/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070530.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, May 30, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 106
Headlines
ABLEST INC: Settles Shareholder Suit Over Koosharem Merger
ADVANCED MEDICAL: Recalls Lens Solutions Causing Eye Infection
AIMCO PROPERTIES: D.C. Court Decertifies FLSA Violations Lawsuit
DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Apex Digital Faces Ill. FLSA Violations Suit
EQUITY BROADCASTING: Suit Over Merger Amended the Third Time
INTER-TEL INC: Sued Over $723M Merger Agreement with Mitel
INTER-TEL INC: Suan Investments Sues Over Merger Proposal
MERCK FROSST: Sued Over "Inadequate" Fosamax Drug Warning
NORTEL NETWORKS: Insurers to Pay $229M of Global Settlement
PUBLIC SERVICE: Faces N.J. Complaint Over Transition Bond Charge
RANDOM HOUSE: N.Y. Judge Okays Settlement of Suit Over Memoir
RJ REYNOLDS: Fla. Court Mulls Partial Stay on Mandate in "Engle"
RJ REYNOLDS: "Huntsberry" Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Review Bid
RJ REYNOLDS: July 10 Hearing Set on "Schwab" Class Certification
RJ REYNOLDS: Mo. Court Grants Reassignment Motion in "Collora"
RJ REYNOLDS: No Date Set to Hear Oral Arguments in "Brown" Case
RJ REYNOLDS: Seeks Nixing of Suit Over Cigar's Nicotine Content
RJ REYNOLDS: Seeks Summary Judgment for "Harper" Lawsuit in La.
RJ REYNOLDS: Sept. Hearing Set for "Cleary" Class Certification
RJ REYNOLDS: "Young" Secondhand Smoke Case in La. Still Stayed
RYLAND GROUP: Settles Securities Fraud Litigation in N.D. Tex.
UNUM GROUP: Motion to Remand N.J. Suit to Florida Pending
XINHUA FINANCE: KGS Names New Defendants in Securities Lawsuit
* Slater & Gordon is First Law Firm in the World to Go Public
* Air France Pays More Than $13M Fighting Price-Fixing Lawsuits
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
New Securities Fraud Cases
NETLIST INC: KGS Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
OPTIONABLE INC: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit
STERLING FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit
*********
ABLEST INC: Settles Shareholder Suit Over Koosharem Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Ablest Inc. entered into an agreement to settle a complaint
filed by a purported company shareholder over a plan by the
company to merge with Koosharem Corp.
On or about May 14 2007, Ablest mailed a proxy statement
relating to a special meeting of shareholders of the Company
scheduled for June 7, 2007, to vote on a proposal to approve the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of April 4, 2007, by and
among Koosharem, a California corporation (Parent), Select
Acquisition, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent (Merger Sub), and the Company.
On May 15, 2007, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County by a plaintiff who is an alleged shareholder of
the Company. The complaint, which is styled as Mandell v.
Ablest Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 2958-VCN), names as
defendants the Company, its directors, Parent and Merger Sub and
alleges, among other things, that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders of the
Company in connection with the proposed transaction.
Among other relief, the complaint seeks class action status,
injunctive relief against consummation of the merger, and
payment of attorneys' fees.
On May 25, 2007, the parties, including the Company, executed a
Memorandum of Understanding to settle the lawsuit. As part of
the settlement, the defendants deny all allegations of
wrongdoing. The settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including court approval following notice to members
of the proposed settlement class and consummation of the merger.
If finally approved by the court, the settlement will resolve
all of the claims that were or could have been brought on behalf
of the proposed settlement class in the action being settled,
including all claims relating to the merger, the merger
agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith.
In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties have
agreed that plaintiffs' counsel will petition the court for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by the company.
The merger may be consummated prior to final court approval of
the settlement.
The settlement will not affect the timing of the merger or the
amount of merger consideration to be paid in the merger.
Pursuant to the proposed settlement, the company have agreed to
make the amended and supplemental disclosures; however, the
Company does not make any admission that such supplemental
disclosures are material.
Important information concerning the proposed merger is set
forth in our definitive proxy statement dated May 11, 2007. The
Definitive Proxy Statement is amended and supplemented by, and
should be read as part of, and in conjunction with, the
information set forth herein.
ADVANCED MEDICAL: Recalls Lens Solutions Causing Eye Infection
--------------------------------------------------------------
In response to information received today from the U.S. Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regarding eye
infections from Acanthamoeba, a naturally occurring water-borne
organism which can contribute to serious corneal infections,
Advanced Medical Optics is immediately and voluntarily recalling
its Complete(R) MoisturePlusTM contact lens solutions.
CDC data was made available to Advanced Medical today showing
that it had completed interviews with 46 patients who had
developed Acanthamoeba keratitis since January 2005.
A total of 39 of these patients were soft contact lens wearers,
21 of whom reported using Complete MoisturePlusTM products. The
CDC estimates a risk of at least seven times greater for those
who used Complete MoisturePLUSTM solution versus those who did
not.
While Advanced Medical continues to work with the CDC and the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration to further assess the data, it
is acting with an abundance of caution to voluntarily recall
Complete MoisturePlusTM from the market.
There is no evidence to suggest that today's voluntary recall is
related to a product contamination issue and this does not
impact any of Advanced Medical's other contact lens care
products, including our family of hydrogen peroxide disinfecting
solutions.
As patient safety is paramount to Advanced Medical, the company
is taking decisive action to stop shipments, recall product from
the marketplace, and encourage consumers to discontinue the use
of Advanced Medical Complete MoisturePlusTM until further
information is available.
Given the potential seriousness of the reported Acanthamoeba
infections, Advanced Medical is working in close partnership
with the CDC, the FDA and others to make sure consumers are
aware of the need for proper contact lens disinfections and
proper lens handling.
Acanthamoeba is a microorganism commonly found in water, soil,
sewage systems, cooling towers, and heating/ventilation/air
conditioning systems.
Acanthamoeba keratitis is a rare, but serious, infection of the
cornea. Acanthamoeba keratitis is usually found among
individuals who improperly store/handle/disinfect their lenses
(e.g., use tap water or homemade solutions for cleaning),
swim/use hot tubs/shower while wearing lenses, come in contact
with contaminated water, have minor damage to their corneas, or
have previous corneal trauma. CDC has estimated the incidence
of Acanthamoeba keratitis in the United States at approximately
one to two cases per million contact lens users.
Contact lens wearers should consult with their eye doctor if
they have any of the following symptoms: eye pain, eye redness,
blurred vision, sensitivity to light, sensation of something in
the eye, and excessive tearing. The symptoms, which can last
several weeks to months, are not the same for everybody. Early
in the infection, the symptoms of Acanthamoeba keratitis can be
very similar to the symptoms of other more common eye infections
but Acanthamoeba keratitis may eventually cause severe pain and
possible vision loss with some patients requiring a corneal
transplant if untreated.
Consumers who believe they are in possession of the recalled
product should discontinue use immediately and call 1-888-899-
9183. The company is currently contacting retailers, customers
and distributors regarding return and replacement instructions.
Reply cards and mailing slips are being provided for return of
product. Retailers may also call 1-888-899-9183 for more
information.
Please report any adverse reactions experienced with the use of
this product and/or quality problems to Advanced Medical by
calling 1-calling 1-800-347-5005 and to the FDA's MedWatch
Program by phone: 1-800-FDA- 1088, Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178.
AIMCO PROPERTIES: D.C. Court Decertifies FLSA Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has
decertified a purported class action against AIMCO Properties,
L.P. (AIMCO Operating Partnership) and, its subsidiary, NHP
Management Co. (NHPMN), over alleged labor violations, 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.
The two were named as defendants in a lawsuit alleging that they
willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by
failing to pay maintenance workers overtime for time worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.
The complaint, filed in August 2003 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia, attempts to bring a collective
action under the FLSA and seeks to certify state subclasses in
California, Maryland, and the District of Columbia.
Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that the AIMCO Operating
Partnership and NHPMN failed to compensate maintenance workers
for time that they were required to be "on-call."
Additionally, the complaint alleges the AIMCO Operating
Partnership and NHPMN failed to comply with the FLSA in
compensating maintenance workers for time that they worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week.
In June 2005, the court conditionally certified the collective
action on both the on-call and overtime issues. Approximately
1,049 individuals opted into the class.
On March 28, 2007, the court issued an opinion decertifying the
collective action on both issues. The court held that the
members of the collective action are not similarly situated and
the case may not proceed as a collective action.
The nine named plaintiffs still maintain their individual causes
of action, and the court is transferring their individual cases
to a federal court in the state where each of the named
plaintiffs resides.
In addition to the District of Columbia case described above, in
2005 the plaintiffs filed class actions with the same
allegations in the Superior Court of California (Contra Costa
County) and in Montgomery County Circuit Court in Maryland.
These cases were stayed pending the resolution of the
decertification motion in the District of Columbia case.
The suit is "CHASE et al v. AIMCO PROPERTIES, L.P., Case No.
1:03-cv-01683-JR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia under Judge James Robertson.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Joseph Marc Sellers, Esq.
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C
1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 500, West Tower
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 408-4600
Fax: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: jsellers@cmht.com
Representing the defendants is:
Richard N. Appel, Esq.
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P.
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036-1511
Phone: (202) 887-4076
Fax: (202) 887-4288
E-mail: rappel@akingump.com
DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Apex Digital Faces Ill. FLSA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2006, two former employees of Apex Digital LLC, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Dycom Industries Inc. that was
discontinued during the quarter ended January 27, 2007,
commenced a lawsuit against the subsidiary in Illinois State
Court.
The lawsuit alleges that Apex violated certain minimum wage laws
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and related state laws by
failing to comply with applicable minimum wage and overtime pay
requirements. The plaintiffs seek damages and costs. They also
seek to certify, and eventually notify, a class consisting of
former employees who, since December 2004, have worked for Apex.
On January 30, 2007 the case was removed to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The suit is "Radinski et al. v. Apex Digital, LLC et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-00571," filed before David H. Coar.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Ruth Irene Major, Esq.
Penny Nathan & Kahan & Associates
208 S. LaSalle Street
Suite 1660
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 855-1660
E-mail: rmajor@pnkahan.com
James J. Oh, Esq.
Littler Mendelson, P.C.
200 North LaSalle Street
Suite 2900
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 372-5520
E-mail: joh@littler.com
EQUITY BROADCASTING: Suit Over Merger Amended the Third Time
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a shareholder suit over the merger agreement
between Equity Broadcasting Corp. and Coconut Palm Acquisition
Corp. has filed a Third Amended Complaint.
In connection with the merger between Equity Broadcasting Corp.
and Coconut Palm, EBC and each member of EBC's board of
directors was named in a lawsuit filed by an EBC shareholder in
the circuit court of Pulaski County, Arkansas on June 14, 2006.
As a result of the merger between EBC and Coconut Palm, pursuant
to which EBC merged into Coconut Palm, Coconut Palm, which was
renamed Equity Media Holdings Corporation, is a party to the
lawsuit.
The lawsuit contains both a class action component and
derivative claims. The class action claims allege various
deficiencies in EBC's proxy used to inform its shareholders of
the special meeting to consider the merger. These allegations
include:
(i) the failure to provide sufficient information regarding
the fair value of EBC's assets and the resulting fair
value of EBC's Class A common stock;
(ii) that the interests of holders of EBC's Class A common
stock are improperly diluted as a result of the merger
to the benefit of the holders of EBC's Class B common
stock;
(iii) failure to sufficiently describe the further dilution
that would occur post-merger upon exercise of Coconut
Palm's outstanding warrants;
(iv) failure to provide pro-forma financial information; (v)
failure to disclose alleged related party transactions;
(vi) failure to provide access to audited consolidated
financial statements during previous years;
(vii) failure to provide shareholders with adequate time to
review a fairness option obtained by EBC's board of
directors in connection with the merger; and
(viii) alleged sale of EBC below appraised market value of its
assets.
The derivative components of the lawsuit allege instances of
improper self-dealing, including through a management agreement
between EBC and Arkansas Media.
In addition to requesting unspecified compensatory damages, the
plaintiff also requested injunctive relief to enjoin EBC's
annual shareholder meeting and the vote on the merger. An
injunction hearing was not held before EBC's annual meeting
regarding the merger so the meeting and shareholder vote
proceeded as planned and EBC's shareholders approved the merger.
On August 9, 2006, EBC's motion to dismiss the lawsuit was
denied.
On February 21, 2007, the plaintiff filed a "Motion to Enforce
Settlement Agreement" with the court alleging the parties
reached an oral agreement to settle the lawsuit. The plaintiff
subsequently filed a motion to withdraw the motion to settle and
filed a "Third Amended Complaint" on April 10, 2007. This
motion added two additional plaintiffs and expanded on the
issues recited in the previous complaints.
INTER-TEL INC: Sued Over $723M Merger Agreement with Mitel
----------------------------------------------------------
Inter-Tel Inc. and its executives face a Shareholder Class
Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty filed on April 30, 2007
on behalf of C. Robert Farr et al. in the Superior Court of the
state of Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa.
Summary of the Action
This is a stockholder class action brought by plaintiff on
behalf of the holders of Inter-Tel, Inc. common stock against
Inter-Tel and its senior officers and directors arising out of
the executives' alleged attempts to provide certain Inter-Tel
insiders and directors with preferential treatment in connection
with their efforts to complete the sale of Inter-Tel to Mitel
Networks Corp. This action seeks equitable relief only.
On April 26, 2007, Inter-Tel and Mitel jointly announced that
they have signed a definitive merger agreement whereby Mitel
will acquire Inter-Tel, a full-service provider of business
communications solutions for US$25.60 per Inter-Tel share in
cash, representing a total purchase price of approximately
US$723 million.
In pursuing the unlawful plan to squeeze out Inter-Tel's public
stockholders for grossly inadequate consideration, the
defendants have allegedly breached their fiduciary duties of
loyalty, due care, independence, candor, good faith and fair
dealing, and have aided and abetted such breaches by Inter-Tel's
officers and directors. Instead of attempting to obtain the
highest value reasonably available for the Company's
stockholders, defendants have allegedly spent a substantial
effort tailoring the Acquisition to meet the specific needs of
Mitel.
Mitel's offer is for $25.60 per share-a premium of less than 5%
compared to the Company's trading price on April 16, 2007. This
minor premium does not represent the maximized value that Inter-
Tel's shareholders are entitled to, according to the complaint.
The complaint also stated that defendants' primary motivation
for entering into the Acquisition appears to be to head off a
power struggle between the Board of Directors and the Company's
largest shareholder and ex-Chief Executive Officer Steven
Mihaylo. Just recently, during March 2007, Mr. Mihaylo noticed
the Board that he intended to present sweeping shareholder
resolutions designed to increase his control over the Company.
According to the complaint, because defendants dominate and
control the business and corporate affairs of Inter-Tel and are
in possession of private corporate information concerning Inter-
Tel's assets, business and future prospects, there exists an
imbalance and disparity of knowledge and economic power between
them and the public shareholders of Inter-Tel, which makes it
inherently unfair for them to pursue any proposed transaction
wherein they will reap disproportionate benefits to the
exclusion of maximizing stockholder value.
In short, according to the complaint, the Acquisition is
designed to unlawfully divest Inter-Tel's public stockholders of
their holdings without providing them the maximized value they
are entitled to. Defendants allegedly know that these assets
will continue to produce substantial revenue and earnings.
Executives named defendant are: Norman Stout, chief executive
and director; Alexander L. Cappello, chairman; and directors J.
Robert Anderson, Gerald W. Chapman, Gary D. Edens, Agnieszka
Winkler, Robert Rodin, Steven E. Karol, Anil K. Puri, and
Kenneth L. Urish.
The plaintiff, a purported shareholder, seeks, among others:
injunctive relief, class-action status for the suit, an
injunction against the acquisition.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Darren j. Robbins, Esq.
Randall j. Baron, Esq.
A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, C A 92101
Phone: (619) 231-1058
Fax: (619) 231-7423
INTER-TEL INC: Suan Investments Sues Over Merger Proposal
---------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Bull & Lifshitz LLP filed a
class action complaint on behalf of Suan Investments, Inc.,
against Inter-Tel (Delaware) Inc. and its executives in the
Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for the County of
Maricopa (No. CV2007 - 009063). Among the defendants are chief
executive Norman Stout, and former chief executive Steven G.,
Mihaylo.
The suit raises claims of breach of fiduciary duty against the
individual defendant, conspiracy against the defendants and
aiding and abetting against defendants in relation to a proposed
merger of the company.
Background
In May 18, 2006, Mr. Mihaylo, certain of his affiliates and
Vector Capital Corp., entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
to outline certain understandings between them with respect to a
potential acquisition of Inter-Tel later discontinued in March
2007.
Between August 2006 and August 2007, Inter-Tel, Mitel Networks
Corp. and Francisco Partners held discussions concerning
potential business combination transactions involving Inter-Tel.
On April 23, 2006, Mitel agreed to merge the two companies at an
offer price of $25.60 per share for the Company. On April 25,
2007 Vector sent a letter addressed to the Board of Directors in
which it stated that they had become aware of "market rumors of
a potential near-term sale of [Inter-Tel]."
In that letter, Vector stated its view that since its last
proposed offer to buy Inter-Tel, the debt and equity market
environment had improved, Inter-Tel had continued to deliver
good performance, cash balances had increased, and industry
analysts had further validated the strengths of Inter-Tel's new
products. In the letter, Vector indicated that it might
consider making an all-cash offer at a price of $26.50 per
share, subject to due diligence and other confirmations. Vector
stated in this letter that Mr. Mihaylo was not a part of its
proposal.
On April 26, 2007 Vector indicated to the board that a price
above $27.00 per share should be justifiable. On April 26,
2007, following receipt of the $27.00 Proposal, the Board of
Directors approved a merger agreement with Mitel. Of the ten
directors present at the meeting, seven voted to approve the
Merger Agreement and the Merger, Mr. Mihaylo voted against it.
On April 27, 2007 the Company filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission notice that it had entered into the Merger
Agreement with Mitel Networks Corp., a corporation organized
under the laws of Canada, and Arsenal Acquisition Corporation, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent (Merger Sub), pursuant to
which Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company, with
the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Parent.
Pursuant to the Merger Agreement and at the effective time of
the Merger, each share of common stock of the Company, par value
$0.001 per share, will be cancelled and converted into the right
to receive $25.60 in cash without interest. All stock options
and other equity incentive awards issued under the Company's
equity incentive plans that are outstanding immediately prior to
the effective time of the Merger will vest and will be canceled
pursuant to the Merger in exchange for cash.
The proposed Merger is expected to close in the third quarter of
2007.
In addition, pursuant to the Merger Agreement and under certain
circumstances, the Company must pay a termination fee of
$20,000,000.
On May 9, 2007 the Board of Directors of Inter-Tel received an
unsolicited letter from a financial buyer proposing to acquire
Inter-Tel at an all-cash price of $26.50 per share subject to,
among other things, confirmatory due diligence.
On May 16, 2007 the Company disclosed that it was Vector and
announced that it had received another letter in which Vector
expressed an interest in acquiring Inter-Tel for an all-cash
price of $26.50 per share, subject to confirmatory due
diligence, financing, and other conditions.
Allegations
The complaint states that the company has failed to properly
shop the company and that the company's financial advisors are
conflicted. It stated that on April 12, 2006 the Company
engaged UBS Securities LLC to serve as Inter-Tel's financial
advisor in connection with the Merger. The Board of Directors
retained UBS to advise them in connection with a potential sale,
merger or other similar transaction involving Inter-Tel and to
provide other general financial advisory services reasonably
requested by Inter-Tel. No information has been provided
concerning any of the fees generated by the Merger or UBS'
financial advisory services.
It also claims that interests of inter-tel's directors and
management diverge from that of the company and its shareholders
in the merger.
The plaintiff seeks an order ordering that this action may be
maintained as a class action and certifying plaintiff as the
Class representative. It also asks the court, among others, for
an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining the defendants
and all those acting in concert with them from consummating the
transaction.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Robert B. Carey, Esq.
Leonard W. Aragon, Esq.
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
2425 East Camelback Road, Suite 650
Phoenix, Arizona 85016
- and -
Joshua Lifshitz
Bull & Lifshitz LLP
18 East 41 Street
New York, New York 10017
MERCK FROSST: Sued Over "Inadequate" Fosamax Drug Warning
---------------------------------------------------------
Montreal-based drugmaker Merck Frosst Canada is facing a class
action in Ontario Superior Court in Toronto over its Fosamax
drug for treatment of osteoporosis and Paget's disease, The Star
Phoenix reports.
The company is accused of failing to adequately warn the public
that the medication has been associated with a higher risk of
developing a painful condition involving decay of the jaw bone.
The suit was filed by the law firm of Siskinds LLP on behalf of
a 45-year old woaman in Kanata, Ontario. The plaintiff took
Fosamax between October 2001 and August 2004, and was diagnosed
with osteonecrosis of the jaw, or jaw death, last year.
Fosamax has been approved in Canada since 1995. In August, the
company issued a revised label for the drug.
Siskinds LLP said the suit involves a significant amount, but
could not at this point put a value on the potential liability
of the number of people involved.
The class action also names Merck & Co., the New Jersey parent
company of Merck Frosst.
Siskinds LLP on the Net: http://www.siskinds.com/
Merck Fross on the Net: http://www.merckfrosst.ca/
NORTEL NETWORKS: Insurers to Pay $229M of Global Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Corp. reached an agreement with the lead
plaintiffs in the Global Class Action Settlement, related
insurance and corporate governance matters including the
company's insurers agreeing to pay $229 million in cash towards
the settlement and Nortel agreeing with their insurers to
certain indemnification obligations.
Subsequent to Nortel's announcement on Feb. 15, 2001, in which
it provided revised guidance for its financial performance for
the 2001 fiscal year and the first quarter of 2001, Nortel and
certain of its then-current officers and directors were named as
defendants in several purported class action lawsuits in the
U.S. and Canada (Nortel I Class Actions).
These lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, where all the U.S. lawsuits were
consolidated, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Supreme
Court of British Columbia and the Quebec Superior Court were
filed on behalf of shareholders who acquired securities of
Nortel during certain periods between October 24, 2000 and
February 15, 2001.
The lawsuits allege, among other things, violations of U.S.
federal and Canadian provincial securities laws. These matters
also have been the subject of review by Canadian and U.S.
securities regulatory authorities.
Subsequent to Nortel's announcement on March 10, 2004, in which
it indicated it was likely that Nortel would need to revise its
previously announced unaudited results for the year ended Dec.
31, 2003, and the results reported in certain of its quarterly
reports in 2003, and to restate its previously filed financial
results for one or more earlier periods, Nortel and certain of
its then-current and former officers and directors were named as
defendants in several purported class action lawsuits in the
U.S. and Canada (Nortel II Class Actions).
These lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and
the Quebec Superior Court were filed on behalf of shareholders
who acquired securities of Nortel during certain periods between
Feb. 16, 2001 and July 28, 2004.
The lawsuits allege, among other things, violations of U.S.
federal and Canadian provincial securities laws, negligence,
misrepresentations, oppressive conduct, insider trading and
violations of Canadian corporation and competition laws in
connection with certain of Nortel's financial results.
These matters are also the subject of investigations by Canadian
and U.S. securities regulatory and criminal investigative
authorities.
During 2006, Nortel entered into agreements to settle all of the
Nortel I Class Actions and Nortel II Class Actions (Global Class
Action Settlement) concurrently, except one related Canadian
action.
In December 2006 and January 2007, the Global Class Action
Settlement was approved by the courts in New York, Ontario,
British Columbia and Quebec, and became effective on March 20,
2007.
Under the terms of the Global Class Action Settlement, Nortel
will pay $575 million in cash and issue approximately 62,866,775
common shares of Nortel (representing approximately 14.5% of
Nortel's common shares outstanding as of Feb. 7, 2006, the date
an agreement in principle was reached with the plaintiffs in the
U.S. class action lawsuits), reflecting Nortel's 1 for 10 common
share consolidation on Dec. 1, 2006 to the plaintiffs.
Nortel will also contribute to the plaintiffs one-half of any
recovery from its ongoing litigation against certain of its
former senior officers who were terminated for cause in 2004,
which seeks the return of payments made to them in 2003 under
Nortel's bonus plan.
The total settlement amount will include all plaintiffs' court-
approved attorneys' fees. On June 1, 2006, Nortel placed $575
million plus accrued interest of $5 million into escrow and has
classified this amount as restricted cash.
As a result of the Global Class Action Settlement, Nortel
established a litigation reserve and recorded a charge in the
amount of $2,474 million to its full-year 2005 financial
results, $575 million of which related to the cash portion of
the Global Class Action Settlement, while $1,899 million related
to the equity component.
The equity component of the litigation reserve has been adjusted
each quarter since February 2006 to reflect the fair value of
the common shares issuable.
The effective date of the Global Class Action Settlement was
March 20, 2007, on which date the number of shares issuable in
connection with the equity component was fixed.
As such, a final measurement date occurred for the equity
component of the settlement and the value of the shares issuable
was fixed at their fair value of $1,626 million on the effective
date. No further fair value adjustments will be made beyond
March 20, 2007.
Nortel recorded a shareholder litigation settlement recovery of
$54 million during the first quarter of 2007 as a result of a
final fair value adjustment for the equity component of the
Global Class Action Settlement made on March 20, 2007.
In addition, the litigation reserve related to the equity
component was reclassified to additional paid-in capital within
shareholders' equity on March 20, 2007 as the number of issuable
shares was fixed on that date. The reclassified amount will be
further reclassified to common shares as the shares are issued.
At the effective date of March 20, 2007, Nortel also removed the
restricted cash and corresponding litigation reserve related to
the cash portion of the settlement as the funds are controlled
by the escrow agents and Nortel's obligation has been
extinguished.
The administration of the settlement will be a complex and
lengthy process. The claims administrator will submit lists of
approved claims to the appropriate courts for approval.
Once all the courts have approved the claims, the process of
distributing cash and share certificates to claimants will
begin. It is not possible to predict how long the process will
take, although it is expected to take many months.
Nortel's insurers have agreed to pay $229 million in cash toward
the settlement and Nortel has agreed to certain indemnification
obligations with its insurers.
Nortel believes that it is unlikely that these indemnification
obligations will materially increase its total cash payment
obligations under the Global Class Action Settlement.
Under the terms of the Global Class Action Settlement, Nortel
also agreed to certain corporate governance enhancements. These
enhancements include the codification of certain of Nortel's
current governance practices in the written mandate for its
Board of Directors and the inclusion in its Statement of
Corporate Governance Practices contained in Nortel's annual
proxy circular and proxy statement of disclosure regarding
certain other governance practices.
In August 2006, Nortel reached a separate agreement in principle
to settle a class action in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice that is not covered by the Global Class Action
Settlement, subject to court approval (Ontario Settlement).
In February 2007, the court approved the Ontario Settlement.
The settlement did not have a material impact on Nortel's
financial condition and an accrued liability was recorded in the
third quarter of 2006.
Nortel Networks Corp. -- http://www.nortel.com/-- is a global
supplier of networking solutions serving both service provider
and enterprise customers. Nortel's networking solutions include
hardware and software products and services. It designs,
develops, engineers, markets, sells, supplies, licenses,
installs, services and supports these networking solutions
worldwide. Nortel operates in four segments: Mobility and
Converged Core Networks (MCCN), Enterprise Solutions (ES), Metro
Ethernet Networks (MEN) and Global Services (GS).
PUBLIC SERVICE: Faces N.J. Complaint Over Transition Bond Charge
----------------------------------------------------------------
Public Service Electric and Gas Co. (PSE&G) and PSE&G Transition
Funding, LLC, were served on April 23, 2007 with a copy of a
purported class-action complaint challenging the constitutional
validity of certain provisions of New Jersey's Competition Act,
seeking injunctive relief against continued collection from
PSE&G's electric customers of the transition bond charge (TBC)
of PSE&G Transition Funding, as well as recovery of TBC amounts
previously collected.
Notice of the filing of the Complaint was also provided to New
Jersey's Attorney General. Under New Jersey law, the
Competition Act, enacted in 1999, is presumed constitutional,
according to PSE&G's May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.
Public Service Electric and Gas Co. -- http://www.pseg.com/--
is a regulated utility delivering gas and electric service
safely and reliably to areas of New Jersey in which about 70% of
the population reside.
RANDOM HOUSE: N.Y. Judge Okays Settlement of Suit Over Memoir
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge approved a $2.35 million settlement of a class
action filed against James Frey, the author who admitted
embellishing details of his memoir "A Million Little Pieces."
U.S. District Judge Richard J. Holwell set a Nov. 2 date to
consider final approval of the deal reached last year. Claims
would have to be filed by Oct. 1.
Under the settlement, Random House, the publisher of the book,
will notify potential class members of a refund available under
the settlement. Once the Web site is in place, readers will be
able to obtain claim forms at http://www.amlpsettlement.com.
They can also call (866)459-3651.
Readers who bought the book on or before Jan. 26, would be
eligible for a refund of the full suggested retail price,
regardless of discounts or sales. Mr. Frey and Random House
acknowledged that the author had made up parts of the book on
that day.
Readers who have bought hardcover will receive $23.95; those who
bought paperback will receive $14.95 (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 11, 2006). To receive refunds readers have to submit a
receipt or other proof of purchase: for the hardcover, page 163;
for the paperback, the front cover. They also will need to sign
a sworn statement that they bought the book because they thought
it was a memoir.
RJ REYNOLDS: Fla. Court Mulls Partial Stay on Mandate in "Engle"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal has yet to rule on a
motion for a partial stay of a lower court mandate pending
further appellate review of the class action, "Engle v. R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.," according to the Reynolds American,
Inc.'s May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.
Trial began in July 1998 in the case -- filed in May 1994, and
pending in Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida -- in which
a class consisting of Florida residents, or their survivors,
alleges diseases or medical conditions caused by their alleged
"addiction" to cigarettes.
The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, seeking actual
damages and punitive damages in excess of $100 billion each and
the creation of a medical fund to compensate individuals for
future health-care costs.
On July 7, 1999, the jury found against RJR Tobacco, B&W and the
other cigarette-manufacturer defendants in the initial phase,
which included common issues related to certain elements of
liability, general causation and a potential award of, or
entitlement to, punitive damages.
The second phase of the trial, which consisted of the claims of
three of the named class representatives, began on Nov. 1, 1999.
On April 7, 2000, the jury returned a verdict against all the
defendants.
It awarded plaintiff Mary Farnan $2.85 million, the estate of
plaintiff Angie Della Vecchia $4.023 million and plaintiff Frank
Amodeo $5.831 million.
The trial court also ordered the jury in the second phase of the
trial to determine punitive damages, if any, on a class-wide
basis.
On July 14, 2000, the jury returned a punitive damages verdict
in favor of the "Florida class" of approximately $145 billion
against all the defendants, with approximately $36.3 billion and
$17.6 billion being assigned to RJR Tobacco and B&W,
respectively.
On Nov. 6, 2000, the trial judge denied all post-trial motions
and entered judgment. In November 2000, RJR Tobacco and B&W
posted appeal bonds in the amount of $100 million each, the
maximum amount required pursuant to a Florida bond cap statute
enacted on May 9, 2000, and intended to apply to the Engle case,
and initiated the appeals process.
On May 21, 2003, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal
reversed the trial court's final judgment and remanded the case
to the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court with instructions to
decertify the class. The class appealed, and the Florida
Supreme Court accepted the case on May 12, 2004.
On July 6, 2006, the court issued its decision. The court
affirmed the dismissal of the punitive damages award and
decertified the class, on a going-forward basis.
The court preserved a number of class-wide findings from Phase I
of the trial, including that cigarettes can cause certain
diseases, that nicotine is addictive and that defendants placed
defective and unreasonably dangerous cigarettes on the market,
and authorized class members to avail themselves of those
findings in individual lawsuits, provided they commence those
lawsuits within one year of the date the court's decision
becomes final.
The court specified that the class be confined to those Florida
residents who developed smoking-related illnesses that
"manifested" themselves on or before Nov. 21, 1996.
In addition, the court reinstated the compensatory damages
awards of $2.85 million to Mary Farnan and $4.023 million to
Angie Della Vecchia, but ruled that the claims of Frank Amodeo
were barred by the statute of limitations.
Finally, the court reversed the Third District Court of Appeal's
2003 ruling that class counsel's improper statements during
trial required reversal.
On Aug. 7, 2006, RJR Tobacco and the other defendants filed a
rehearing motion arguing, among other things, that the findings
from the Engle trial are not sufficiently specific to serve as
the basis for further proceedings and that the Florida Supreme
Court's application of the class-action rule denies defendants
due process.
On the same day, the plaintiffs also filed a rehearing motion
arguing that some smokers who became sick after Nov. 21, 1996,
and who are therefore not class members, should nevertheless
have the statute of limitations tolled since they may have
refrained from filing suit earlier in the mistaken belief that
they were Engle class members.
On Dec. 21, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court withdrew its July 6,
2006, decision and issued a revised opinion, in which it set
aside the jury's findings of a conspiracy to misrepresent and
clarified that the future plaintiffs could rely on the Engle
jury's findings on express warranty.
The court issued its mandate on Jan. 11, 2007, which begins the
one-year period for individual class members to file lawsuits.
On Jan. 12, 2007, the defendants asked the Third District Court
of Appeal to rule on certain outstanding issues that were raised
by the parties, but not addressed by the court in its prior
rulings. That motion was denied on Feb. 21, 2007.
On Feb. 23, 2007, the defendants asked the Florida Third
District Court of Appeal for a partial stay of the mandate
pending further appellate review.
Five class members filed a motion to intervene along with a
complaint for damages on March 7, 2007. On April 17, 2007, RJR
Tobacco's motions for discharge of RJR Tobacco's and B&W's civil
supersedeas bonds related to the punitive damages award were
granted.
RJR Tobacco received $92 million of the cash collateral on April
23, 2007, and expects to receive the remaining $8 million of
cash collateral later in the second quarter.
Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is primarily a holding company. The company's wholly owned
operating subsidiaries include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Santa
Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc., Lane, Limited (Lane) and R. J.
Reynolds Global Products, Inc.
RJ REYNOLDS: "Huntsberry" Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Review Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in "Huntsberry v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.," a case
filed back in April 2004 in Superior Court, King County,
Washington, are appealing the ruling of the Washington Supreme
Court wherein it denied a petition for review of their case.
The case was brought against RJR Tobacco, seeking, among other
things, actual economic damages in the form of a refund of
amounts paid by each plaintiff and the class to purchase RJR
Tobacco's "light" cigarettes, or in the alternative, diminished
value as proven at trial, treble damages in an amount up to
$10,000 per plaintiff and class member, and attorneys' fees.
The sum of all actual damages, treble damages, and attorneys'
fees is less than $75,000 per plaintiff or class member. The
plaintiffs allege that the defendants have misrepresented and
continue to misrepresent the tar and nicotine delivery and other
qualities of "light" cigarettes, deliberately design and market
"light" cigarettes to cause smokers to believe the cigarettes
are less hazardous to smokers and deliver lower tar and nicotine
than regular cigarettes.
The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied on
April 21, 2006.
On Sept. 18, 2006, the plaintiffs' motion for discretionary
review was denied.
The plaintiffs' motion to modify the ruling with the Washington
Court of Appeals was denied on Dec. 18, 2006.
On March 1, 2007, the plaintiffs' petition for review with the
Washington Supreme Court was denied.
The plaintiffs filed a motion to modify the ruling of the
Washington Supreme Court on April 2, 2007. The motion is set
for consideration without argument on June 5, 2007, according to
the Reynolds American, Inc.'s May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.
Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is primarily a holding company. The company's wholly owned
operating subsidiaries include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Santa
Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc., Lane, Limited (Lane) and R. J.
Reynolds Global Products, Inc.
RJ REYNOLDS: July 10 Hearing Set on "Schwab" Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit scheduled a
July 10, 2007 hearing on oral arguments in an appeal regarding
the certification of a class in the case, "Schwab [McLaughlin]
v. Philip Morris USA, Inc."
The case is a nationwide "lights" class action that was filed on
May 11, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., and
Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc. (B&W), as well as other
tobacco manufacturers.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and treble damages against each
defendant, jointly and severally, for all losses and damages
suffered as a result of the defendants' alleged wrong-doings
complained of, including pre- and post-judgment interest, costs
and disbursements of the action, including attorneys' fees and
experts' fees and costs.
They also seek temporary, preliminary and permanent equitable
and/or injunctive relief, including enjoining future wrong-
doing, rescission, disgorgement of defendants' ill-gotten funds,
and attaching, impounding or imposing a constructive trust upon
or otherwise restricting the proceeds of defendants' ill-gotten
funds.
Plaintiffs brought the case pursuant to Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), challenging the practices of
the defendants in connection with the manufacturing, marketing,
advertising, promotion, distribution and sale of cigarettes that
were labeled as "lights" or "light."
On Sept. 25, 2006, the court issued its decision, among other
things, granting class certification and setting a trial date of
Jan. 22, 2007.
On Oct. 6, 2006, the defendants filed a petition asking the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to review the class
certification ruling.
The defendants also filed a motion to stay the case pending
resolution of the proposed interlocutory appeal. On Nov. 16,
2006, the Second Circuit granted the defendants' motions to stay
the district court proceedings and for review of the class
certification ruling.
Briefing is complete. Oral argument is scheduled for July 10,
2007, according to the Reynolds American, Inc.'s May 4, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
The suit is "McLaughlin v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:04-cv-01945-JBW-SMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York under Judge Jack B. Weinstein
with referral to Judge Steven M. Gold.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-687-1980
Fax: 212-687-1980 (fax)
E-mail: lnussbaum@kaplanfox.com
William P. Butterfield, Esq.
Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran
1050 30th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: 202-337-8000
Fax: 202-337-8090
- and -
Paul T. Gallagher, Esq.
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Ave., N.W. West Tower, Suite 500
Washington, D.C., DC 20005
Phone: 202-408-4600
Fax: 202-408-4699
Representing the defendants is:
Mark A. Belasic, Esq.
Jones Day
901 Lakeside Avenue, North Point
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (216) 586-3939
Fax: 216-579-0212
E-mail: mabelasic@jonesday.com
RJ REYNOLDS: Mo. Court Grants Reassignment Motion in "Collora"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri granted a motion
seeking for the reassignment to a single general division of the
"lights" class-action case, "Collora v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co.," which was filed back in May 2000.
On Dec. 31, 2003, a judge certified a class defined as "all
persons who purchased Defendants' Camel Lights, Camel Special
Lights, Salem Lights and Winston Lights cigarettes in Missouri
for personal consumption between the first date the Defendants
placed their Camel Lights, Camel Special Lights, Salem Lights
and Winston Lights cigarettes into the stream of commerce
through the date of this Order."
The plaintiffs seek mandatory injunctive relief sufficient to
inform consumers of, among other things, the fact that "light"
smoke is actually more mutagenic than regular tobacco smoke.
The plaintiffs claim that while promoting "low" tar and nicotine
deliveries, the defendants designed light cigarettes to deliver
higher levels of tar and nicotine than could be measured by the
standard testing apparatus, therefore achieving support for the
claim that the cigarettes were "light" and that they contained
"low tar and nicotine."
On Dec. 22, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reassign
"Collora" to a single general division. On April 9, 2007, the
Missouri Circuit Court granted the plaintiffs' motion, according
to the Reynolds American, Inc.'s May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.
Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is primarily a holding company. The company's wholly owned
operating subsidiaries include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Santa
Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc., Lane, Limited (Lane) and R. J.
Reynolds Global Products, Inc.
RJ REYNOLDS: No Date Set to Hear Oral Arguments in "Brown" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court has yet to schedule oral arguments
with regards to a review of a ruling decertifying the class in
"Brown v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.," which names R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., (RJR Tobacco), as a defendant.
The suit was filed in June 1997 in the Superior Court, San Diego
County, California.
On April 11, 2001, the court granted in part the plaintiffs'
motion for certification of a class composed of residents of
California who smoked at least one of the defendants' cigarettes
from June 10, 1993 through April 23, 2001, and who were exposed
to the defendants' marketing and advertising activities in
California.
The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc., (B&W), seeking to recover restitution,
disgorgement of profits and other equitable relief under
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.
and Section 17500 et seq.
Certification was granted as to the plaintiffs' claims that the
defendants violated Section 17200 of the California Business and
Professions Code pertaining to unfair competition.
The court, however, refused to certify the class under the
California Legal Remedies Act and on the plaintiffs' common law
claims.
Following the November 2004 passage of a proposition in
California that changed the law regarding cases of this nature,
the defendants filed a motion to decertify the class.
On March 7, 2005, the court granted the defendants' motion. The
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 19, 2005. On Sept.
5, 2006, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judge's
order decertifying the class.
On Oct. 13, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a petition for review
with the California Supreme Court. The petition for review was
granted on Nov. 1, 2006.
Briefing is complete. Oral argument has not been scheduled,
according to the Reynolds American, Inc.'s May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is primarily a holding company. The company's wholly owned
operating subsidiaries include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Santa
Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc., Lane, Limited (Lane) and R. J.
Reynolds Global Products, Inc.
RJ REYNOLDS: Seeks Nixing of Suit Over Cigar's Nicotine Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (RJR), and Reynolds American, Inc.,
along with several cigarette makers, are seeking the dismissal
of the class action, "Espinosa v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00231," which is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Initially, a class-action complaint was filed against certain
cigarette manufacturers and their parents, including RAI and RJR
Tobacco, in December 2006, in the Circuit Court for Cook County,
Illinois.
In the state court case, "Espinosa v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.,"
the plaintiffs brought it on behalf of any and all persons
similarly situated throughout Illinois and/or the U.S. who, from
1996 to the date of judgment, purchased, not for resale, the
defendants' cigarettes.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants increased the nicotine in
their cigarette products and failed to inform the plaintiff
and/or the class.
They seek to recover an amount not less than the purchase price
of defendants' cigarette products, plus interest, attorneys'
fees and costs and such other relief as the court deems
appropriate.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and a
motion for preservation of documents on Dec. 11, 2006. On Dec.
12, 2006, the defendants removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Plaintiffs' motion to remand was denied on March 26, 2007. The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on March 30,
2007, according to the Reynolds American, Inc.'s May 4, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
The suit is "Espinosa v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-00231," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Larry Daniel Drury, Esq.
Larry D. Drury, Ltd.
205 West Randolph, Suite 1430
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 346-7950
E-mail: ldrurylaw@aol.com
Representing the company is:
Gabriel Hernandez Scannapieco, Esq.
Jones Day
77 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 269-4301
E-mail: gscannapieco@jonesday.com
RJ REYNOLDS: Seeks Summary Judgment for "Harper" Lawsuit in La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (RJR Tobacco) filed a motion for
summary judgment based on federal preemption with regards to the
case, "Harper v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co."
The case is a Louisiana state court "lights" class action that
the company removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana on May 2003.
On Jan. 27, 2005, the judge denied the plaintiffs' motions to
remand the case back to state court.
In general, plaintiffs are claiming economic losses for the
purchase of RJR Tobacco's "light" cigarette brands in Louisiana.
The plaintiffs appealed the denial of the motion, and on July
17, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
affirmed the district court's order.
On June 17, 2005, RJR Tobacco filed a motion for summary
judgment based on federal preemption, according to the Reynolds
American, Inc.'s May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2007.
The suit is "Harper, et al v. R J Reynolds Tobacco, et al., Case
No. 2:03-cv-01064-JTT-APW," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Louisiana under Judge James T. Trimble,
Jr. with referral to Judge Alonzo P. Wilson.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Kenneth E. Badon, Esq.
Badon Law Firm
P.O. Box 3307
Lake Charles, LA 70602
Phone: 337-433-4608
Fax: 337-439-3444
Clayton Arthur Larsh Davis, Esq.
Lundy & Davis
P.O. Box 3010
Lake Charles, LA 70602-3010
Phone: 337-439-0707
Fax: 337-439-1029
E-mail: cdavis@lundydavis.com
- and -
James B. Doyle, Sr.
Law Offices of James B. Doyle
P.O. Box 2142
Lake Charles, LA 70602-2142
Phone: 337-474-9989
Fax: 337-478-9979
E-mail: jbdoyle@doylelawoffices.com
Representing the defendant is:
Joseph R. Pousson, Jr., Esq.
Plauche' Smith & Nieset
P.O. Box 1705
Lake Charles, LA 70602
Phone: 337-436-0522
Fax: 337-436-9637
E-mail: jrpousson@psnlaw.com
RJ REYNOLDS: Sept. Hearing Set for "Cleary" Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 6, 2007 hearing is set on a motion seeking for class-
action status to the case, "Cleary v. Philip Morris, Inc.,"
which names R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (RJR Tobacco) as one of
the defendants.
The case was filed back in June 1998 in Circuit Court, Cook
County, Illinois. It was brought against the major U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc.
Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on
Dec. 21, 2001.
The action is brought on behalf of persons who have allegedly
been injured by:
-- the defendants' purported conspiracy pursuant to which
defendants concealed material facts regarding the
addictive nature of nicotine
-- the defendants' alleged acts of targeting its
advertising and marketing to minors, and
-- the defendants' claimed breach of the public right to
defendants' compliance with the laws prohibiting the
distribution of cigarettes to minors.
Plaintiffs request that the defendants be required to disgorge
all profits unjustly received through its sale of cigarettes to
plaintiffs and the class, which in no event will be greater than
$75,000 each, inclusive of punitive damages, interest and costs.
On April 8, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. On Feb. 3, 2006, a hearing on the defendants' motion
to dismiss occurred.
The court dismissed two counts (public nuisance and unjust
enrichment) in the case on March 27, 2006.
On April 5, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider
certain of the findings in the court's ruling on defendants'
motion to dismiss the two counts in the plaintiffs' second
amended complaint.
The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was granted in part
and denied in part. The court stated that reconsideration would
not revive the plaintiffs' public nuisance and unjust enrichment
claims because the plaintiffs still cannot allege a special or
separate harm.
The court merely reconsidered certain components of its
analysis, but did not modify its original decision. On July 11,
2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. A
hearing is scheduled for Sept. 6, 2007.
Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is primarily a holding company. The company's wholly owned
operating subsidiaries include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Santa
Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc., Lane, Limited (Lane) and R. J.
Reynolds Global Products, Inc.
RJ REYNOLDS: "Young" Secondhand Smoke Case in La. Still Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action, "Young v. American Tobacco Co.,
Inc." which was filed in November 1997, and pending in Circuit
Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co. (RJR), a subsidiary of Reynolds American, Inc. remains
stayed, according to Reynolds American, Inc.'s May 4, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
The case is an environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) or secondhand
smoke class action against U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including RJR and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., and parent
companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, on
behalf of all residents of Louisiana who, though not themselves
cigarette smokers, have been exposed to secondhand smoke from
cigarettes which were manufactured by the defendants, and who
suffer injury as a result of that exposure.
The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages. On Oct. 13, 2004, the trial
court stayed this case pending the outcome of the appeal in
"Scott v. American Tobacco Co., Inc."
Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is primarily a holding company. The company's wholly owned
operating subsidiaries include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Santa
Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc., Lane, Limited (Lane) and R. J.
Reynolds Global Products, Inc.
RYLAND GROUP: Settles Securities Fraud Litigation in N.D. Tex.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryland Group, Inc. reached a settlement for the securities fraud
class action filed against the company in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, 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.
On Jan. 15, 2004, a securities class action was filed against
the company and two of its officers. Generally, the action
alleged violations of the federal securities laws in connection
with the disclosure by the Company of new home sales for the
fourth quarter of 2003.
The complaint charges Ryland Group and certain of its officers
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
Between Oct. 22, 2003 and Jan. 7, 2004, the defendants issued a
series of material misrepresentations to the market concerning
the company's financial results.
More specifically, the defendants' statements during the class
period were materially false and misleading because they failed
to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others:
-- that the Texas market (and particularly Dallas) was in
a freefall;
-- that Texas buyers were proving highly resistant to the
entry level homes that Ryland Group was offering; and
-- that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that
offerings of "move up" properties would be better
received in that market, but that Ryland Group was not
in a position to offer these types of properties.
The complaint further alleges that on Jan. 8, 2004, Ryland Group
shocked the market by announcing that new orders for the fourth
quarter had decreased 8.9%, largely due to an astounding 33%
decline in Texas orders.
Indeed, Ryland Group sold only 344 new homes in that quarter, as
contrasted with sales of 770 new units in the third quarter of
2003.
According to the complaint, the development stood in stark
contrast to the positive statements issued during the Class
Period by defendants.
Ryland Group stock dived $10.16, to $72.89 per share, after
closing at $83.05 per share on Jan. 7, 2003 on heavy trading
volume.
In March 2007, the company and its officers agreed to a
settlement with the plaintiffs. A settlement fund of $1.2
million will be created, the company will fund a portion of
which and the remaining portion funded by the insurer.
All expenses of the settlement, including the costs of notice to
the class and any attorneys' fees awarded to the plaintiff's
counsel by the court, will be paid out of the settlement fund.
The net amount remaining in the settlement fund will be
distributed to those members of the class who suffered an actual
loss as a result of the price decline that occurred on Jan. 8,
2004.
The parties are in the process of preparing a definitive
settlement agreement. The settlement will not be effective
unless and until it is approved by the court after notice to the
class and a hearing.
The suit is "TDH Partners LLP v. Ryland Group Inc. et al., Case
No. 3:04-cv-00073," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas under Judge Jane J. Boyle.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
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
Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
Hoeffner & Bilek
1000 Louisiana St., Suite 1302
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: 713/227-7720
Fax: 713/227-9404
E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com
- and -
Leonard A. Epstein, Esq.
Newman Davenport & Epstein
700 N. Pearl St., Suite 1650 LB 314
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214/754-0025
Fax: 214/754-0936
E-mail: leonep@flash.net
Representing the defendants is:
James R. Nelson, Esq.
DLA Piper US LLP
1717 Main St., Suite 4600
Dallas, TX 75201-4605
Phone: 214/743-4512
Fax: 214/743-4545
E-mail: jr.nelson@dlapiper.com
UNUM GROUP: Motion to Remand N.J. Suit to Florida Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of New Jersey has yet to rule on a motion to
remand to a Florida state court the suit, "Palm Tree Computers
Systems, Inc. v. ACE USA, et al." which names the Unum Group as
defendant.
The company is a defendant in the action, which was originally
filed in the Florida state Circuit Court on Feb. 16, 2005.
The complaint is a putative class action and alleges violations
of the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act of Florida and
other states, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.
The allegations are brought against numerous broker
organizations and insurers and assert the company and its
subsidiaries engaged in illegal and unethical contingent
commission arrangements.
The case was removed to federal court and, on Oct. 20, 2005, the
case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey multidistrict litigation.
A motion to remand the case to the state court in Florida
remains pending, but no further action has been taken in the
case subsequent to the transfer, according to the company's May
7, 2007 form 10-Q filing for the quarter ended March 31, 2007.
XINHUA FINANCE: KGS Names New Defendants in Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC has filed suit against Xinhua Finance
Media Ltd. (XFML), in the United States District Court for the
District of New York, on behalf of shareholders who purchased
shares of the Company in connection with its $300 million
Initial Public Offering on or about March 9, 2007 or thereafter
in the open market.
KGS has expanded the lawsuit's defendants beyond the Company and
its underwriters, to now include additional officers and
directors, including Graham Earnshaw, Aloysius T. Lawn, John H.
Springer, Zhoa Li, Long Qiu Yun and Zhu Shan. Xinhua, the
underwriters and these additional defendants are charged with
including false and misleading statements in the Registration
Statement and Proxy-Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO
in direct violation of the Securities Act of 1933.
The Complaint alleges that the Company's former CFO at the time
of its IPO, Shelly Singhal, was simultaneously an investment
banker and stockbroker in charge of Bedrock Securities. Since
April 2006, prior to the IPO, Bedrock has been under a cease-
and-desist order for violating SEC regulations. Moreover,
reports have also surfaced that Singhal has been fighting a
private civil racketeering lawsuit in California and has
previously been a major investor in AremisSoft and ACLN,
companies previously sued for fraud by the SEC.
In the wake of this news, on Friday, May 18, 2007, Xinhua Proxy
advisor Glass Lewis & Co.'s head of research, Lynn E. Turner,
resigned. Previously, Ms. Turner was a respected accounting
regulator with the SEC. Prior to this news, on May 16, 2007,
Glass Lewis' managing director and research editor, Jonathan
Weil, resigned. Mr. Weil was previously with the Wall Street
Journal, better known as the first reporter to blow the whistle
on Enron. Xinhua shares have fallen from a high of $12.75 per
share on May 7, 2007 to an intraday low of $8.31 on May 21,
2007.
Lead plaintiff filing deadline is July 23, 2007.
For more information, contact:
Lewis Kahn, Esq.
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100
E-mail: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com
* Slater & Gordon is First Law Firm in the World to Go Public
-------------------------------------------------------------
Australian class action law firm Slater & Gordon made its debut
on the Australian Stock Exchange on May 21, making it the first
law firm in the world to float on a public market.
Slater & Gordon stock traded at AU$1 (42p) in the opening
trading and, closed at U$1.40 (58p).
The IPO is the first for a law firm following new legislation in
Australia that allows firms to raise funds on the public markets
and allows non-lawyers to invest.
Slater & Gordon -- http://www.slatergordon.com.au/-- is an
Australian law firm specialising in personal injury, commercial,
family and asbestos-related law. William Slater and Hugh Gordon
founded Slater & Gordon the company in 1935 as a law firm
focused on servicing the needs of unions and their members, in
particular in the area of workers compensation. It now has 400
staff located in 21 offices throughout Australia.
* Air France Pays More Than $13M Fighting Price-Fixing Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Air France-KLM ran up U.S. legal costs of EUR10 million ($13.4
million) in the past financial year fighting class actions
against the group for its role in alleged price-fixing of
freight rates in its air cargo operations but has yet to make
any provision for these costs in its accounts, the Financial
Times reports.
Philippe Calavia, Air France-KLM chief financial officer, said
the legal bills "may last another couple of years" at the same
level. "It is very expensive," he said.
Air France-KLM, the world's biggest airline measured by
turnover, along with several other leading international
carriers, has been under investigation for 18 months by the U.S.
justice department, the European Commission and other national
cartel authorities, for alleged illegal price-fixing of long-
haul fuel surcharges on air cargo.
Two weeks ago, British Airways, one of the other airlines under
investigation, admitted that there had been "breaches" in its
compliance with competition policy and said it was making a
provision of GBP350 million ($694 million) to settle eventual
fines and claims by competition authorities and in civil
litigation.
Mr. Calavia said that the French carrier had not made provision
in its accounts for the year to the end of March in response to
the cartel probe, because it had not yet received sufficient
guidance from the European competition authority on the scale of
the challenge it was facing.
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
June 4-5, 2007
MEALEY'S BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Fairmont Miramar Hotel, Santa Monica
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 5, 2007
MEALEY'S MTBE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Fairmont Miramar Hotel, Santa Monica, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 5-6, 2007
CONSUMER CREDIT LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
June 6, 2007
MEALEY'S GLOBAL WARMING LITIGATION CONFERENCE: ARE YOU READY?
Mealeys Seminars
The Hotel Monaco, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 6-7, 2007
DISABILITY INSURANCE CLAIMS & LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Boston
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
June 7-8, 2007
MEALEY'S ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Intercontinental Hotel, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 18-19, 2007
OBSTETRIC MALPRACTICE
American Conference Institute
Philadephia
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
June 21-22, 2007
ASBESTOS CLAIMS
American Conference Institute
Las Vegas
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
July 11-13, 2007
Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in Federal and State
Courts CN009
ALI-ABA
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
July 18-19, 2007
DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE ON TRIAL
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
October 11-12, 2007
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
November 8-9, 2007
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT
SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE
ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
February 14-16, 2008
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
San Diego
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
May 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 1-31, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 1-31, 2007
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 1-31, 2007
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 1-31, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
June 5, 2007
RELEASES IN THE SETTLEMENT OF MULTI-PARTY TORT CASES: LEGAL,
TACTICAL, AND ETHICAL ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
June 19, 2007
MEALEY'S PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TELECONFERENCE SERIES:
NAVIGATING A FEDERAL MDL
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 20, 2007
MEALEY'S ETHICS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: ETHICS AND SETTLEMENTS-
THE ETHICAL PITFALLS IN MASS TORT AND CLASS ACTION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 20, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: FOOD LIABILITY
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 21, 2007
LEXISNEXIS TELECONFERENCE: IDENTIFYING AND PROVING INFRINGEMENT
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 26, 2007
MEALEY'S TOXIC TORT TELECONFERENCE SERIES: NATURAL RESOURCE
DAMAGES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 27, 2007
MEALEY'S INSURANCE TELECONFERENCE SERIES: REINSURANCE
ARBITRATION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
August 9, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE SERIES: INSURANCE ISSUES REGARDING
SUBPRIME MORTGAGES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org
________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
New Securities Fraud Cases
NETLIST INC: KGS Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC has filed the first class action
lawsuit against Netlist, Inc. (NLST), in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company in
connection with its Initial Public Offering on or about November
30, 2006, or who purchased shares thereafter in the open market.
No class has yet been certified in this action.
Netlist, its underwriters, and certain of the Company's officers
and directors are charged with including, or allowing the
inclusion of, materially false and misleading statements in the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the IPO, in violation of the Securities Act of 1933.
The Complaint charges defendants with failing to conduct an
adequate due diligence investigation into the Company prior to
the IPO. In particular, the Complaint charges defendants with
failing to reveal to shareholders, at the time of the IPO, that
Netlist was already witnessing adverse effects of an
oversaturated computer memory market. This, despite the fact
that defendants knew or should have known that the Company had
no strategy to allow it to minimize adverse market conditions,
contrary to prior representations in road-show presentations to
analysts and investors prior to the IPO, and media interviews
immediately following the IPO.
On April 16, 2007, after the close of trading, the truth about
Netlist was revealed, including the fact that the problems which
existed at the time of the IPO would result in extremely
disappointing results for the first quarter of 2007. Defendants
admitted that the Company was performing well below guidance,
that earnings would be almost 75% lower than previous forecast,
and that expenses were higher than expected. This, after
defendants and other Company insiders liquidated over $6.5625
million of their personally held shares in connection with the
IPO.
As a result of this news, Netlist's stock price collapsed the
following trading day. Shares of Netlist fell almost 30% in a
single trading day on huge volume of 1.783 million shares --
falling to approximately $4.29 per share -- and amounting to a
decline of almost 40% compared to the November 2006 IPO Offering
price, and a decline of almost 70% compared to Netlist's trading
period high of more than $12.00 per share.
Lead plaintiff filing deadline is July 27, 2007.
For more information, contact:
Partner Lewis Kahn
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
Lewis Kahn Toll free 1-866-467-1400
Ext. 100 lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com
OPTIONABLE INC: Abraham Fruchter & Twersky Files Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of investors of Optionable Inc. (OTCBB: OPBL) who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Optionable between
September 27, 2005 and May 14, 2007, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint charges Optionable and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Exchange Act. The Company
provides services for the brokerage of energy derivatives to
brokerage firms, financial institutions, energy traders, and
hedge funds in the United States. The complaint alleges that
throughout the Company's history, Optionable understated its
dependence on BMO Financial Group, also known as Bank of
Montreal, and that Optionable improperly concealed material
losses incurred by BMO in connection with trades BMO transacted
through Optionable.
On April 27, 2007, when BMO announced that its mark-to-market
commodity trading losses were estimated to be between $350
million and $450 million (pre-tax) in the second quarter of
2007, shares of the Company's stock fell $1.45 per share, or
almost 21%, to close at $5.56 per share after investors
recognized that BMO accounted for at least 24% of the Company's
revenues in 2006.
Shares of the Company's stock continued to decline as investors
learned that:
(i) NYMEX Holdings, Inc. had resigned its board
representation of Optionable;
(ii) Kevin Cassidy had resigned as Chairman and CEO; and
(iii) Cassidy served time in prison for a felony conviction
on credit card fraud in 1997 and for income tax evasion
in 1993.
Prior to disclosing these adverse facts, Cassidy, Edward J.
O'Connor, President of Optionable, and Mark Nordlicht, Chairman
of the Board and a founder of Optionable, were able to sell
10,758,886 shares of their personally held Optionable stock to
NYMEX for gross proceeds in excess of $28 million.
Plaintiff is represented by Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP,
which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions.
Claims filing deadline is July 10, 2007.
For more information, contact:
Jack Fruchter, Esq.
Larry Levit, Esq.
Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
New York, New York 10119
Phone: (212) 279-5050
Fax: (212) 279-3655
STERLING FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm filed a class action lawsuit on behalf
purchasers of Sterling Financial Corporation (Lancaster, PA)
(SLFI) common stock during the period from April 27, 2004
through May 24, 2007, inclusive.
The Complaint charges that certain present and former officers,
employees, and directors of Sterling's wholly owned subsidiaries
Equipment Finance LLC and Bank of Lancaster County, N.A.
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, by engaging in a scheme to defraud the investing public
and to artificially inflate the stock price of Sterling.
The Complaint alleges that certain officers and employees of EFI
engaged in a sophisticated loan scheme to cause Sterling to
issue materially false and misleading financial information to
the investing public in order to artificially inflate Sterling's
stock price in violation of federal securities laws.
The Complaint asserts that on April 30, 2007 Sterling announced
that it expected to restate its previously issued financial
statements for FY 2004 through and including FY 2006 in
connection with certain accounting irregularities at its EFI
wholly owned subsidiary. The Company announced that EFI's CEO
and President had voluntarily relinquished his positions. This
adverse announcement caused to Company's stock to fall nearly
19%.
After market-close on May 24, 2007, Sterling announced
preliminary results from its ongoing investigation. According
to the Complaint, the investigation revealed evidence of a
sophisticated loan scheme, orchestrated deliberately by certain
EFI officers and employees over an extended period of time to
conceal credit delinquencies, falsify financing contracts and
related documents, and subvert established internal controls
established by Sterling. As a result the Company announced it
terminated 5 employees at EFI and expected to take a cumulative
after-tax charge of $145 million to $160 million to the
Company's FY 2006 results.
Further announcements on May 24, 2007 revealed the Company was
halting its dividend. This announcement caused the Company's
stock to fall nearly 40% on May 25, 2007.
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York as case no. 07-CV-4108.
For more information, contact:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
Phone: (212) 686-1060
Tel: (917) 797-4425 (Weekends)
Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.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 * * *