges
that beginning in 1995, Mercury surcharged policyholders because
they were previously uninsured or had had a lapse in coverage.
Such surcharges are specifically prohibited by Proposition 103.
Proposition 103 also permits consumers to sue insurance
companies for refunds when they violate its requirements.
Rather than require Mercury to refund the overcharges, estimated
to be at least $76 million, the proposed settlement would have
allowed the company to send out $45 coupons that could only be
used toward the purchase of additional Mercury insurance
policies or extra coverage. They could not be used to offset
the cost of an existing insurance policy. That and other flaws
in the proposal led FTCR, which intervened in the case in 2005,
to object.
"Class actions are a crucial instrument of justice. They enable
consumers to join together to stop abusive practices and get
their money back when they have been overcharged," said Harvey
Rosenfield, one of FTCR's lawyers in the case and the author of
Proposition 103.
"Coupon settlements that have no real value and come with
conditions that make them impossible to use undermine public
confidence in the system of justice and encourage the
defendants' lobby in its campaign to shut the courthouse doors
to legitimate suits. The Superior Court's decision protects the
integrity of the legal process and the rights of Mercury's
current and former customers."
For more information, contact:
Pamela Pressley
Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights
Phone: +1-310-392-0522, ext. 307
- and -
Harvey Rosenfield,
Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights
Phone: +1-310-392-0522, ext. 303
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: N.M. HMO Unit Still Faces Pharmacy Fees Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Molina Healthcare, Inc.'s New Mexico health management
organization still faces a purported class action brought by New
Mexico pharmacies and pharmacists in the Second Judicial
District Court, State of New Mexico.
The lawsuit was originally filed in August 1997 against the New
Mexico Human Services Department (NMHSD). In February 2001, the
plaintiffs named HMOs participating in the New Mexico Medicaid
program as defendants, including the predecessor of the New
Mexico HMO.
Plaintiff asserts that NMHSD and the HMOs failed to pay
pharmacy-dispensing fees under an alleged New Mexico statutory
mandate. Discovery was recently commenced.
Under the terms of the stock purchase agreement pursuant to
which Molina acquired Health Care Horizons, Inc., the parent
company to the Molina's New Mexico HMO, an indemnification
escrow account was established and funded with $6,000 in order
to indemnify Molina's New Mexico HMO against the costs of such
litigation and any eventual liability or settlement costs.
Currently, approximately $4,100 remains in the indemnification
escrow fund.
The company reported no material development in the matter in
its May 7, 2007 Form 10-Q with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
The suit is "Starko, Inc., et al. v. NMHSD, et al., No. CV-97-
06599."
Molina Healthcare, Inc. -- http://www.molinahealthcare.com/--
is a multi-state managed care organization participating
exclusively in government-sponsored healthcare programs for low-
income persons, such as the Medicaid program and the State
Children's Health Insurance Program.
NBTY INC: Parties Settle Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a consolidated securities class
action filed against NBTY, Inc., and certain of its officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, according to the company's May 7, 2007 Form 10-Q with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.
From June 24, 2004 through Sept. 3, 2004, six separate
shareholder class actions were filed against the company and
certain of its officers and directors on behalf of shareholders
who purchased shares of the company's common stock between Feb.
9, 2004 and July 22, 2004.
The actions allege that the company failed to disclose material
facts during the class period that resulted in a decline in the
price of the company's stock after June 16, 2004 and July 22,
2004, respectively.
The court consolidated the six class actions in March 2005, and
appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the plaintiffs.
Newly appointed lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
alleging a class period from Nov. 10, 2003 to July 22, 2004.
Along with the officers and directors, we filed a motion to
dismiss the action. The motion was denied on May 1, 2006.
The parties entered into extensive document discovery, during
which the Court certified the class to consist of shareholders
who purchased shares of the company's common stock during the
period from November 10, 2003 to July 22, 2004.
Following a mediation session on Feb. 15, 2007, the parties
agreed to a proposed settlement of the class action claims.
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, all the class action
claims will be dismissed with prejudice and a full release will
be given to the Company and its officers and directors,
including all defendants named in the consolidated actions.
The total amount to be paid to the Class in settlement of the
claims will be paid entirely by the NBTY directors' and
officers' liability insurers.
In the settlement, NBTY and the individual defendants deny any
violation of law, and have agreed to the settlement to eliminate
the uncertainties, distractions and expense of further
litigation. The settlement is subject to review and approval by
the Court.
On April 17, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed with the Court the
proposed settlement, as well as an application for its
preliminary approval, for notice to the Class, and for a
settlement hearing. That application is pending.
The suit is "In Re: NBTY, Inc. Securities Litigation, case no.
04-CV-2619," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York under Judge Leonard D. Wexler.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Paskowitz & Associates
Phone: 800.705.9529
E-mail: classattorney@aol.com
- and -
Roy Jacobs & Associates
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3000
New York, NY, 10118
E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com
Representing the company are:
Charles W. Stotter, Esq.
Robert Novack, Esq.
Edwards & Angell, LLP
750 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022-1200
Phone: 212-308-4411
Fax: 212-308-4844
E-mail: Cstotter@edwardsangell.com or
Rnovack@ealaw.com
NETFLIX INC: Calif. Court Consolidates Suits Over DVD Business
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
consolidated class actions accusing Netflix Inc. of violating
antitrust and unfair competition laws.
Initially, a customer, Dennis Dilbeck, filed a lawsuit on Jan.
31, 2007. It alleges that the company violated antitrust and
unfair competition laws in seeking to enforce two of its patents
against Blockbuster, Inc. and other potential competitors, which
patents were allegedly obtained by deceiving the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office.
It also alleges that the company's subscribers have paid
artificially inflated subscription prices because potential
competitors were allegedly deterred from entering the online DVD
rental market by the company's patents.
The complaint purports to be on behalf of existing and past
subscribers who allegedly would have paid lower subscription
rates but for the alleged anticompetitive conduct. It seeks
injunctive relief, restitution and damages in an unspecified
amount.
Subsequently, two other consumer class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California:
-- "Melanie Polk-Stamps and Babacar Diene v. Netflix, Inc.,
Civil Case C 07-01266," and
-- "Steven Dassa v. Netflix, Inc., Civil Case C 07 1978 RS"
each of which alleged the same causes of actions and made the
same request for damages as those set forth in the Dilbeck case.
On March 17, 2007, the court entered an order consolidating all
of the class actions, according to the company's May 4, 2007
Form 10-Q with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
The suit is "Dilbeck v. Netflix, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-00643-
WHA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California under Judge William H. Alsup.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Alan Himmelfarb Esq.
The Law Offices of Himmelfarb & Himmelfarb
2757 Leonis Blvd.
Vernon, CA 90058
Phone: 323-585-8696
Fax: 323-8585-8198
E-mail: Consumerlaw1@earthlink.net
Representing the defendants is:
Keith E. Eggleton, Esq.
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Phone: 650-493-9300
Fax: 650-565-5100
E-mail: keggleton@wsgr.com
NETZERO: New Class Representatives Named in Internet Fees Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two new class representatives were named in a purported consumer
class action against NetZero, a brand name of United Online,
Inc., according to United Online's May 3, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
On July 27, 2006, plaintiff Donald E. Ewart filed the lawsuit in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, against NetZero claiming that NetZero continues to
charge consumers fees after they cancel their Internet access
account.
Plaintiff is seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and
damages.
NetZero filed a response to the lawsuit denying the material
allegations of the complaint. Mr. Ewart subsequently withdrew
from the action as a class representative, and on March 16,
2007, Barbara Rasnake and Robert Du Verger were substituted as
purported class representatives.
United Online, Inc. -- http://www.unitedonline.net/-- is a
provider of consumer Internet and media services through a
number of brands, including NetZero, Juno, Classmates and
MyPoints. The Company operates in two segments: Communications
and Content & Media. United Online's primary Communications
services are Internet access and e-mail.
Its primary Content & Media services are social networking and
online loyalty marketing. The Company offers marketers an array
of Internet advertising products and services, as well as online
market research and measurement services. United Online
generates revenues primarily from selling subscriptions to its
consumer services, which is referred to as billable services
revenues, and from selling advertising on its services to
advertisers.
NETZERO: Plaintiff in Internet Access Account Suit Withdraws
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a purported consumer class action pending in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles against NetZero, a brand name of United Online, Inc. has
withdrawn from the case.
On March 6, 2006, plaintiff Anthony Piercy filed the suit
against NetZero claiming that it continues to charge consumers
fees after they cancel their Internet access account. Plaintiff
is seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and damages.
NetZero has filed a response to the lawsuit denying the material
allegations of the complaint.
On April 17, 2007, NetZero received notice from plaintiff's
counsel that Mr. Piercy would be withdrawing from the action as
a class representative, according to United Online's May 3, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
United Online, Inc. -- http://www.unitedonline.net/-- is a
provider of consumer Internet and media services through a
number of brands, including NetZero, Juno, Classmates and
MyPoints. The Company operates in two segments: Communications
and Content & Media. United Online's primary Communications
services are Internet access and e-mail. Its primary Content &
Media services are social networking and online loyalty
marketing. The Company offers marketers an array of Internet
advertising products and services, as well as online market
research and measurement services. United Online generates
revenues primarily from selling subscriptions to its consumer
services, which is referred to as billable services revenues,
and from selling advertising on its services to advertisers.
NEW CINEMA: Accused of Antitrust Violation in Crocs Shoes Market
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crocs shoes importer New Cinema Ltd. and its owner Amos Horowitz
are facing a $5.2 million class action in the Jerusalem District
Court after an investigation by Antitrust Commissioner Ronit
Kan, Haaretz Daily reports.
The suit claims that Mr. Horowitz and his company "initiated and
organized a cartel that fixed prices for imported shoes of the
Crocs brand between all the stores that sell these shoes to the
consumer."
Plaintiffs claim New Cinema forced stores to sell the shoes at a
set price and had warned the stores that if they lowered the
price, they would halt supplies to such stores.
The shoes are sold at a standard price of about $49.90 a pair
for the most popular Beach model, $60.20 for the closed Highland
model and $70.25 for the designer Metro or Off Road models.
The suit states that the damage to consumers as a result of the
cartel is about $16 per pair for the cheapest pair to $24 for
the most expensive. Based on an estimate of 300,000 pairs sold,
80 percent the simple model, the damage to consumers is about
$5.2 million.
It is further claimed that storeowners admitted that they were
not allowed to lower prices to keep on selling the shoes. They
claimed they could only find one storeowner who had lowered
prices, and that he had claimed that he was "well-connected" and
would not be harmed. He claimed he had tripled his sales by
lowering prices.
According to plaintiffs they filed the complaint with the
Antitrust Commission nine months ago, but waited to file the
suit until after the affair was revealed, "in order to prevent
impeding the secret investigation of the commission in the
matter."
The defense has yet to file its response in the case.
POZEN INC: Pretrial Discovery Underway in N.C. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pretrial discovery is now underway in a consolidated securities
fraud class action filed against Pozen, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
Holders of the company's securities filed five purported class
actions in 2004, alleging violations of securities laws. These
actions were filed as a single consolidated class action
complaint on Dec. 20, 2004.
The consolidated complaint alleges, among other claims,
violations of federal securities laws, including Section 10(b)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule
10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the company
and a current officer, arising out of allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the company concerning its product
candidates, MT 100 and MT 300, during the class period.
By order dated Nov. 4, 2004, the court appointed a lead
plaintiff, who filed a consolidated amended complaint on Dec.
20, 2004. The defendants named in the amended complaint are
Pozen and John R. Plachetka, chairman and chief executive
officer.
The amended complaint requests certification of a plaintiff
class consisting of purchasers of stock between Oct. 4, 2002 and
May 28, 2004.
On Jan. 27, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On Aug. 30, 2005, the motion to dismiss was
denied.
On March 27, 2006, a motion for class certification was filed.
The court granted the motion and certified the case as a class
action on Feb. 28, 2007.
Pretrial discovery is now underway, according to the company's
May 3, 2007 Form 10-Q with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
The suit is "In Re: Pozen, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-505," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina under Judge Frank W. Bullock, Jr.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
James E. McGovern, Esq.
Steven J. Toll, Esq.
Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Ave., N.W., West Tower, Ste. 500
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202-408-4600
Fax: 202-408-4699
E-mail: mhandley@cmht.com
dsommers@cmht.com
Harry H. Albritton, Jr. Esq.
Marvin Key Blount, Jr., Esq.
The Blount Law Firm, P.L.L.C.
POD 58,
Greenville, NC 27835-0058
Phone: 252-752-6000
Fax: 252-752-2174
E-mail: harry@theblountlawfirm.com
deborah@theblountlawfirm.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas Esq.
Marc A. Topaz, Esq.
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
280 King Of Prussia Rd.,
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: 610-822-0247
Representing the defendants is:
Pressly McAuley Millen, Esq.
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice
P.O. Box 831
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: 919-755-2100 and 919-755-2135
Fax: 919-755-6067
E-mail: pmillen@wcsr.com
PPL ELECTRIC: Faces Lawsuits Over Illinois Power Supply Auction
---------------------------------------------------------------
PPL Electric Utilities Corp., a direct subsidiary of PPL Corp.,
faces two purported class actions in relation to an auction that
sought to supply power to non-shopping Illinois electricity
customers, according to the company's May 3, 2007 Form 10-Q with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.
As a result of the Electric Service Customer Choice and Rate
Relief Law of 1997, the Illinois General Assembly provided the
opportunity for power suppliers to compete to supply power to
Illinois electric utilities to meet the full requirements of all
non-shopping Illinois electricity customers.
The Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) conducted an auction for
supply of up to 25,474 MW of peak load and hired an independent
Auction Monitor for this purpose.
PPL EnergyPlus submitted bids in this Illinois auction process
and, as a result, in September 2006 entered into three
agreements with Commonwealth Edison Company to supply a portion
of its full requirements service. These agreements commenced in
January 2007 and expire after 17, 29 and 41 months.
During peak hours, PPL EnergyPlus' obligation to supply
Commonwealth Edison may reach 700 MW. At the conclusion of the
auction process, the Auction Monitor and the ICC Staff both
concluded that the auction process was competitive.
In March 2007, the Illinois Attorney General filed a complaint
at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) against all
of the successful bidders in this auction process, including PPL
EnergyPlus and 15 other suppliers, alleging market manipulation
and requesting that the FERC investigate such allegations,
requesting refunds for sales at prices above just and reasonable
rates and seeking revocation of the FERC market-based rate
authority for certain of the suppliers.
The redacted copy of the complaint served on PPL EnergyPlus does
not identify which suppliers allegedly engaged in market
manipulation or which suppliers allegedly should have their
market-based rate authority revoked.
PPL EnergyPlus is reviewing the complaint and gathering
information regarding the allegations.
Subsequent to the Illinois Attorney General's complaint, two
class actions were filed in Illinois State Court in Cook County
against all successful bidders in the Illinois auction,
including PPL EnergyPlus, alleging violations of unfair trade
practices laws.
The factual allegations appear similar to those in the Attorney
General's complaint.
PPL Corp. -- http://www.pplweb.com/-- is an energy and utility
holding company, which through its subsidiaries, generates
electricity from power plants in the northeastern and western
U.S.; markets wholesale or retail energy primarily in the
northeastern and western portions of the U.S.; delivers
electricity to nearly 5.1 million customers in Pennsylvania, the
United Kingdom and Latin America, and provides energy services
for businesses in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern U.S.
PREMIER MORTGAGE: "Vondriska" Gets Conditional Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
A court granted a motion for conditional class certification
filed by plaintiff attorneys in the suit, "Vondriska et al. v.
Premier Mortgage Funding, Inc."
In August 2006, Nichols, Kaster & Anderson LLP filed a Complaint
on behalf of loan officers against Premier Mortgage Funding,
Inc. These loan officers seek overtime and minimum wage
compensation under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
Representing the plaintiff are:
Donald H. Nichols, Esq.
Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
Nichols, Kaster & Anderson LLP
4600 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Toll Free Telephone: 877-448-0492
PUBLIC GAS: Okla. Consumers Sue Over Alleged Fraud, Negligence
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed in Pittsburg County District
Court, Okla. against the Public Gas Co. and Sammy Germany, James
Beaty reports.
The plaintiffs in the suit are Alfred Buller, Gregory Rogers and
Judy Rogers "on behalf of themselves and all individuals and
business entities residing and/or operating in the state of
Oklahoma who were negligently, fraudulently, and in breach of
contract denied natural gas service from Public Gas Co.
beginning on or about April 18 and following."
McAlester attorney Mark Edwards of the Edwards Law Firm in
McAlester, Oklahoma filed the suit.
The complaint states that:
-- defendants Public Gas Co. and Sammy Germany negligently
and fraudulently failed to properly pay their gas
supplier;
-- as a result of the defendants' failure to pay their
natural gas supplier, the plaintiff class was denied use
of natural gas utilities and incurred financial losses;
and
-- Public Gas co. and Germany "acted with reckless
disregard of the rights, health, safety and welfare of
the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs, customers of the Mississippi-based gas company
who had natural gas service cut off to their homes on April 18,
believe there are more than 250 people affected and some
business establishments too.
They are seeking claims exceeding $10,000 as well as attorney
fees, mental and physical pain and suffering as well as punitive
damages.
The Oklahoma Corporation Commission has already fined Public Gas
Co., who has been contracted to provide natural gas service to
the affected area, $130,000 for contempt and violation of the
agency's rules and regulations. Furthermore, the company has
already filed for bankruptcy.
The other defendant in the suit, Sammy Germany, is identified in
the district court lawsuit only as a resident of Picayune, Pearl
River County, in Mississippi.
For more information about the case, contact the plaintiffs'
lawyer:
Mark L. Edwards, Esq.
Edwards Law Firm
321 South Third, Suite 7, P.O. Box 1066
McAlester, Oklahoma 74502
Phone: (918) 302-3700
Fax: (918) 302-3701
Web Site: http://www.edwardslawok.com
PREMIERE GLOBAL: Gibson & Co. Amends TCPA Violations Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Gibson & Co. Ins. Brokers, Inc. served on May 18, 2007 an
amended complaint upon Premiere Global Services, Inc. and its
subsidiary, Xpedite Systems, LLC, in a purported class action,
"Gibson & Co. Ins. Brokers, Inc., et al. v. The Quizno's Corp.,
et al.," pending in U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.
The underlying complaint alleges that Quizno's sent unsolicited
facsimile advertisements on or about November 1, 2005 in
violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991, as amended, and seeks damages of $1,500 per facsimile for
alleged willful conduct in sending of the faxes.
The court has also granted Quiznos' motion to file a third party
complaint to add Premiere Global and Xpedite as defendants.
Neither Premiere Global Services nor Xpedite have been served
with that third party complaint, but we anticipate that Premiere
Global Services and Xpedite will be served.
The case is currently in discovery, and no class has yet been
certified. The company was served with non-party subpoenas for
certain documents and information prior to being served with the
amended complaint, for which we filed objections and provided
certain responsive documents.
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: "Burch" Plaintiff Amends Labor Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Boylan has granted a Motion for Leave to Amend
a Complaint in the suit, "Burch et al. v. Qwest Communications
International, Inc. et al."
In August 30, 2006, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP filed a
Complaint on behalf of current and former Call Center Sales
Consultants and Sales and Service Consultants working in
Minnesota against Qwest Communications International Inc., Qwest
Communications Corporation, and Qwest Corp.
These current and former employees seek compensation for minimum
wages and overtime wages as well as other damages related to
violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act.
In the original Complaint, the class was defined as persons
employed in Minnesota "either as Sales and Service Consultants
or Sales Consultants in Qwest's Small Business Call Center." As
the case progressed, individuals who worked at both Small
Business and Consumer Call Centers outside of Minnesota joined
the case by filing consent forms.
Nichols Kaster & Anderson asked the Court for permission to
expand the collective class to include all Sales and Service
Consultants or Sales Consultants working at Qwest's call centers
nationwide. The Judge granted the motion and the Amended
Complaint was filed on April 10, 2007.
Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP also recently filed a motion
asking the Court to conditionally certify the case as a
nationwide collective action and to grant it Court authorization
to send notice about the lawsuit to all Sales and Service
Consultants and Sales Consultants in the Small Business and
Consumer Call Centers nationwide. There is a hearing on this
motion scheduled for June 15, 2007 before the Honorable Judge
Michael Davis.
The suit is Case 0:06-cv-03523-MJD-AJB filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Representing plaintiff Matthew Burch are:
James H. Kaster, Esq.
Sarah M. Fleegel, Esq.
Sofia B. Andersson, Esq.
Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP
4600 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2242
Phone: 612-256-3200
Toll-free: 877-448-0492
Fax: 612-215-6870
ROBERT BOSCH: Settles Suit Over Mislabeling of Products for $5M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bosch Tool Corp. agreed to settle a proposed class action
filed in San Diego County Superior Court that claims Robert
Bosch mislabeled certain Products as "Made in the U.S.A."
between Sept. 7, 2001 through Dec. 31, 2006.
The complaint alleges that Robert Bosch sold tools that were
mislabeled as "Made in U.S.A." when the tools were actually
manufactured, in whole or part, in foreign countries. The
action includes claims under Business & Professions Code Section
17200 et seq. and Section 17500 et seq. and Civil Code Section
1750 et seq.
After over a year of hard-fought litigation and extensive
discovery, the parties agreed to mediation before Judge J.
Richard Haden (Ret.). Through several intense all-day mediation
sessions in San Diego, Judge Haden persuaded the parties to
accept a settlement that Judge Haden believed to be fair,
adequate and reasonable.
The settlement includes strong injunctive relief prohibiting
Robert Bosch from representing that tools or other Robert Bosch
products were made in the U.S. unless they were entirely
manufactured in this country.
The settlement also includes establishment of a $5 million
settlement fund by Robert Bosch. Each class member who submits
a timely claim will have the choice of receiving either $10 in
cash or a $10 voucher towards the purchase of an RBTC product.
Class members may claim $10 in cash or a $10 voucher for each of
the specified Robert Bosch products purchased during the class
period.
Each $10.00 voucher is not transferable, not stackable and can
be redeemed after the purchase of an Robert Bosch product. The
voucher will expire one year from the date of issuance.
The settlement will create a $5 million common fund from which
the class members' claims, attorneys' fees and litigation
expenses will be paid. Any amount that is not paid out for
claims, fees or expenses will be used for a remedial public
interest program established by Robert Bosch pursuant to the
supervision of the Court.
This settlement is an excellent result because RBTC will stop
the conduct that gave rise to this action and the claiming class
members will receive significant monetary recovery.
Deadline to file for exclusion is July 5, 2007. Deadline to
file claims is July 20, 2007.
An approval hearing will be conducted on August 3, 2007 at 1:30
p.m. in Department 75 of the San Diego County Superior Court.
Cohen v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp Settlement on the net:
http://www.rbtcsettlement.com/
The suit is "Cohen v. Robert Bosch Tool Co., San Diego County,
Case No. GIC 85356," filed in San Diego County Superior Court.
Plaintiffs' lead counsel:
Nicholas & Butler, LLP
225 Broadway - 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619/325.0492
Website: http://www.nblaw.org/contact.htm
- and -
Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
Phone: (858) 551-1223
Fax: (858) 551-1232
E-mail: bam@bamlawlj.com
Website: http://www.bamlawca.com/
SOURCEFIRE INC: Suit Filed to Recover Investors' Losses in IPO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action, on May 8, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against
Sourcefire, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors.
The suit was filed on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the common stock of Sourcefire pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with its March 9, 2007 initial public
offering, through April 9, 2007.
The Complaint alleges that on March 9, 2007, Sourcefire
accomplished its IPO of 5,770,000 shares at $15.00 per share for
estimated net proceeds of $71.8 million to Sourcefire pursuant
to the Registration Statement that represented that Sourcefire's
revenues, gross profits and earnings were materially increasing,
reporting positive financial results for the quarter and year
ended December 31, 2006.
The Complaint further alleges that on April 9, 2007, Sourcefire
issued a press release announcing its preliminary results for
the quarter ended March 31, 2007 that disclosed, in part, that
"Historically, the first calendar quarter has been the slowest
quarter of the year for us due to seasonal factors. This year,
we saw an exaggeration of that trend due to a smaller than
expected initial order from a substantial and strategic new
account and an unusual number of transactions delayed or
deferred very late in the quarter. This was particularly
dramatic in the Federal sector where we saw a number of delays
in the processing of awarded procurement transactions..."
The Complaint alleges that on this news, Sourcefire's stock
price declined from $17.35 per share on April 5, 2007 to close
at $12.28 per share on April 9, 2007, the next trading day, on
volume of approximately 1.6 million shares.
It contends that the Registration Statement was materially false
and misleading in violation of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 because it did not disclose that revenues
from the Federal government component of Sourcefire's business
had materially slowed due to materially lower spending by the
federal government.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.
Interested parties may move the court no later than July 13,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
Joel B. Strauss, Esq.
Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10022
Phone: (800) 290-1952 or (212) 687-1980
Fax: (212) 687-7714
E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com
- and -
Laurence D. King, Esq.
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1501
San Francisco, California 94111
Phone: (415) 772-4700
Fax: (415) 772-4707
SUPPORTSOFT INC: Agrees to Settle Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SupportSoft, Inc. (Nasdaq: SPRT) reached an agreement in
principle to settle the securities class action litigation, "In
re SupportSoft, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-5222."
The agreement does not contain any admission of fault or
wrongdoing on the part of the Company or the individual
defendants.
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.
A trial date has been set for Oct. 29, 2007 (Class Action
Reporter, Apr. 19, 2007).
The recent settlement is expected to be funded by insurance and
is subject to the execution of a definitive settlement agreement
and the approval of the U.S. States District Court for the
Northern District of California.
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 plaintiffs is:
Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
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, Esq.
David L. Lansky, Esq.
Peri Nielsen, Esq.
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
650 Page Mill Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Phone: (650) 493-9300
E-mail: sherry.haus@wilmerhale.com or dlansky@wsgr.com
or pnielsen@wsgr.com
TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Accused of Breaking Pa. Credit Transactions Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Roadhouse, Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania over
alleged violations of credit transaction laws.
On March 26, 2007, a civil case styled as a class action
complaint titled, "Nichole M. Ehrheart v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc.
and Does 1 through 10, Case Number CA 07-54," was filed against
the company.
The case alleges liability under the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act and seeks monetary damages, including statutory
damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and a
permanent injunction against the alleged unlawful practice.
The suit is "Ehrheart v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-00054-SJM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania under Judge Sean J. McLaughlin.
Representing the plaintiff is:
R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
Carlson Lynch
P.O. Box 367, 231 Melville Lane
Sewickley, PA 15143
Phone: (412) 749-1677
E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
Representing the defendant is:
Peter M. Cummins, Esq.
Frost Brown Todd
400 West Market Street, 32nd Floor
Louisville, KY 40202
Phone: (502) 779-8190
E-mail: pcummins@fbtlaw.com
TJX COS: Customers File Lawsuit in Ohio Over Privacy Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
TJX Cos. Inc. is facing a class action, "Taliaferro et al. v.
TJX Cos., Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00388-SAS," filed on May
17, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio.
The suit accuses TJX Cos. and Fifth Third Bancorp of making
customers' credit card and bank account numbers public through a
computer system.
This case arose because defendants have both statutory and
common law duties to adequately protect their customers' non-
public, personal and private financial information. The
defendants allegedly breached the duties owed to its customers
by failing to maintain adequate computer data systems, security,
controls, training, supervision and procedures.
On Jan. 17, TJX announced that its computer system had been
compromised and that intrusion resulted in the release of
personal and private financial data related customer
transactions. TJX further stated that it has identified
customer information that has been removed from its systems.
Plaintiffs Anita Taliaferro and Sara Keen bring this action for
injuries suffered as a result of defendants' alleged wrongful
conduct.
Plaintiffs purport to represent a putative class of all TJX
customers who made credit and debit card transactions at TJX's
stores during the period that the security of TJX's computer
systems were compromised and the privacy or security of whose
credit card, check card, or debit card account, transaction or
non-public information was compromised.
Questions of law and fact that the purported class raises
include:
(a) whether defendants breached a duty and was negligent in
failing to keep card members' accounts, transactions,
and other non-public information secure;
(b) whether all defendants, or any of them, breached duties
and was negligent in failing to inform directly or
indirectly in a timely fashion card members (the
security of whose accounts or other non-public
information was compromised) of the occurrence of such
a compromise of security;
(c) whether the consumer class is entitled to notice as to
whether the security of their credit card account or
other non-public information was compromised as a
result of a breach of security at TJX;
(d) whether the consumer class is entitled to any other
remedied such as ongoing credit monitoring, on account
of the breach of duties of defendants, or any of them;
(e) whether the class is entitled to declaratory relief;
(f) whether the class is entitled to injunctive relief; and
(g) whether the class is entitled to an award of reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs of suit.
Plaintiffs request that the court enter an order:
-- requiring defendants to make whole any losses suffered
by the plaintiffs and any and all class members as a
result of their misconduct;
-- requiring the defendants to compensate plaintiffs and
class members and/or provide monies needed to monitor
plaintiffs' and class members' financial accounts;
-- enjoining the defendants from further actions which take
place the consuming class at risk of future security
breaches;
-- requiring the defendants to pay plaintiffs and class
members reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of
litigation; and
-- providing for such other legal and/or equitable relief
as the cause of justice requires.
Since mid-January, 2007, a number of putative class actions have
been filed against TJX in state and federal courts in Alabama,
California, Massachusetts and Puerto Rico, and in provincial
Canadian courts in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario,
Quebec and Saskatchewan, putatively on behalf of customers,
including all customers in the U.S., Puerto Rico and Canada,
whose transaction data were allegedly compromised by the
Computer Intrusion (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2007).
A copy of the Ohio complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1fa7
The suit is "Taliaferro et al. v. TJX Cos., Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-00388-SAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge S. Arthur Spiegel.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Janet Gilligan Abaray, Esq.
Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C.
312 Walnut Street, Suite 2090
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: 513-852-5600
Fax: 513-852-5611
E-mail: jabaray@burgsimpson.com
TUESDAY MORNING: Still Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday Morning Corp. continues to face several labor-related
lawsuits in California, according to the company's May 4, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
During 2001 and 2002, the company was named as a defendant in
three complaints filed in the Superior Court of California in
and for the County of Los Angeles.
The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a statewide class made up
of some of the company's current and former employees, which
they claim are owed compensation for overtime wages, penalties
and interest. They are also seeking attorney's fees and costs.
In October 2003, the company entered into a settlement agreement
with a sub-class of these plaintiffs consisting of manager-in-
training and management trainees, which was paid in November
2005 with no material impact to the company's financial
statements. The trial date related to the remaining complaint
is currently scheduled for September 2007.
Managers, managers-in-training and assistant managers, filed a
similar lawsuit in Orange County, California in 2004 and an
amended complaint was recently filed in January 2007. This case
is still in the discovery phase.
Tuesday Morning Corp. -- http://www.tuesdaymorning.com/-- is a
closeout retailer of upscale home furnishings, gifts and related
items in the U.S.
UNITED SERVICES: N.Y. Court Allows FLSA Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
rejected defendant's motion to dismiss the case, "Lynch et al.
v. United Services Automobile Association (USAA), Case No.
07cv562."
It also rejected request for sanctions, but granted Nichols,
Kaster & Anderson LLP's motion for conditional class
certification and court-authorized motion on April 25, 2007.
On January 24, 2007, Nichols, Kaster filed a complaint on behalf
of special investigators against USAA. These special
investigators seek overtime compensation under the Federal Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The complaint accuses the company of failing to pay overtime
compensation in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation on
behalf of himself under New York Labor Laws, and an injunction
and declaratory judgment that the practices are unlawful under
New York Law.
Representing plaintiff William Lynch are:
Donald H. Nichols, Esq.
Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP
4600 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2242
Phone: 612-256-3200
Toll-free: 877-448-0492
Fax: 612-215-6870
UNITED STATES: Four Law Firms File Suit Over Toxic FEMA Trailers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Waichman Alonso Mark LLP, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David,
Meunier & Warshauer, L.L.C., Law Offices of Daniel E. Becnel,
Jr. and the Law Offices of Ronnie G. Penton have filed a class
action against the private contractors as well as the federal
government on behalf of multiple individuals who sustained
serious pulmonary injuries as a result of being exposed to
formaldehyde while living in a trailer home provided by Federal
Emergency Management Agency due to having been rendered homeless
as a result of Hurricane Katrina.
The case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Eastern
District of Louisiana (Docket number 07-2961).
This suit alleges that persons who spent significant time in the
FEMA provided housing units have been exposed to dangerously
high concentrations of formaldehyde fumes and sustained serious
injuries as a result of this exposure.
Parker Waichman Alonso Mark LLP, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David,
Meunier & Warshauer, L.L.C., the Law Offices of Daniel E.
Becnel, Jr. and the Law Offices of Ronnie G. Penton have been
contacted by hundreds of people who were provided with trailer
homes by FEMA and who are now suffering symptoms consistent with
formaldehyde exposure.
On May 16, 2006, the U.S. Government stated that approximately
86,000 families are still living in FEMA house trailers across
the Gulf region and more and more of them are waking up with a
host of health problems according to medical experts. After
Hurricane Katrina, FEMA purchased close to 102,000 house
trailers at a cost of $2.6 billion.
Some people waited months to get their trailers only to find out
that the cheap building materials used were giving off toxic
formaldehyde vapors. Many people reported not being able to
stay in their trailers for more than five minutes without
experiencing burning eyes, coughing, headaches, nausea or skin
rashes, sinus infections, and nosebleeds.
Testing by the Sierra Club in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama
indicated that 83% of the house trailers tested had formaldehyde
levels above the EPA limit of 0.10 parts per million. At the
time the environmental group said it found unsafe levels of
formaldehyde levels in 30 out of 32 house trailers they tested.
The group's sampling cast doubt on the safety of 118,000
trailers FEMA was stationing on the Gulf Coast to house people
made homeless by Hurricane Katrina in the summer of 2005.
Sierra Club recently issued more test results, which it said
clearly showed that formaldehyde emissions are a persistent
problem in the trailers long after they were first moved into.
The formaldehyde is primarily contained in the particleboard
commonly found in trailers including areas such as walls and
kitchen cabinets.
Exposure to formaldehyde fumes can cause flu-like symptoms, skin
rash, headaches, difficulty breathing, asthma, coughing, burning
eyes, respiratory problems and cancer. Young children and the
elderly are particularly susceptible to these conditions.
Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Krangle, Esq.
Parker Waichman Alonso Mark LLP
111 John Street 14th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Phone: (800) LAW-INFO
Fax: (800) 529-4636
E-mail: info@yourlawyer.com
Web Site: http://www.yourlawyer.com
WASHINGTON: Teachers Union Files Suit Over Loss of Gain Sharing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Education Association, the state's teachers
union, filed a suit over a new law that would undo a costly
pension perk approved during the stock-market boom of the late
1990s, Richard Roesler of The Spokesman Review reports.
The pension scheme called "gain sharing" was launched in 1998.
Under it, part of the proceeds made in investing the state's
retirement investment fund were added to the retirement funds of
state workers, teachers and other public employees. Most of
them changed their retirement plans because the scheme promised
them better pension benefits.
But when the boom died down, lawmakers moved to eliminate the
pension bonus after a final payout set for next January. House
Bill 2391, which Gov. Chris Gregoire recently approved, would do
this. Bill 2391 replaces gain-sharing with a package of less-
costly perks, including earlier retirement for some workers, a
cost-of-living increase. It would cost the teachers and public
employees about $100 million in pension benefits in the next two
years and $6.7 billion in the next 25 years.
The state teachers' union filed their complaint a few hours
after the bill became a law. The class action, with Central
Valley teacher Randy Jenson and Mead school district teacher
Deborah Rose as two of the plaintiffs, was filed in King County
Superior Court.
The complaint alleges that revoking the benefit would be a
"manifest injustice" and a broken promise to retirees. It
contends that gain sharing is a contractual right that the state
cannot unilaterally do away with.
The lawsuit seeks the law be declared unconstitutional. It also
asks the court to block a provision of the measure that would
repeal new retirement benefits if a lawsuit challenging the
repeal were successful.
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Ex-Loan Processor Files FLSA Lawsuit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Mutual, Inc. faces a purported class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida that
alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Laura Houston, a former loan processor of Washington Mutual,
brought the suit for unpaid overtime compensation, and other
relief under FLSA.
Ms. Houston filed the suit, which under FLSA seeks to recover
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, on May 15, 2007. She seeks a jury
trial.
In general the complaint states that defendant failed to comply
with FLSA, because plaintiff performed services for defendant
for which no provisions were made by defendant to properly pay
her for all hours worked in excess of the forty within a
workweek.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1f9c
The suit is "Houston v. Washington Mutual, Inc., Case No. 9:07-
cv-80423-KLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp with referral
to Judge Ann E. Vitunac.
Representing the plaintiffs is
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Shavitz Law Group
1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: 561-447-8888
Fax: 561-447-8831
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
WATERVIEW PRECAST: Fla. Suit Claims Overtime Compensation Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Waterview Precast, Inc. is facing a class action filed on May 11
at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
alleging Labor Code violations.
Plaintiff Adrian Rivera brings this action to recover from his
former employer unpaid overtime compensation, commission,
liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable attorney's fees
under the provisions of Title 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq. and
specifically under the provisions of Title 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b).
This suit is brought on behalf of all former and current weekly
paid and/or salaried employees of the company who were and who
are subject to the payroll practices and procedures and who were
not paid time and one-half of their regular rate of pay for all
overtime hours worked beginning on or after June 2004.
Plaintiff claims that in the course of his employment, he was
not paid time and one-half of his regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 during a work week. He asserts
that he is entitled to his overtime premium for each hour worked
in excess of 40 per work week.
Mr. Rivera demands judgment against defendants for the wages and
overtime payments due him and other class members for the hours
worked for which they have not been properly compensated,
liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs of
suit, and for all proper relief including prejudgment interest.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f7e
The suit is "Rivera v. Waterview Precast, Inc. et al., Case No.
0:07-cv-60680-WJZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, under Judge William J. Zloch.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Charles Harold Bechert, III, Esq.
750 E Sample Road
Pompano Beach, FL 33064
Phone: 954-941-8363
Fax: 941-8337
E-mail: Tripchb@aol.com
WILLIAMS COS: Court Mulls Class Certification Motion in "Price"
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Kansas state court has yet to rule on a motion seeking class
certification for the lawsuit, "Will Price, et al. v. Gas
Pipelines, et al., Case No. Case No. 99C30 (Price I) (f/k/a
Quinque Operating Co., et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al.)"
In 2001, 14 entities including Williams Companies, Inc. were
named as defendants in a nationwide class action in Kansas state
court that had been pending against other defendants, generally
pipeline and gathering companies, since 2000.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have engaged in
mismeasurement techniques that distort the heating content of
natural gas, resulting in an alleged underpayment of royalties
to the class of producer plaintiffs and sought an unspecified
amount of damages.
The fourth amended petition, which was filed in 2003, deleted
all of our defendant entities except two Midstream subsidiaries.
All remaining defendants have opposed class certification and a
hearing on plaintiffs' second motion to certify the class was
held in April 2005.
The company is awaiting a decision from the court, according to
the company's May 3, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.
Williams Companies, Inc. -- http://www.williams.com/-- is a
natural gas company, which primarily finds, produces, gathers,
processes and transports natural gas. It also manages a
wholesale power business. Its operations are concentrated in the
Pacific Northwest, Rocky Mountains, Gulf Coast, Southern
California and Eastern Seaboard.
New Securities Fraud Cases
OCCAM NETWORKS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on behalf of all common stock purchasers of Occam
Networks, Inc. from May 2, 2006 through April 17, 2007,
inclusive.
The Complaint charges Occam and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:
(1) that the Company materially inflated its financial
results;
(2) specifically, that the Company had improperly
recognized revenue from sales while support commitments
remained outstanding;
(3) that the Company's financial statements were not
prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles;
(4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and
(5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On April 2, 2007, after the close of trading for the day, the
Company disclosed that it would not file its Annual Report on
time with the SEC.
Occam explained that it was unable to file its Annual Report
because "its Audit Committee is reviewing the Company's
commitments to provide customers with software, hardware and
software maintenance, hardware and software upgrades, training,
and other services in connection with customers' purchases of
the Company's network equipment. The Audit Committee is also
considering whether these commitments impact revenue recognition
and the adequacy of the Company's internal controls relating to
the documentation of customer commitments as part of the terms
and conditions of sale."
On this news, shares of the Company's stock declined 23 percent,
or $2.59 per share, to close on April 3, 2007 at $8.51 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Then on April 17, 2007, after the close of trading, Occam
revealed that despite having received a 15-day extended filing
deadline from the SEC, the Company was still unable to file its
Annual Report. On this news, shares of the Occam, on April 18,
2007, closed down 4.15 percent, or $0.37 per share, to close at
$8.54 per share.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.
Occam is a company that develops, markets, and supports
innovative broadband access products designed to enable
telecommunication service providers to offer bundled voice,
video and data services over copper and fiber optic networks.
Interested parties may move the court no later than June 25,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Darren J. Check, Esq.
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706
E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com
YAHOO INC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, LLP filed a class action on May 16 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
Yahoo! Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO) and certain of its officers and
directors.
The action is on behalf of Yahoo! publicly traded securities
purchasers during the period April 8, 2004 and July 18, 2006,
inclusive, for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and material omissions regarding the Company's
business and operations and that, as a result, the price of the
Company's securities was inflated during the Class Period,
thereby harming investors.
According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the
Company's business, financial results and forward guidance.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to the investing
public the following adverse facts:
(a) false, misleading and deceptive means were being used
to promote and sell the Company's business to business
(B2B) advertising services to customers seeking a
presence for the generation of marketing opportunities
on the Internet;
(b) revenues generated from Yahoo! B2B activities were
unsustainable and fraudulent in nature, as Yahoo!
misrepresented and deceptively described the Company's
abilities to deliver the claimed attributes and quality
of its content and services;
(c) Yahoo! advertising services were operationally flawed
and defective, and did not favorably compare to the
quality and cost of B2B services offered by its
competitors; and
(d) Yahoo! was, in fact losing market share to other
Internet search providers.
As a result of defendants' false statements, Yahoo! stock traded
at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Then,
on July 18, 2006, the Company issued a shocking press release,
which detailed an unexpected and stunning drop in revenues.
As a result, on July 18, 2006, shares of Yahoo! stock plunged
$7.04 per share, for a loss of over 21% percent, to close on
July 18, 2006 at $25.20 per share, on extremely high volume of
over 204.3 million shares.
Interested parties may move the court no later than July 10,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Scott+Scott, LLP
Phone: (800) 404-7770 or (860) 537-5537
E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com
*********
A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, and Mary Grace Durana, 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 * * *