/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070723.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 23, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 143 Headlines A-BOB’S GLASS: Faces Suit Over Alleged Labor Code Violations ABRA AUTO: Minn. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations ALPHARMA INC: N.J. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces FLSA Violations Suit in N.Y. Court APARTMENT INVESTMENT: Ill. Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations AROTECH CORP: Faces Mich., N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuits AWP LITIGATION: Court Finds Liability Against Three Drug Firms BEVERAGE COMPANIES: Settle Suit Over Benzene Content of Drinks CAREMASTER MEDICAL: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Ga. CASTLEBERRY’S FOOD: Recalls Chili Products Possibly Contaminated CIB MARINE: Wis. Court Mulls Motions in Securities Fraud Suit CNSHO INC: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Ohio CONTINENTAL PAINTING: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Fla. CVS/PHARMACY: Recalls Playskool Sippy Cups Posing Choking Hazard FIBERNET TELECOM: Three Firms Sue in W.Va. Over Service Failure GAMING PARTNERS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Nevada HASBRO INC: Recalls Toy Ovens After Reports of Finger Burns HONDA MOTOR: Faces Various Lawsuits Over New Motor Vehicles LOGAN'S ROADHOUSE: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Tenn. MEADE INSTRUMENTS: Settles “Grecian” Securities Fraud Lawsuit MICROSOFT CORP: Calif. Residents Sue Over 360 Console Defects NVIDIA CORP: Faces Coordinated GPU Antitrust Suits in Calif. OPPENHEIMER & CO: Faces Labor Violations Suit in Florida ORANGE 21: Calif. Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement PC MALL: Arbitrator Yet to Approve Settlement with Workers PROGRESSIVE GAMING: Nev. Court Mulls Final OK for $2.8M Deal REABLE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Suits Over Blackstone Capital Deal SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES: Faces California Labor Code Violations Suit THIRD FEDERAL: Obtains Judgment in $27M “Greenspan” Lawsuit VERIZON WIRELESS: Settles “Junk Fax” Lawsuit in La. for $6M ********* A-BOB’S GLASS: Faces Suit Over Alleged Labor Code Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ A-Bob's Glass Services, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed July 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Named plaintiff Oswaldo Ochoa alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit is “Ochoa v. A-Bob's Glass Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:07-cv- 60989-JIC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge James I. Cohn, with referral to Judge Lurana S. Snow. Representing plaintiffs is: Stacey Hope Cohen Shavitz Law Group 1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561-447-8888 Fax: 447-8831 E-mail: cohen@shavitzlaw.com ABRA AUTO: Minn. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations ------------------------------------------------------ ABRA Auto Body and Glass, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Named plaintiffs Thomas Hale and Justin Schreckenstein allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit is “Hale et al. v. ABRA Auto Body and Glass, Inc., Case No. 0:07-cv- 03367-PAM-JSM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, under Judge Paul A. Magnuson, with referral to Judge Janie S. Mayeron. Representing plaintiffs are: Charles V. Firth Clayton D. Halunen Christopher D. Jozwiak Halunen & Associates 220 S 6th St Ste 2000 Mpls, MN 55402 Phone: 612-605-4098 Fax: 612-605-4099 E-mail: firth@halunenlaw.com or halunen@halunenlaw.com or jozwiak@halunenlaw.com ALPHARMA INC: N.J. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations -------------------------------------------------------- Alpharma Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed July 10 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Named plaintiff Tito Jackson alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit is “Jackson v. Alpharma, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-03250-GEB-JJH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, under Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr., with referral to Judge John J. Hughes. Representing plaintiffs is: Arthur L. Bugay Galfund Berger, LLP 1818 Market Street, Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 665-6810 E-mail: abugay@galgandberger.com AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Faces FLSA Violations Suit in N.Y. Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed July 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Named plaintiff Alison L. Beatty alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The suit is “Beatty v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv- 02855-NGG-WDW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, with referral to Judge William D. Wall. Representing plaintiffs is: Kathryn J. Webber Thompson Wigdor & Gilly LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5720 New York, NY 10118 Phone: 212-239-9292 Fax: 212-239-9001 E-mail: kwebber@twglawyers.com APARTMENT INVESTMENT: Ill. Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Apartment Investment and Management Co., Aimco Properties LP and NHP Management Inc. are facing a class-action complaint filed July 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Employees allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit is “Bishop et al. v. Vensons et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-03952,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Ruben Castillo. Representing plaintiffs is: Charles Edgar Tompkins, IV Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC 1100 New Ork Avenue, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: ctompkins@cmht.com AROTECH CORP: Faces Mich., N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------- Arotech Corp. and certain of its officers and directors face several purported securities fraud class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, according to the company’s May 17, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. Although the company has yet to be served with a copy of the complaint, it apparently seeks class status on behalf of all persons who purchased our securities between March 31, 2005 and Nov. 14, 2005 and alleges violations by the company and certain of its officers and directors of Sections 10(b) and 20 (a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, primarily related to the company's acquisition of Armour of America in 2005 and certain public statements made by the company with respect to its business and prospects during the period. The complaint also alleges that the company did not have adequate systems of internal operational or financial controls, and that the company’s financial statements and reports were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and U.S. Securities and Exchange rules. It seeks an unspecified amount of damages. Two similar cases were apparently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in May 2007. The suit is "Kuehn v. Arotech Corp. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-11249-LPZ-VMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff with referral to Judge Virginia M. Morgan. Representing the plaintiffs are: Patrick E. Cafferty, Esq. Cafferty Faucher (Ann Arbor) 101 N. Main Street, Suite 450 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Phone: 734-769-2144 E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyfaucher.com AWP LITIGATION: Court Finds Liability Against Three Drug Firms -------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Patti Saris in Boston ordered AstraZeneca Plc, Bristol- Myers Squibb Co. and Schering-Plough Corp. to pay damages for overcharging on some drugs paid for by Medicare. The ruling comes in a class action involving the pricing of pharmaceutical drugs reimbursed by Medicate, private insurers, and patients making coinsurance payments based on average wholesale price between 1991 and 2001. For the most part, the drugs at issue are administered by doctors for the treatment of cancer and other serious ailments. Class plaintiffs have alleged that four pharmaceutical companies: * AztraZeneca, * Schering-Plough, * Bristol-Myers Squibb, and * Johnson & Johnson have engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93 A by grossly inflating the AWPs of certain specified drugs, which are published in commercial publications, and that these inflated prices have caused damages to Medicare, third-party payors, and patients making percentage co-payments. Plaintiffs’ core claim is that the published AWPs for defendants' drugs are fictitious because they do not reflect the true average sales price to providers, like doctors and pharmacists. Because AWP is the predominant benchmark for reimbursement by the government and third-party payors, plaintiffs contend that manufacturers grossly inflate each drug's AWP to create a "spread" between the doctor's real acquisition cost and the fictitious published AWP, and that drug manufacturers then "market the spread" in order to obtain market share over a competitor's drug. The June 21 ruling affects two of the three originally named classes: (1) Class 2: third-party payor Medigap Supplemental Insurance Class The class is composed of: all third-party payors who made reimbursements for drugs purchased in Massachusetts, or who made reimbursements for drugs and have their principal place of business in Massachusetts, based on AWP for a Medicare Part B covered Subject Drug that was manufactured by: AstraZeneca * AstraZeneca PLC, * Zeneca Inc., * AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, and * AstraZeneca U.S. the BMS Group * Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., * Oncology Therapeutics Network Corp., and * Apothecon Inc., * SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, the Johnson & Johnson Group * Johnson & Johnson, * Centocor, Inc., * Ortho Biotech, * McNeil-PPC Inc., and * Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, LP), or the Schering Plough Group * Schering-Plough Corp., and * Warrick Pharmaceuticals Corp. (2) Class 3: Consumer and Third-party Payor class for Medicare Part B Drugs Outside of the Medicare context The class is composed of: all natural persons who made or who incurred an obligation enforceable at the time of judgment to make a payment for purchases in Massachusetts, all third-party payors who made reimbursements based on contracts expressly using AWP as a pricing standard for purchases in Massachusetts, and all third-party payors who made reimbursements based on contracts expressly using AWP as a pricing standard and have their principal place of business in Massachusetts, for a physician-administered Subject Drug that was manufactured by: AstraZeneca * AstraZeneca PLC, * Zeneca Inc., * AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, and * AstraZeneca U.S. the BMS Group * Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., * Oncology Therapeutics Network Corp., and * Apothecon Inc., * SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline, the Johnson & Johnson Group * Johnson & Johnson, * Centocor, Inc., * Ortho Biotech, * McNeil-PPC Inc., and * Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, LP), or the Schering Plough Group * Schering-Plough Corp., and * Warrick Pharmaceuticals Corp. Included within this class are natural persons who paid coinsurance (i.e., co- payments proportional to the reimbursed amount) for a Subject Drug purchased in Massachusetts, where such coinsurance was based upon use of AWP as a pricing standard. Excluded from this class are any payments or reimbursements for generic drugs that are based on MAC and not AWP. The court found that: -- AstraZeneca acted unfairly and deceptively by causing the publication of false and inflated average wholesale prices for Zoladex which grossly exceeded actual physician acquisition costs by as much as 169% and then marketing these mega-spreads between the physician's acquisition costs and the AWP reimbursement benchmark in order to induce doctors to buy its drug based on the drug's profitability. The spread on Zoladex exceeded 100% from 1998 forward. The court finds damages of $4,451,426 to class 3. The court needs additional information to calculate damages for class 2. -- Bristol-Myers Squibb acted unfairly and deceptively by causing the publication of false and inflated average wholesale prices for five drugs, which grossly exceeded actual physician acquisition costs and then marketing these mega-spreads between the physician's acquisition costs and the AWP reimbursement benchmark in order to induce doctors and other providers to buy its drugs based on the drug's profitability. -- The court found liability for Bristol-Myers Squibb's drugs Taxol (with spreads as high as 500%), Vepesid injectable (with spreads as high as 1,000%), Cytoxan injectable (with spreads as high as 676%), Blenoxane (with spreads as high as 199%), and Rubex (with spreads as high as 438%). The court finds damages of $183,454 to Class 3. The court needs additional information to calculate damages for class 2. -- Schering-Plough's subsidiary Warrick acted unfairly and deceptively by causing the publication of false and inflated average wholesale prices for its generic drug albuterol sulfate, which had mega-spreads between 100% and 800% throughout the class period. The court needs additional information to calculate damages for class 2. -- While Johnson & Johnson's conduct was at times troubling, it did not rise to the level of egregious misconduct actionable under the Massachusetts Chapter 93A, because its spreads never substantially exceeded the range of what was generally expected by the industry and government. -- The statute of limitations bars all claims by classes 2 and 3 before December 1997. When congress passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, it put third-party payors on inquiry notice that many AWPs were not true prices paid by physicians and pharmacies to acquire the pharmaceuticals. The class period ends in 2003 when Congress passed the Medicate statute setting new reimbursement benchmarks. Thus, classes 2 and 3 will include payments from December 1997 to December 2003. -- The court rejects plaintiffs' position with respect to the Medicare Class 2 that defendants acted unfairly and deceptively by having any spread between the published AWP and the true average of prices charged to providers, because the government and industry were well aware by the late 1990's that there was a 20 to 25 percent spread. This discrepancy was tolerated, in part, because of the need to cross-subsidize physician administration costs. Thus, while the spread violated the plain meaning of the Medicare statute, defendants' actions cannot be said to be unfair or deceptive within the meaning of Chapter 93A so long as the spread stayed generally within that expected range. -- Damages to class 2 cannot be determined from the current trial record. The court needs a breakdown of the damages for each drug, using the 30% threshold, for each of the years from 1998 until 2003 for which liability has been found. Defendants may provide their market shares in Massachusetts so that the court can apportion the damage amount on that basis. If necessary, the court will hold a damages phase of the bench trial. Court Orders The court orders dismissal of the Johnson & Johnson defendants. The court orders dismissal of Schering Plough, not including Warrick. The court finds liability for: (a) AstraZeneca: Zoladex (1998-2002), (b) BMS: Taxol (2001-2002); Vepeside (1998-1999, 2001- 2002); Cytoxan (1998-2002); Blenoxane (1998-2002); Rubex (1998-2000, 2002); (c) Warrick: albuterol sulfate (1998-1999) By Aug. 1, 2007, the court orders plaintiffs to provide calculations of the Class 2 damages consistent with these findings. By Aug. 1, 2007, in order to apportion damages for Class 2, the court allows BMS to provide market share data in Massachusetts for Taxol, Vepesid, Cytoxan, and Rubex for the years 1998-2002. By Aug. 1, 2007, in order to apportion damages for Class 2, the court allows Warrick to provide market share data for Warrick's generic albuterol sulfate for the years 1998-1999. The suit is "In Re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL No. 1456, Civil Action No. 01-12257-PBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. BEVERAGE COMPANIES: Settle Suit Over Benzene Content of Drinks -------------------------------------------------------------- Five beverage companies settled a class action alleging their soft drinks contained levels of cancer-causing benzene that exceeded safe drinking water standards, reports say. The companies are: * Polar Beverages Inc., * PepsiCo Inc., * Sunny Delight, * Rockstar, and * Shasta As part of the settlement, the parties agreed to release the following statement: "Although the FDA and other food safety authorities have reiterated that there is no known health risk to consumers from the benzene levels found in soft drinks, the settling beverage companies agreed to reformulate, or had already reformulated, the following products to minimize or eliminate the possibility that these products can form benzene." The products are Wild Cherry Pepsi; Sunny Delight Citrus Punch, Baja Orange and Baja Berry; Diet Rockstar; Polar Diet Orange Dry; and Shasta Caffeine Free Regular Orange. Polar has agreed to replace Diet Orange Dry purchases made by consumers before July 2006. The class action against Polar was filed by Boston preschool teacher Timothy Newell and Tallahassee, Fla., emergency-room nurse Lisbeth Gordon, in April 2006. Representing the plaintiffs is: Andrew Rainer, Esq. McRoberts, Roberts & Rainer, L.L.P. 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-722-822 CAREMASTER MEDICAL: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Ga. -------------------------------------------------------------- Professional Registered Nursing Pool, d/b/a Caremaster Medical Services, is facing a class-action complaint filed on July 2 in Newnan, Ga. federal court. Plaintiffs Kathy Baxter and Wanda Eskew allege Labor Code violations. The suit is “Baxter et al. v. Professional Registered Nursing Pool, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-00056-JTC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Jack T. Camp. Representing the plaintiffs are: Kevin E. Hooks, Esq. Kevin E. Hooks & Associates, LLC 41 Park of Commerce Way Suite 107 Savannah, GA 31405 Phone: 912-233-8105 Fax: 912-233-8101 E-mail: khooks@kehlaw.com Benjamin H. Terry, Esq. Law Offices of Benjamin H. Terry, PC 312 Crosstown Rd. Suite 355 Peachtree City, GA 30269 Phone: 770-394-1502 E-mail: btlawyer@mindspring.com CASTLEBERRY’S FOOD: Recalls Chili Products Possibly Contaminated ---------------------------------------------------------------- Castleberry's Food Co. is voluntarily recalling the products: -- Castleberry's Hot Dog Chili Sauce, 10 oz can (UPC 3030000101), -- Austex Hot Dog Chili Sauce, 10 oz can (UPC 3030099533), -- Kroger Hot Dog Chili Sauce, 10 oz can (UPC 1111083942), -- Morton House Corned Beef Hash, 15 oz can (UPC 7526665830), -- Cattle Drive Chili with Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 3030001515), -- Southern Home Corned Beef Hash, 15 oz can (UPC 0788015360), -- Meijer Corned Beef Hash, 15 oz can (UPC 4125095229), -- Castleberry's Chili with Beans, 15 oz can (UPC 3030001015), -- Castleberry's Barbecue Pork, 10 oz can (UPC 3030000402) and -- Bunker Hill Chili No Beans, 10 oz can (UPC 7526604112) Castleberry's is working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to investigate possible contamination of these products with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium which can cause botulism, a life-threatening illness. Botulism can cause the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation may also be common symptoms. People experiencing these problems should seek immediate medical attention. This recall only affects the products listed above with a "best by" date of APR30 2009 through MAY22 2009. The "best by" date can be found either on the top or bottom of the can. Consumers who have any of these products should discard them. Consumers should not use these products even if they do not look or smell spoiled. Consumers may return the label to the location where the product was purchased for a full refund. Castleberry's was notified by the FDA of four potential cases of botulism involving individuals who ate these products. "We are taking this precautionary measure to ensure the safety of our consumers," said Steve Mavity, SVP Technical Services/Quality Assurance for Castleberry's. "We will continue to work closely with the FDA, USDA, and CDC." Consumers with any questions or concerns about this recall should go to Castleberry's website: http://www.castleberrys.comor call Castleberry's consumer hotline at 1-888-203-8446. CIB MARINE: Wis. Court Mulls Motions in Securities Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin has yet to rule on motions in a securities fraud suit against CIB Marine Bancshares, Inc. On June 3, 2005, a first consolidated complaint was filed by Dennis Lewis, a shareholder, and other alleged shareholders of CIB Marine in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Urbana Division, against CIB Marine, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and KPMG, LLP. The filing consolidated two actions that had been filed in January 2005: -- one filed by Mr. Lewis in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Urbana Division; and -- another filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division by Elaine Sollberger, a purported shareholder, whose claims were voluntarily dismissed in connection with the consolidation, and have not been reasserted in the consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs sought to maintain the action as a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased common stock of CIB Marine between April 12, 1999, and April 12, 2004, claiming violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by CIB Marine and other defendants and liability of certain defendants other than CIB Marine and KPMG under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as controlling persons. The substance of the complaint is that the financial condition of CIB Marine was overstated with the result that members of the purported class acquired their CIB Marine stock at inflated prices. Plaintiffs seek money damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The federal court in Urbana, Illinois granted the motion of CIB Marine and several other defendants to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where the action is now pending. All defendants moved to dismiss the action on various grounds. On Oct. 12, 2006 the court denied CIB Marine's motion to dismiss, granted in part the motions to dismiss filed by the individual defendants and granted the motion to dismiss filed by KPMG. CIB Marine and the individual defendants have filed answers to the pending complaint denying any liability. An additional person has moved to intervene as a plaintiff in the action. On Nov. 10, 2006, plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint as to KPMG, which KPMG has stated it intends to move to dismiss. As a result of the filing of the initial motions to dismiss, ala discovery in this action was stayed automatically. Plaintiffs have moved to vacate that stay of discovery, which all defendants opposed based on KPMG's pending motion to dismiss the further amended complaint filed by plaintiffs against KPMG. The court has not set a date to rule on the motion to vacate the stay of discovery. On July 16, 2007, CIB Marine and the individual defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, a motion for reconsideration of the ruling on the motion to dismiss, insofar as that motion was denied, in light of a recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the pleading requirements applicable to this case. The suit is "Lewis et al. v. Straka et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-01008-LA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, under Judge Lynn Adelman. Representing the plaintiffs are: Kristi L. Browne, Esq. The Patterson Law Firm, 33 N LaSalle St. Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312-223-1699 - and - James W. Gardner, Esq. Douglas J. Phebus, Esq. Lawton & Cates 10 E Doty St. – Ste. 400, P.O. Box 2965 Madison, WI 53701-2965 Phone: 608-282-6200 Representing the company are: Allan Horwich, Esq. John C. Martin, Esq. Schiff Hardin LLP Sears Tower, 233 S Wacker Dr - Ste 6600 Chicago, IL 60606-6473 Phone: 312-258-5618 Fax: 312-258-5700 E-mail: ahorwich@schiffhardin.com jmartin@schiffhardin.com CNSHO INC: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Ohio ------------------------------------------------------- CNSHO Inc., dba Glencare Center, is facing a class action filed in Cincinnati Federal Court. Plaintiffs Brenda Philon, Gordon Hocker, James Gray, Robin Gaunt, Rodney Noble, YoRanda McCombs, and Brenda Philon allege violation of 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit is “Hocker et al. v. CHSHO, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-00536-MRB,” filed in Ohio Southern District Court under Judge Michael R. Barrett. Representing plaintiffs are: Deborah R Grayson, Esq. Meizlish & Grayson 830 Main Street Suite 999 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-345-4700 Fax: 513-345-4703 E-mail: drgrayson@fuse.net Bruce H. Meizlish, Esq. Meizlish & Grayson 830 Main Street Suite 999 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-345-4700 E-mail: brucelaw@fuse.net CONTINENTAL PAINTING: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Fla. --------------------------------------------------------------- Continental Painting Corp. is facing a class action filed July 10 in Fort Pierce, Fla., Federal Court. Plaintiffs Josue Velasquez and Oscar Ramirez allege Labor Code violations. The suit is “Velasquez et al. v. Continental Painting Corp. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-14206-DLG,” filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Donald L. Graham with referral to Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr. Representing the plaintiffs is: Keith Michael Stern, Esq. Shavitz Law Group 1515 S Federal Highway Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561-447-8888 Fax: 447-8831 E-mail: kstern@shavitzlaw.com CVS/PHARMACY: Recalls Playskool Sippy Cups Posing Choking Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- CVS/pharmacy, of Woonsocket, Rhode Island, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 84,000 Playskool Toddler “NoSpill” sippy cups. The company said young children can chew through the plastic spout of the sippy cup, which can pose a choking hazard. The firm has received 36 reports of toddlers chewing through the plastic spout of the sippy cup, resulting in one choking incident and three near-choking incidents. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves the Playskool Toddler “NoSpill” Sippy Cup. The 8-ounce cup is clear plastic with red trim, red and yellow handles, and a yellow tip; blue trim, blue and green handles and a green tip; or purple trim, purple and aqua handles, and an aqua tip. The serial number of the recalled cups is 382814, which appears on the back of the packaging. These recalled “NoSpill” sippy cups were manufactured in China and are being sold by CVS stores nationwide from September 2006 through April 2007 for about $5. Pictures of the recalled “NoSpill” sippy cups: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07246a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07246b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07246c.jpg Consumers are advised to stop their children from using the cup immediately and return it to any CVS store for a refund, or throw the product away and bring a proof of purchase of the product to any CVS store for a refund. For additional information, contact CVS/pharmacy toll-free at (866) 434-0098 between 8:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, visit CVS/pharmacy’s Web site: http://www.cvs.com,or e-mail: playskoolinfo@cvs.com. FIBERNET TELECOM: Three Firms Sue in W.Va. Over Service Failure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Telecommunications company FiberNet Telecom Group Inc. is facing a lawsuit over the disruption of service to customers caused by a computer glitch in the company’s downtown office on July 10, Associated Press reports. The disruption was caused by a routing procesor, known as a DAX, that had a system failure and then failed to switch over to another DAX router as it was supposed to do, according to Dave Armentrout, FiberNet’s president and chief operations officer, reports Beth Gorczyca Ryan of the State Journal. Mr. Armentrout said he didn't know about the lawsuit. About 11,000 of FiberNet's 24,000 customers in West Virginia were unable to receive calls, make credit card transactions and send faxes for at least a day due to the technical failure. At least 500 limited video lottery machines at 50 to 60 of the state's approximately 2,000 locations were also affected. Those who filed the suit are Complete System Support Inc.; Neurological Case Management Associates LLC, a Charleston-based coordinator of rehabilitative services; and H.E. Gene Sigman, a South Charleston private investigator. The suit was filed by attorney Harry Deitzler in Wood County Circuit Court. The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, fraud and negligence, and seeks class- action status and unspecified punitive and compensatory damages. The company restored service starting early on July 11 to critical customers such as hospitals, 911 call centers and fire and police departments. To contact Mr. Deitzler: Harry G. Deitzler Wood County Judicial Bldg. Parkersburg, WV 26101 Phone: (304) 424-1776 GAMING PARTNERS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Nevada ------------------------------------------------------------ Gaming Partners International Corp. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada alleging violations of federal securities laws based on alleged misstatements and omissions by the company. The suit was filed on April 5, 2007 under the caption, “Natalie Gordon v. Gerard P. Charlier, Paul S. Dennis, Eric P. Endy, Alain Thieffry, Elisabeth Carrette, Robert J. Kelly, Charles R. Henry, Laura McAllister Cox and Gaming Partners International Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00448-RCJ-RJJ.” The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, and equitable relief against the Company, its directors and certain executive officers. The complaint was served on the Company on April 6, 2007, according to the company’s May 15, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The suit is “Gordon v. Charlier et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00448-RCJ-RJJ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under Judge Robert C. Jones with referral to Judge Robert J. Johnston Representing the plaintiff is: Mark Albright, Esq. Albright Stoddard Warnick & Albright 801 South Rancho Drive, Suite D-4 Las Vegas, NV 89106 Phone: (702) 384-7111 Fax: (702) 384-0605 (fax) E-mail: gma@albrightstoddard.com Representing the defendants is: Tami D. Cowden, Esq. Kummer Kaempfer Bonner Renshaw & Ferrario 3800 Howard Hughes Pkwy., 7th Floor Las Vegas, NV 89169 Phone: 702-792-7000 Fax: 702-796-7181 E-mail: tcowden@kkbrf.com HASBRO INC: Recalls Toy Ovens After Reports of Finger Burns ----------------------------------------------------------- Easy-Bake, a division of Hasbro, Inc., of Pawtucket, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1 million Easy- Bake Ovens. The company said young children can insert their hands into the oven’s front opening, and get their hands or fingers caught, posing entrapment and burn hazards. Since the repair program announced in February, Easy-Bake has received 249 reports of children getting their hands or fingers caught in the oven’s opening, including 77 reports of burns, 16 of which were reported as second and third-degree burns. Easy-Bake also received one report of a serious burn that required a partial finger amputation to a 5-year-old girl. The Easy-Bake Oven is a purple and pink plastic oven that resembles a kitchen range with four burners on top and a front-loading oven. “Easy Bake” is printed on the front of the oven. Model number 65805 and “Hasbro” are stamped into the plastic on the back of the oven. This recall includes all units with the retrofit kit. The Easy-Bake Oven is an electric toy and is not recommended for children under eight years of age. Ovens sold before May 2006 are not included in this recall. These recalled Easy-Bake Ovens were manufactured in China and are being sold at Toys “R” Us, Wal-Mart, Target, KB Toys and other retailers nationwide from May 2006 through July 2007 for about $25. Picture of recalled Easy-Bake Ovens: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07096.jpg Caregivers are advised to immediately take the recalled Easy-Bake Oven away from children, and call Easy-Bake for instructions on how to return the toy oven for a voucher towards the purchase of another Hasbro product. For additional information, contact Easy-Bake at (800) 601-8418 anytime, or visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.easybake.com HONDA MOTOR: Faces Various Lawsuits Over New Motor Vehicles ----------------------------------------------------------- Honda Motor Co., Ltd. faces 75 purported class actions on behalf of all purchasers of new motor vehicles in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2001, according to the company’s July 18, 2007 Form 20-F Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended March 31, 2007. Most of the suits have been filed in various state and federal courts against American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Honda Canada, Inc., General Motors, Ford, Daimler Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan, and Volkswagen and their Canadian affiliates, the National Automobile Dealers Association and the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association. Several of the state court actions also name Honda Motor Co., Ltd. as a defendant, as well as other Japanese and German parent companies of United States based subsidiaries. The federal court actions have been consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings in federal court in Maine and 37 California cases have been consolidated in the state court in San Francisco. Additionally, there are pending cases in seven other states. The nearly identical complaints allege that the manufacturer defendants, aided by the association defendants, conspired among themselves and with their dealers to prevent U.S. citizens from purchasing vehicles produced for the Canadian market and sold by dealers in Canada. The complaints allege that new vehicle prices in Canada are 10 to 30% lower than those in the U.S. and that preventing the sale of these vehicles to U.S. citizens resulted in the payment of supracompetitive prices by U.S. consumers. The complaints seek treble damages under the antitrust laws, but do not specify damages. The federal court has certified a class for injunctive relief and damages. Honda Motor Co., ltd. -- http://world.honda.com-- is a Japan-based company primarily engaged in the development, production and sale of various motor products. LOGAN'S ROADHOUSE: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Tenn. ------------------------------------------------------------ Logan's Roadhouse, Inc. is facing a class action filed July 10 in Jackson, Tenn., Federal Court. Plaintiff Gregory Burnett alleges Labor Code violations. The suit is “Burnett v. Logan's Roadhouse, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-01128-JDT-sta,” filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Mississippi under Judge James D. Todd with referral to Judge S. Thomas Anderson. Representing the plaintiffs is: Michael L. Russell, Esq. The Gilbert Law Firm P.O. Box 11357 2021 Greystone Park Jackson, TN 38308 Phone: 731-664-1340 E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com MEADE INSTRUMENTS: Settles “Grecian” Securities Fraud Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has yet to give final approval to a proposed settlement in the matter, “Grecian v. Meade Instruments Corp., et al., SA CV 06-908 AG (JTLx).” The complaint, filed in on Sept. 27, 2006, asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act in connection with the Company's option granting practices. Plaintiffs' counsel has advised the company that they intend to file an amended complaint that will also allege violations of Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act. On Nov. 27, 2006, the plaintiffs in "Grecian" filed a motion to be appointed lead plaintiffs. No other lead plaintiff motions have been filed. On Jan. 8, 2007, the court granted the named plaintiffs’ motion to be appointed lead plaintiffs. On Feb. 22, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, which asserts claims for violations of Section 10 (b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act in connection with the Company’s option granting practices. Under the current scheduling order, the plaintiffs can file a third amended complaint by June 1, 2007. The defendants do not believe that the third amended complaint will differ materially from its predecessor. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the third amended complaint was due July 16, 2007. On May 23, 2007, the parties in both this action participated in a mediation session. As a result of this, the parties reached a preliminary settlement understanding, which includes corporate governance reforms and an award to the class, from which plaintiffs’ attorneys fees and administrative costs would be paid. The parties are in the process of finalizing their settlement agreements. The settlement is conditioned upon court approval, according to the company’s July 16, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2007. The suit is "Bill Grecian et al. v. Meade Instruments Corp. et al., Case No. 8:06-cv-00908-AG-JTL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Andrew J. Guilford with referral to Judge Jennifer T. Lum. Representing the plaintiffs are: Timothy J. Burke, Esq. Stull Stull and Brody 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-209-2468 E-mail: service@ssbla.com - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. Finkelstein Thompson and Loughran 1050 Thirtieth Street Northwest, The Duvall Foundry Washington, DC 20007 Phone: 202-337-8000 MICROSOFT CORP: Calif. Residents Sue Over 360 Console Defects ------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corp. is facing a class-action complaint in California over defects in its Xbox 360, gamesindustry.biz reports. California residents Christine Moskowitz and Dan Wood filed the complaint alleging that the 360 console damaged their game disks, and that Microsoft refused to replace or pay for the damaged games. They are seeking at least $5 million in damages for all Xbox 360 owners affected by the alleged product defect. According to the report, Microsoft recently acknowledged a hardware defect with the Xbox 360 and extended the warranty period by three years. However, the company did not acknowledge that their consoles were scratching game disks and rendering them unusable. Gamesindustry.biz’s attempts to reach Microsoft for comment were unsuccessful. NVIDIA CORP: Faces Coordinated GPU Antitrust Suits in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ NVIDIA Corp. faces a coordinated antitrust litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California related to the pricing of graphics processing units and cards, according to the company’s May 24, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 29, 2007. As of May 14, 2007, 51 civil complaints have been filed against the company. The majority of the cases are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a number are pending in the Central District of California, and other cases are pending in several other federal courts. Although the complaints differ, they generally purport to assert federal and state antitrust claims based on alleged price fixing, market allocation, and other alleged anti-competitive agreements between the company and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., or as a result of its acquisition of ATI Technologies, Inc. Many of the cases also assert a variety of state law unfair competition or consumer protection claims on the same allegations and some cases assert unjust enrichment or other common law claims. The complaints are putative class actions alleging classes of direct and/or indirect purchasers of our graphic processing units and cards. The plaintiffs in a few of the Northern District of California actions filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation asking that all pending and subsequent cases be consolidated in one court for all pre-trial discovery and motion practice. A hearing on this motion took place on March 29, 2007. The JPML subsequently granted the motion and conditionally transferred all of the actions currently pending outside of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the that court for coordination of pretrial proceedings. NVIDIA Corp. -- http://www.nvidia.com-- is engaged in the provision of programmable graphics processor technologies. The Company has four product- line operating segments: graphics processing units, media and communications processors (MCPs), Handheld GPU Business, and Consumer Electronics Business. OPPENHEIMER & CO: Faces Labor Violations Suit in Florida -------------------------------------------------------- Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. is facing a class action filed July 9 in West Palm Beach Federal Court. Plaintiff Monte Resnick alleges Labor Code violations. The suit is “Resnick v. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Case No. 9:07-cv-80609-KAM” filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Kenneth A. Marra. Representing the plaintiff are: Hal B. Anderson, Esq. Shavitz Law Group 1515 S. Federal Hw. Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561-447-8888 Fax: 561-447-8831 E-mail: hal.anderson@shavitzlaw.com Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Shavitz Law Group 1515 S Federal Highway Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561-447-8888 Fax: 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com ORANGE 21: Calif. Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California approved a proposed settlement in the securities fraud class action against Orange 21, Inc. Initially, two stockholder class actions were filed. A consolidated complaint was later filed on Oct. 11, 2005, which purported to seek unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged class of persons who purchased the company's common stock pursuant to the registration statement filed in connection with the company's public offering of stock on Dec. 14, 2004. The complaint alleged that the company and its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose in the registration statement material information about plans to make a change in its European operations, its dealings with one of its customers and whether certain of its products infringe on the intellectual property rights of Oakley, Inc. The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the court granted on March 29, 2006. The court allowed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint only with respect to their claim about a European distribution change. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint dated April 7, 2006. On May 7, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss that amended complaint. On Jan. 16, 2007, the company announced that it had reached an agreement to settle this action, subject to court approval. Under the proposed settlement, $1.4 million was paid to the class of plaintiffs and for plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees from proceeds of our directors’ and officers’ insurance. The company will pay no amounts. The settlement received court approval on May 1, 2007, according to the company’s May 21, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. The first identified complaint is "Christine Pittman, et al. v. Orange 21, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Plaintiff firms in this or similar case: Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, (San Diego) 402 West Broadway San Diego, CA, 92101 Phone: 619.230.0800 Fax: 619.230.1874 E-mail: info@barrack.com Brodsky & Smith, LLC 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: 610.668.7987 Fax: 610.660.0450 E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com Federman & Sherwood 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: 405-235-1560 E-mail: wfederman@aol.com Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1250 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 877.493.5366 Fax: 619.238.5425 Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt, Suite 2525 Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: 410.332.0030 E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 206.749.5544 Fax: 206.749.9978 E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com Schatz & Nobel, P.C. 330 Main Street Hartford, CT 06106 Phone: 800.797.5499 Fax: 860.493.6290 E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com - and - Smith & Smith, LLP 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Phone: 215.638.4847 Fax: 215.638.4867 PC MALL: Arbitrator Yet to Approve Settlement with Workers ---------------------------------------------------------- An arbitrator has yet to grant final approval to a proposed settlement in the purported class action, "Nicole Atkins, et al. v. PC Mall, Inc., et al.," which was filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. The suit, filed on Feb. 3, 2006, alleges that the company improperly classified members of the putative class as "exempt" employees in violation of California's wage and hour and unfair business practice laws and seeks unpaid overtime, statutory penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, punitive damages, restitution and injunctive relief. The complaint sought unpaid overtime, statutory penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, punitive damages, restitution and injunctive relief. The potential class consisted of all of the current and former outbound business account executives that worked for the company's PC Mall Sales subsidiary in California from Feb. 3, 2002 through Jan. 31, 2007. On March 21, 2007, the company entered into a settlement agreement to settle the class action in accordance with a memorandum of understanding entered into on Jan. 31, 2007. Under the MOU and the settlement agreement, the company agreed to pay an aggregate of $1.5 million, which includes amounts to pay class members (shared proportionally among class members based on the number of verified class members and the amount of weeks worked during the class period), the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs, enhanced payments for class representative, and all funds needed for the administration of the settlement. The company has the right to nullify the settlement in the event that 5% or more of the class members have opted out of the settlement. In exchange for the settlement payment, the plaintiff and all class members who do not opt out of the settlement will release us and our affiliates for all asserted and unasserted claims, known and unknown, relating to the class action. As part of the settlement, the company continues to deny any liability or wrongdoing with respect to the claims made in the class action. While the settlement is subject to final court and arbitrator approval, the settlement agreement provides that it is intended to be binding and enforceable upon each of the parties. If the court and arbitrator approve the settlement, there will be a resulting judgment that dismisses the case with prejudice against all class members who do not opt out of the settlement. On March 28, 2007, the arbitrator granted the parties joint application for preliminary approval of the settlement and ordered that notices and claim forms be distributed to all class members. Class members had until May 29, 2007 to submit a claim form and participate in the settlement, or in the alternative to opt out of the settlement or object to the settlement terms. The arbitrator scheduled a hearing for June 12, 2007 to finally approve the settlement agreement. In the event the arbitrator finally approves the settlement, the parties thereafter anticipate seeking confirmation of the arbitrator’s ruling from the court. PC Mall, Inc. -- http://www.pcmall.com/-- is a direct marketer of computer hardware, software, peripherals, electronics, and other consumer products and services. It offers products and services to businesses, government and educational institutions, as well as individual consumers, through outbound and inbound telemarketing account executives, the Internet, direct marketing techniques, direct response catalogs, a direct sales force and three retail showrooms. PROGRESSIVE GAMING: Nev. Court Mulls Final OK for $2.8M Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has yet to give final approval to a settlement of a purported class action filed against Mikohn Gaming Corp., d/b/a Progressive Gaming International Corp. The case, “In re Mikohn Gaming Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:05-cv-01410-PMP-RJJ,” has been pending since November 2005. Under the terms of the settlement, the plaintiffs agree to dismiss with prejudice all claims against all defendants, including the company and its current and former officers and directors, in exchange for a payment in the amount of $2.8 million, virtually all of which is being provided pursuant to the company's insurance coverage. Substantially all of the company's costs related to the litigation will be reflected in the financial statements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. Also under the terms of the settlement, all defendants continue to deny any wrongdoing, and the parties agree that the settlement is not to be deemed an admission of the validity of any of the plaintiffs' claims. The settlement is contingent on the satisfaction of several conditions, including the completion by the plaintiffs of limited confirmatory discovery and approval by the court following notice to class members. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on March 7, 2007. Case Background Commencing on Nov. 28, 2005, four similar purported class action complaints were filed, naming the company and two of its officers as defendants, and seeking unspecified money damages under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaints all alleged that during a “class period” beginning in early 2005 and ending on Oct. 19, 2005, the defendants misled the Company’s investors concerning the prospective application of SFAS No. 153 to the Company’s financial statements for the third quarter of 2005. The complaints were consolidated into a single action, and plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on April 13, 2006, which also asserted claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The suit is “In re Mikohn Gaming Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:05- cv-01410-PMP-RJJ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under Judge Philip M. Pro with referral to Judge Robert J. Johnston. Representing the plaintiffs are: Mark Albright, Esq. Albright Stoddard Warnick & Albright 801 South Rancho Drive, Suite D-4 Las Vegas, NV 89106 Phone: (702) 384-7111 Fax: (702) 384-0605 E-mail: gma@albrightstoddard.com Ike L. Epstein, Esq. Beckley Singleton, Chtd. 530 Las Vegas Blvd. South Las Vegas, NV 89101 E-mail: ecf@beckleylaw.com Joni S. Jacobs, Esq. McCracken, Stemerman, Bowen & Holsberry 1630 S. Commerce St., Suite A-1 Las Vegas, NV 89102 E-mail: jjacobs@dcbwash.com - and - Maya Saxena, Esq. Saxena White, P.A. 5200 Town Center Circle, Tower One, Suite 600 Boca Raton, FL 33486 Phone: (954) 701-3965 Fax: (888) 782-3081 E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com REABLE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Suits Over Blackstone Capital Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- ReAble Therapeutics, Inc. (RTI) and its directors are facing purported class actions in Delaware and Texas over the acquisition of all of its outstanding shares of capital stock by Blackstone Capital Partners V L.P. The suits are: -- "Louis Dudas et al. v. Encore Medical Corporation et al.," filed on July 7, 2006 in the District Court of Travis County, Texas, 345th Judicial District; and -- "Robert Kemp et al. v. Alastair J. Clemow et al.," was filed on July 18, 2006 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County. Blackstone, Grand Slam Holdings, LLC, and Grand Slam Acquisition Corp. are also named as defendants in the Delaware action. The Texas Action is in preliminary stages and the company cannot presently predict the outcome of the lawsuit, although company believes it is without merit. The plaintiffs dismissed the Delaware Action in February 2007 with no liability accruing to RTI or the other defendants. The Texas Action complaint alleges that RTI’s directors breached their fiduciary duties by, inter alias, agreeing to an allegedly inadequate acquisition price in connection with the Merger. The complaint seeks, among other things, to rescind any actions that have already been taken to consummate the Merger, rescissory damages and the plaintiffs’ reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees and expert fees. ReAble Therapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.encoremed.com--(formerly Encore Medical Corp.) hopes that recovering customers will re-up for its reconstructive products. The company makes traction systems, electrotherapy and iontophoresis products, continuous passive motion devices, and other items used in orthopedic rehabilitation. SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES: Faces California Labor Code Violations Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Superior Industries International, Inc. was served in 2006 with a notice of a class alleging that certain employees at the company’s Van Nuys, California facility were denied rest and meal periods as required under the California Labor Code. Van Nuys, California-based Superior Industries International, Inc., -- http://www.superiorindustries.com-- incorporated in 1969, is engaged in the design and manufacture of aluminum road wheels for sale to original equipment manufacturers. The Company is a supplier of cast and forged aluminum wheels to the automobile and light truck manufacturers, with wheel manufacturing operations in the U.S., Mexico and Hungary. Customers in North America represent the principal market for its products, with approximately 14% of its products sold to international customers by its North American facilities, primarily delivered to their assembly operations in the United States. THIRD FEDERAL: Obtains Judgment in $27M “Greenspan” Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Cuyahoga County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas granted a motion for judgment filed by Third Federal Savings and Loan Association of Cleveland, a unit of TFS Financial Corp., in a purported class action over “document preparation fees.” The suit was filed on June 13, 2006 under the caption, “Gary A. Greenspan vs. Third Federal Savings and Loan.” The plaintiff has alleged that Third Federal Savings and Loan impermissibly charged customers a “document preparation fee” that included the cost of preparing legal documents relating to mortgage loans. It was alleged that the Association should disgorge the document preparation fees because the document preparation constituted the practice of law and was performed by employees who are not licensed attorneys in the State of Ohio. The plaintiff seeks a refund of all document preparation fees from June 13, 2000 to the present (approximately $26.9 million from June 13, 2000 through March 31, 2007), as well as prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs of the lawsuit. Third Federal Savings and Loan Association vigorously disputes these allegations and answered the plaintiff’s complaint with a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On April 26, 2007, the Court of Common Pleas issued a final order which granted the Association’s motion. The plaintiff had 30 days to appeal the final order of the Court of Common Pleas to the 8th District Court of Appeals (Cuyahoga County), according to the company’s May 15, 2007 Form 10-Q. TFS Financial Corp. -- http://www.thirdfederal.com/-- was established as a mid-tier stock holding company for Third Federal Savings and Loan Association of Cleveland, and the ownership of Third Federal Savings and Loan Association of Cleveland is its primary business activity. VERIZON WIRELESS: Settles “Junk Fax” Lawsuit in La. for $6M ------------------------------------------------------------ Verizon Wireless agreed to pay $6 million to settle a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against the cellular telephone company for sending more than 10,000 junk faxes to businesses in Louisiana, Florida and Alabama, The Associated Press reports. In 2003, Accounting Outsourcing, LLC filed the suit alleging the company broke federal and state bans on unsolicited faxed advertisements with ads for everything from specials on wireless service to cheap trips to Disney World. At issue is the decade-old Telephone Consumer Protection Act -- a federal law that prohibits advertisers from sending junk faxes without prior permission. It imposes fines of up to $1,500 per violation. The lawsuit compared the faxes to postage-due junk mail. It cites the cost of toner and paper, plus wear and tear on fax machines. The settlement calls for Verizon to pay $5,000 to Accounting Outsourcing and $625 each for 10,145 faxes. Lawyers who filed the class action will get $150,000 to cover some administrative costs but lawyers say they should get another $2.3 million in fees. "Substantial skill was required to navigate a successful conclusion" to the class-action suit, the first of its kind in Louisiana, the attorneys argue in a 22-page memorandum to Judge Brady. "This settlement is clearly superior to more years of expensive, uncertain and time-consuming litigation," plaintiffs’ lawyer Christopher Jones wrote. The Associated Press’ efforts to reach Verizon attorney Mike McKay and Accounting Outsourcing attorney Philip Bohrer, both of Baton Rouge, were unsuccessful. The suit is “Accounting Outsource v. Verizon Wireless, et al., Case No. 3:03- cv-00161-JJB-DLD,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, under Judge James J. Brady, with referral to Judge Docia L. Dalby. Representing plaintiffs are: Philip Bohrer Bohrer Law Firm 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Phone: 225-925-5297 Fax: 225-231-7000 E-mail: phil@bohrerlaw.com Christopher K. Jones John P. Wolff, III Keogh, Cox & Wilson 701 Main Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Phone: 225-383-3796 Fax: 225-343-9612 E-mail: cjones@kcwlaw.com or jwolff@kcwlaw.com - and - Keith D. Jones 8480 Bluebonnet Boulevard, Suite F Baton Rouge, LA 70810 Phone: 225-763-6900 Fax: 225-763-6001 E-mail: keith@kjones-law.com Representing defendants are: Michael W. McKay Michael D. Lutgring Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC - B.R. 2431 S. Acadian Thruway, Suite 290 Baton Rouge, LA 70808 Phone: 225-490-8911 or 225-490-8900 Fax: 225-490-8960 E-mail: mmckay@stonepigman.com or Mlutgring@stonepigman.com - and - Dean D. Hunt Baker & Hostetler 1000 Louisiana, Suite 2000 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-646-1346 Fax: 713-751-1717 E-mail: dhunt@bakerlaw.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 * * *