/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070802.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, August 2, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 151 Headlines 24 HOUR: Settles Lawsuit by Members Over Nonrefundable Dues 40/40 CLUB: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Work ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Oct. Hearing Set for N.Y. Suit Settlement CAR MAKERS: Faces Fla. Suit Over Defective Passenger Airbags COMCAST CORP: Court Refuses to Hear Appeal in “At Home” Case COMCAST CORP: Seeks Consolidation of Antitrust Lawsuits in Pa. CORNING INC: Hearing Date Yet to be Set in Ill. Pollution Suit EBAY INC: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Suit Over Paypal System EBAY INC: Subsidiary Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuit in Calif. FIRST VIRTUAL: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set Sept. 18 HALLIBURTON CO: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Texas HAMMONDVILLE PARTNERS: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Fla. HOLLINGER INC: Settles Securities Lawsuits in Canada, U.S. KANSAS CITY: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits Over Fuel Surcharges L-1 IDENTITY: Asks Mass. Court to Approve Securities Suit Deal LONG HAULERS: 11 Companies Accused of Fixing Fuel “Surcharge” MICROSOFT CORP: Ariz. Gov’t. Alleges Antitrust Law Violations MIDWEST AIR: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Nixed AirTran Offer NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Multiple Railroads Antitrust Lawsuits OLYMPIC SECURITY: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Oregon OMNICOM GROUP: Still Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y. PEPSICO INC: N.Y. Lawsuit Alleges “Aquafina” is Just Tap Water PHARMANET DEVELOPMENT: Settles N.J. Securities Suit for $28.5M RADIOSHACK CORP: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Tex. RADIOSHACK CORP: Awaits Approval of Ill. FLSA Suits Settlements SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued in Mich. Over “Defective” Camcorders UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Served with Lawsuit Over Merger Proposal WESTBROOK MOTORS: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Florida YOUTHLAND ACADEMY: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Ohio New Securities Fraud Cases AMERICAN HOME: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in N.Y. ********* 24 HOUR: Settles Lawsuit by Members Over Nonrefundable Dues ------------------------------------------------------------ The San Francisco Superior Court has approved a class action settlement between 24 Hour Fitness and approximately 1.8 million current and former monthly members concerning dues charged to members after they asked to cancel their contracts. The plaintiffs alleged that 24 Hour Fitness' cancellation notice provision and collection of nonrefundable last month's dues under the terms of contracts signed before 2006 violated California law. 24 Hour Fitness asserts that it has treated its members fairly and that its membership agreements are favorable to members and entirely lawful. Under the settlement approved by the Court, class members are entitled to choose settlement benefits, depending on their situation, including partial refunds, free personal training or membership upgrades, contract modifications, and transferable 30 and 45 day Club Access Passes. "The Court recognized that this settlement provides benefits to all class members and is a fair compromise," said Michael von Loewenfeldt of San Francisco's Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, the lawyers representing the Class. "24 Hour Fitness values its members and we strive to offer the best fitness experience in the industry," said Tony Wells, Senior Vice President Corporate Communications for 24 Hour Fitness. "We are responsive to our members' concerns and we have settled this case so we can continue to focus on our overall goal of helping people make fitness a way of life." Representing plaintiffs is: Michael von Loewenfeldt Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP Phone: 415-357-8909 E-mail: mvl@kerrwagstaffe.com Representing defendant is: Michael E. Delehunt Foley & Lardner LLP Phone: 415-434-4484 E-mail: mdelehunt@foley.com 40/40 CLUB: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Work ------------------------------------------------------------- Rapper Shawn Carter a.k.a. Jay-Z is seeking to dismiss a labor-related class action filed by a former waitress at his 40/40 club, UPI Entertainment News reports. Lawyers for Mr. Carter argued that the Grammy Award winner and his partner, Juan Perez, were shareholders and had "no role in payroll whatsoever" at the 40/40 Club, the New York Post said. Daily operations of the nightspot were left to its management, they said. On May 22, Celeste Williams filed the suit in Manhattan federal court against 40/40 club owned by rapper Shawn Carter a.k.a. Jay-Z in W. 25th St. in New York (Class Action Reporter, May 25, 2007). She is seeking class-action status for the suit on behalf of bartenders, table clearers and waiters. She claims the club doesn't pay minimum wage and takes a portion of their tips. Named defendants are: Shawn Carter, Twenty Ones dba The 40/40 Club, club co- owner Juan Perez and Desiree Gonzales. "It may be plaintiffs named these individuals as defendants solely because Shawn Carter is a public figure and plaintiffs hoped to draw publicity to extract a quick settlement," lawyers for Carter and the club said in court papers filed Monday. Ms. Williams is seeking unspecified damages in her suit on behalf of more than 100 staffers. The suit is “Williams v. Twenty Ones, Incorporated et al., Case No. 1:07-cv- 03978-LAP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, under Judge Loretta A. Preska. Representing plaintiffs are: Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum Charles Edward Joseph Joseph and Herzfeld 757 3rd Avenue, 25th Fl NY, NY 10017 Phone: (212)688-5640x2548 Fax: (212)688-5639 or 212-688-2548 E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com or maimon@jhllp.com - and - Richard Jennings Burch Bruckner Burch PLLC 1000 Louisiana, Ste 1300 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713)-877-8788 Fax: (713)-877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com Representing defendants are: Andrew Paul Marks Sara Danielle Sheinkin Littler Mendelson, P.C. 885 Third Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-583-9600 or (212)-583-2689 Fax: 212-832-2719 (fax) E-mail: ssheinkin@littler.com or amarks@littler.com ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Oct. Hearing Set for N.Y. Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 2, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. for proposed $13.65 million settlement of the consolidated securities class action “In re Acclaim Entertainment, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No.2, 03-CV-1270 (E.D.N.Y.) (JS) (ETB).” The hearing will be held before Judge Joanna Seybert in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Long Island Courthouse, 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, N.Y. 11722-4438. The deadline for the submitting objections and request for exclusion is on Sept. 10, 2007. Proof of claims must be submitted on or before Nov. 18, 2007. Case Background The consolidated suit specifically names as defendants the Company and: -- Gregory Fischbach, -- Edmond Sanctis, -- James Scoroposki, and -- Gerard F. Agoglia The Consolidated Complaint alleges a class period from October 14, 1999 through January 13, 2003. The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the Company engaged in a variety of wrongful practices, which rendered statements made by the Company and its financial statements to be false and misleading (Class Action Reporter, July 6, 2004). Among other purported wrongful practices, the Consolidated Complaint alleges that Acclaim engaged in "channel stuffing," a practice by which Acclaim allegedly: -- delivered excess inventory to its distributors to meet or exceed analysts' earnings expectations and inflate its sales results; -- entered into "conditional sales agreements" whereby Acclaim's customers allegedly were induced to accept delivery of Acclaim products prior to a quarter-end reporting period on the condition that Acclaim would accept the return of any unsold product after the quarter-end, and -- falsified sales reports and manipulated the timing and recognition of price concessions and discounts granted to its retail customers. The Consolidated Complaint further alleges that the Company engaged in improper accounting practices, including the improper recognition of sales revenue; manipulation of reserves associated with concessions, chargebacks and/or sales discounts granted to customers; and the improper reporting of software development costs. The Consolidated Complaint alleges that as a result of these practices defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act. The Consolidated Complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount. For more details, contact: Acclaim Entertainment, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o The Garden City Group, Inc. Claims Administrator P.O. Box 9121 Dublin, OH 43017-4121 Phone: (888) 282-1241 Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com CAR MAKERS: Faces Fla. Suit Over Defective Passenger Airbags ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Sheldon J. Schlesinger, P.A. has filed a class action in Broward County Circuit Court against Lexus U.S.A. Inc., Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc., and others, claiming that Lexus failed to correct problems with the front passenger air bag system in thousands of 2007 Lexus ES350 automobiles. Attorney Scott P. Schlesinger filed the lawsuit on behalf of Arnold Rosen of Boca Raton and a number of other Lexus ES350 owners. The suit claims that the sensor under the front passenger seat of all ES350s does not work properly in some situations, and may fail to trigger the right front airbag in the event of a collision. It further alleges that Lexus has refused to correct the problem. "The defendants have indicated that they do not have a solution for the defect," the suit said. "By equipping their vehicles with the defective airbag occupant classification sensor systems, defendants have breached their expressed and implied warranties in violation of Florida law," Schlesinger said in his suit. "The defendants continue to sell and lease the defective vehicles despite their awareness of the defect and the dangers posed by that defect." Involved are "tens of thousands of vehicles manufactured by the defendants, which are leased and sold throughout Florida and come equipped with dangerous and defective airbag systems," the suit claims. At issue is the ES350's airbag system, and specifically the systems' airbag occupant classification sensor. "All of the defective vehicles are equipped with a weight sensor system beneath the front passenger seat," according to the suit. "The purpose of the sensor is to gauge the weight of the person in that seat." When the sensor detects the presence of a passenger, the suit claims, it arms the passenger airbag. But the suit alleges the ES350's sensors are defective and often do not detect the presence of a passenger. Mr. Rosen leases two of the 2007 ES350s, and both contain airbag systems that do not register the presence of passengers, according to the suit. At one point, Mr. Rosen's Lexus dealer took one of his cars in for service and inspection, and gave him another ES350 to drive. That car, too, had an airbag system that failed to recognize the presence of right front passengers. The suit also claims that ES350 owners from around the country have complained about the airbag system, and some of them have filed complaints with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. A number of those complaints were included as exhibits in the suit. The suit wants Lexus to re-call and re-purchase the ES350s at their full cost; wants full refunds for those people who have leased their vehicles; wants the cars re-fitted with functioning airbag systems; and also asked for compensatory damages for all costs and loss of value. Besides Lexus and Toyota, defendants include J.M. Auto Inc., doing business as J.M. Lexus; Southeast Toyota Distributors LLC; and J.M. Family Enterprises. For more information, contact: Scott P. Schlesinger Sheldon J. Schlesinger, P.A. Fort Lauderdale, Florida Phone: (954) 467-8800 Fax: (954) 523-4803 Website: http://www.schlesingerlaw.com COMCAST CORP: Court Refuses to Hear Appeal in “At Home” Case ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ petition for further appeal in a litigation resulting from Comcast Corp.’s alleged conduct with respect to its investment in, and distribution relationship with, At Home Corp. At Home was a provider of high-speed Internet services that filed for bankruptcy protection in September 2001. Class actions against the company, AT&T Corp. (the former controlling shareholder of At Home and also a former distributor of the At Home service) and others were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging securities law violations and common law fraud in connection with disclosures made by At Home in 2001. The court later dismissed all claims, which plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the plaintiffs’ appeal and a subsequent petition for rehearing. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the plaintiffs’ appeal from the decision dismissing the Section 16(b) claims, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ petition for a further appeal, according to the company’s July 27, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. Pennsylvania-based Comcast Corp. -- http://www.comcast.com-- is a cable operator in the U.S. and offers a variety of consumer entertainment and communication products and services. COMCAST CORP: Seeks Consolidation of Antitrust Lawsuits in Pa. -------------------------------------------------------------- Comcast Corp. wants two purported antitrust class actions originally filed in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Massachusetts and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to be consolidated. The potential class in the Massachusetts case is the company’s subscriber base in the “Boston Cluster” area, and the potential class in the Pennsylvania case is its subscriber base in the “Philadelphia and Chicago Clusters,” as those terms are defined in the complaints. In each case, the plaintiffs allege that certain subscriber exchange transactions with other cable providers resulted in unlawful “horizontal market restraints” in those areas and seek damages pursuant to antitrust statutes, including treble damages. The company’s motion to dismiss the Pennsylvania case on the pleadings was denied and a class of “Philadelphia Cluster” subscribers was certified. Plaintiffs are seeking to certify a class for the “Chicago Cluster.” The company has moved to dismiss the Massachusetts case, which was recently transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and plaintiffs are seeking to consolidate it with the Pennsylvania case, according to the company’s July 27, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. Pennsylvania-based Comcast Corp. -- http://www.comcast.com-- is a cable operator in the U.S. and offers a variety of consumer entertainment and communication products and services. CORNING INC: Hearing Date Yet to be Set in Ill. Pollution Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A March 2007 trial for the claim of the last remaining defendants in the class action, “Ann Muniz v. Rexnord Corp.,” has been suspended and has yet to be rescheduled, according to the company’s July 27, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In August 2005, Corning was named as a fourth party defendant in the class action, which claims an unspecified amount of damages and asserting various personal injury and property damage claims against a number of corporate defendants. These claims allegedly arise from the release of solvents from the operations of several manufacturers at the Ellsworth Industrial Park into soil and ground water. As of June 2006, the district court allowed two cross-claims for contribution against Corning and two third-party complaints for contribution against Corning. The summary judgment motions of Corning and three companies asserting contribution claims against Corning are fully briefed and await a ruling by the court. On July 10, 2006, plaintiffs settled with a number of defendants and third- party defendants for $15.75 million, and the settling defendants mediated allocation. In November 2006, Corning settled with three of the third-party defendants for a total of approximately $99,000. The March 2007 trial date of the claim of the remaining third-party defendant was suspended and has not been rescheduled. The suit is "Muniz, et al. v. Rexnord Corp, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-02405," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge John W. Darrah. Representing the plaintiffs is: Myron Milton Cherry, Esq. Myron M. Cherry & Associates 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 372-2100 E-mail: mcherry@cherry-law.com Representing the company is: Brent Ian Clark, Esq. Seyfarth Shaw, LLP 131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603-4205 Phone: (312) 346-8000 E-mail: bclark@seyfarth.com EBAY INC: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Suit Over Paypal System ------------------------------------------------------------ eBay Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of a purported class action that alleges the company, through its wholly owned subsidiary PayPal, used illegal tie-in and steering practices to improperly “monopolize” the forms of payment that sellers can use on eBay. Initially, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on March 2007. In it plaintiff alleges claims under sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, as well as related state law claims. That suit sought treble damages and an injunction. In April 2007, the plaintiff re-filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (No. 07-CV-01882-RS), and dismissed the Texas action. In June 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the class action complaint, according to the company’s July 26, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is “In Re eBay Seller Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 5:07-cv-01882- JF,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to Judge Richard Seeborg. Representing the plaintiffs is: Michael Andrew McShane, Esq. Audet & Partners LLP 221 Main Street, Suite 1460 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-568-2555 Fax: 415-568-2556 E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com Representing the defendants is: Thomas Patrick Brown, Esq. O'Melveny & Myers LLP Embarcadero Center West, 275 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-3305 Phone: (415) 984-8947 E-mail: tbrown@omm.com EBAY INC: Subsidiary Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- The StubHub subsidiary of eBay Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act. The suit, “Liliana Vasquez-Torres v. Stubhub Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv- 01328-PSG-SS,” was filed on February 2007. It is a purported class action alleging that StubHub violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act by allegedly printing receipts containing more than the last five digits of a credit card number or the expiration date. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys fees, according to the company’s July 26, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is “Liliana Vasquez-Torres v. Stubhub Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv- 01328-PSG-SS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Philip S. Gutierrez with referral to Judge Suzanne H. Segal. Representing the plaintiff is: Robert S. Ackley, Esq. Herbert Hafif Law Offices 269 W. Bonita Ave. Claremont, CA 91711-4784 Phone: 909-624-1671 Representing the defendant is: Peter M. Adams, Esq. Cooley Godward Kronish 4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121-9109 Phone: 858-550-6000 E-mail: padams@cooley.com FIRST VIRTUAL: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set Sept. 18 --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California York will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 18, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. for the proposed settlement of the matter, “First Virtual Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-3585.” The hearing will be held before Judge Martin J. Jenkins in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Courtroom no. 11, 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102. The deadline for submitting objections and request for exclusion is Sept. 4, 2007. Proof of claims must be submitted on or before Nov. 15, 2007. Case Background The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from March 29,2004 to Aug. 23, 2004. It is pending against the Company, and certain of its officers and directors (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 8, 2004). According to the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period. The complaint alleges that defendants engaged in a 'pump and dump' scheme that enabled Company insiders to profit at the expense of class members by selling over a million shares of their personally held First Virtual securities at artificially inflated prices. Specifically, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements about the Company's financial condition and sales of its real-time rich media communications software and services and specialized networking hardware equipment worldwide, and a contract to provide the U.S. Air Force with the Company's proprietary Click to MeetTM web communications infrastructure and solutions. For more details, contact: Jeffrey S. Nobel, Esq. Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C. Phone: (860) 493-6293 E-mail: jnobel@snlaw.net Web site: http://www.snlaw.net/ HALLIBURTON CO: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- Halliburton Co. continues to face a securities fraud suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. In June 2002, a class action was filed against the company in federal court on behalf of purchasers of its common stock during approximately May 1998 until approximately May 2002. The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the accounting change and disclosures involved in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation. In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the company overstated its revenue from unapproved claims by recognizing amounts not reasonably estimable or probable of collection. In the weeks that followed, approximately 20 similar class actions were filed against the company. Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants Arthur Andersen LLP, the company's independent accountants for the period covered by the lawsuits, and several of the company's present or former officers and directors: David J. Lesar, Douglas L. Foshee, Gary V. Morris, and Robert Charles Muchmore, Jr. The class actions were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint "Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al.," was filed and served upon the company in April 2003. In early May 2003, the company announced that it entered into a written memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms upon which the Moore class action would be settled. In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs in the Moore class action filed a motion for leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the court. In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint includes claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc. by Halliburton, including that the company failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure (the Dresser claims). The Dresser claims were included in the settlement discussions leading up to the signing of the memorandum of understanding and were among the claims the parties intended to have resolved by the terms of the proposed settlement of the consolidated Moore class action and the derivative action. The memorandum of understanding called for Halliburton to pay $6 million, which would be funded by insurance proceeds. In June 2004, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. Following the transfer of the case to another district judge and a final hearing on the fairness of the settlement, the court entered an order in September 2004 holding that evidence of the settlement's fairness was inadequate, denying the motion for final approval of the settlement in the Moore class action, and ordering the parties, among others, to mediate. After the court's denial of the motion to approve the settlement, the company withdrew from the settlement, as it believes that it is entitled to do by its terms. The mediation was held in January 2005, but was declared by the mediator to be at an impasse with no settlement having been reached. In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and a new lead plaintiff, directed that they file a third consolidated amended complaint, and that the company file motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in August 2005, at which time the court took the motion under advisement. On March 14, 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claims while permitting the plaintiffs to re-plead those claims to correct deficiencies in their earlier complaint. With respect to those issues regarding which the court denied the motion, the company requested that the court certify its order for interlocutory appeal. In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed their fourth amended consolidated complaint. The company filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that had been repled. A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other than the company’s CEO. The court ordered that the case proceed against the company’s CEO and Halliburton. In response to a motion by the lead plaintiff, on Feb. 26, 2007 the court ordered the removal and replacement of their co-lead counsel. Plaintiffs may submit written discovery requests to Halliburton. However, no party is allowed to conduct a deposition in this case until the court rules on the Motions to Dismiss filed by individual defendants on May 9, 2006. The company reported no development in the matter in its July 27, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc., et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01152," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn. Representing the plaintiffs are: Richard S. Schiffrin, Esq. Schiffrin & Barroway 280 King of Prussia Rd. Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610/667-7056 Marc R. Stanley, Esq. Stanley Mandel & Iola 3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750 Dallas, TX 75205 Phone: 214/443-4301 Fax: 214/443-0358 E-mail: mstanley@smi-law.com - and - Thomas Burt, Esq. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz 270 Madison Ave, Ninth Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212/545-4600 Representing the company is: 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 HAMMONDVILLE PARTNERS: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Fla. --------------------------------------------------------------- Hammondville Partners, LLC is facing a class action filed in Fort Lauderdale federal court on July 20, 2007. Plaintiff Tabutha Ezell alleges Fair Labor Standards Act violations. The suit is “Ezell v. Hammondville Partners, LLC. et al., Case No. 0:07-cv- 61015-PCH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Paul C. Huck with referral to Judge Andrea M. Simonton. Representing the plaintiff is: Stacey Hope Cohen, Esq. 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 HOLLINGER INC: Settles Securities Lawsuits in Canada, U.S. ----------------------------------------------------------- Sun-Times Media Group, Inc., formerly Hollinger Inc., entered into an agreement to settle securities class actions pending against it and a number of its former directors and officers in the U.S. and Canada, and an agreement to settle litigation over its directors and officers insurance coverage. The securities class action settlement will resolve the claims asserted against the Company, a number of its former directors and officers, certain affiliated companies, and the Company's auditor, KPMG LLP. Sun-Times Media is facing a consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled “In re Hollinger International Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 04C-0834,” and similar actions that have been initiated in Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada. The Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana, Kenneth Mozingo, and Washington Area Carpenters Pension and Retirement Fund initiated purported class actions against the company in February and April 2004, asserting claims under federal and Illinois securities laws and claims of breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting in breaches of fiduciary duty. On July 9, 2004, the court consolidated the three actions for pretrial purposes. The consolidated action is "In re Hollinger Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 04C-0834," (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2006). On Sept. 7, 2004, a group allegedly comprised of those who purchased stock in one or more of the defendant corporations initiated purported class actions by issuing Statements of Claim in Saskatchewan and Ontario, Canada (Class Action Reporter, July 17, 2007). Those actions assert, among other things, that from 1999 to 2003 the defendants breached U.S. federal, state, and/or Canadian law by allegedly making misleading disclosures and omissions regarding certain "non- competition" payments and the payment of allegedly excessive management fees. The recent settlement agreements, which are subject to court approval in the U.S. and Canada, will be funded entirely by $30 million in proceeds from the Company's insurance policies. It includes no admission of liability by the Company or any of the settling defendants and the Company continues to deny any such liability or damages. In addition, the Company's insurers will deposit $24.5 million in insurance proceeds into an escrow account to fund defense costs the Company incurred in the securities class action and other litigation or other claimed loss. The insurance carriers will then be released from any other claims for the July 1, 2002 to July 1, 2003 policy period. The Company and other parties will then seek a judicial determination regarding how to allocate the $24.5 million in insurance proceeds among the insureds who assert claims to the proceeds. The Company and Hollinger Inc. have had negotiations concerning how any such proceeds awarded to them should be allocated between the two companies. If they cannot reach an agreement on that issue, they have agreed to resolve it through binding arbitration. The securities class action settlement is conditioned upon prior approval of the insurance settlement, and the insurance settlement agreement is conditioned upon subsequent approval of the class action settlement. The parties are in the process of seeking these approvals in the appropriate courts in the United States and Canada. For more information, contact: Tammy Chase Sun-Times Media Group, Inc. Phone: 312-321-3230 E-mail: tchase@suntimes.com KANSAS CITY: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits Over Fuel Surcharges ---------------------------------------------------------- The Kansas City Southern Railway Co., a subsidiary of the Kansas City Southern, has been included along with other major U.S. railroads in a number of putative class actions alleging that the individual railroads violated the U.S. antitrust laws, according to the company’s July 27, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The other railroads included are CSX Transportation, Inc., BNSF Railway Co., Union Pacific Railroad Co., and Norfolk Southern Railway Co. In some cases the Association of American Railroads has been named as a party. The allegation relates to fuel surcharge rates in connection with unregulated shipments in the U.S. The first of these lawsuits was filed on or about May 14, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As of July 18, 2007, 19 additional, virtually identical, lawsuits have been filed in numerous federal courts. A motion is presently pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer all of these lawsuits to a single district court for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Because plaintiffs and defendants agree that multidistrict treatment of the lawsuits is appropriate, the company anticipates that the JPML motion will be granted. However, because the JPML has not yet ruled, the transferee court has not yet been identified. Each of the lawsuits is at an early stage, and none have entered the discovery phase of litigation. None of the lawsuits have made a claim for a specified amount of damages, although each seeks to recover compensatory and treble damages on behalf of a nationwide class of shippers, along with attorneys’ fees and costs. Kansas City Southern -- http://www.kcsouthern.com/-- is a holding company with principal operations in rail transportation. The Company, through its subsidiary and affiliates, is engaged in the domestic and international rail operations in North America that are focused on the north/south freight corridor connecting key commercial and industrial markets in the central United States with major industrial cities in Mexico. The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, the Company’s principal subsidiary, is a U.S. railroad that serves a 10-state region in the Midwest and Southeast regions of the United States and has the shortest north/south rail route between Kansas City, Missouri and several key ports along the Gulf of Mexico in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. L-1 IDENTITY: Asks Mass. Court to Approve Securities Suit Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc. and counsel for the plaintiff class in the matter "In re: Viisage Technology Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 05-10438-MLW," have filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of a settlement in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Between March and April 2005, eight putative class actions were filed against: * L-1 (formerly known as Viisage Technology Inc); * Mr. Bernard C. Bailey; * Mr. William K. Aulet, former chief financial officer; and * Mr. Denis K. Berube; and * other members of the Board of Directors of Viisage Technology, Inc. These lawsuits have been consolidated into one action under, "In Re Viisage Technology Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 05-10438-MLW. The so-called Turnberry Group has been designated as lead plaintiff and its counsel has been designated as lead counsel. The amended consolidated complaint, which was filed in February 2006 alleges violations of the federal securities laws by Viisage and certain officers and directors arising out of purported misstatements and omissions in Viisage's U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings related to certain litigation involving the Georgia drivers' license contract and related to the Viisage's reported material weaknesses in internal controls over financial reporting, which allegedly artificially inflated the price of the company's stock during the period May 12, 2004 through March 2, 2005. In April 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In February 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed most claims in the consolidated securities fraud class action (Class Action Reporter, May 29, 2007). The judge dismissed all claims related to the Georgia drivers' license contract and permitted the case to proceed on claims associated with purported internal control weaknesses over financial reporting. The recent settlement, which is subject to among other things preliminary and final Court approval, would resolve all the remaining claims in the litigation. Without admitting any liability or wrongdoing of any kind, the Company has agreed to authorize payment to the plaintiff class of $2.3 million. This settlement payment would be funded by the Company's insurer. Because the litigation is a class action, the settlement is subject to the preliminary approval of the Court as well as the Court's final approval after notice of the terms of the settlement has been provided to all class members. Timing of the approval process is dependent on the Court's calendar. Relevant purchasers of Viisage stock have a right to opt out of the class, class members may object to the terms of the settlement, and final consummation of settlement must await the entry of final judgment approving the settlement as fair to all class members. However, such settlements are not uncommonly approved without material modification, and barring any unusual developments, the Company expects that this approval process will be completed before the end of the calendar year 2007. The suit is "In re: Viisage Technology Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 05-10438-MLW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Representing the plaintiffs are: Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq. Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP 53 State Street Boston, MA 02108 Phone: 617-439-3939 Fax: 617-439-0134 E-mail: ted@shulaw.com Alan L. Kovacs, Esq. Law Office of Alan L. Kovacs 2001 Beacon Street, Suite 106 Boston, MA 02135 Phone: 617-964-1177 Fax: 617-332-1223 E-mail: alankovacs@yahoo.com - and - Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Leslie R. Stern, Esq. Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo One Liberty Square, 8th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-542-8300 Fax: 617-542-1194 and 617-542-1154 E-mail: jblock@bermanesq.com lstern@bermanesq.com Representing the defendants is: Mitchell H. Kaplan, Esq. Choate, Hall & Stewart Two International Place 100-150 Oliver Street Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617-248-5000 Fax: 617-248-4000 E-mail: mkaplan@choate.com LONG HAULERS: 11 Companies Accused of Fixing Fuel “Surcharge” ------------------------------------------------------------- Long haulers are accused of fixing fuel “surcharges” in a class-action complaint filed July 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named defendants in the suit are: -- Arkansas Best Corp., -- Averitt Express, -- Con-Way, Inc., -- FedEx Corp., -- JEVIC Transportation, Inc., -- Sun Capita Partners IV, LLC, -- New England Motor Freight, Inc., -- R+I Carriers, Inc., -- SAIA, Inc., -- United Parcel Service, Inc., and -- YRC Worldwide, Inc. Named plaintiff Water Tech claims accuses defendants of conspiring to fix “fuel surcharges” on truck shipments of less than a truckload (LTL), so that the “surcharges” often exceed the entire cost of the fuel. LTL services are used by plaintiffs and members of the class as a means to transport freight within North America by ground. Plaintiffs estimate, based on articles in trucking industry trade journals, total domestic TLT industry revenue ranged from $25 to $35 billion annually during the class period. The suit claims the conspiracy affects domestic U.S. shipments of less than a truckload, weighing between 300 and 10,000 lbs. It claims the profitable, and illegal, conspiracy has been widely reported in trade publications. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchase LTL service directly to defendants or their unnamed co-conspirators from July 30, 2003 through the conclusion of the trial in this matter. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a combination and conspiracy among themselves to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize fuel surcharges imposed for LTL services sold in the United States; (b) the identity of participants in the conspiracy; (c) the duration of the conspiracy alleged in this complaint and the nature and character of the acts performed by defendants and their co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy; (d) whether the alleged conspiracy violated Section of the Sherman Act; (e) whether the conduct of defendants and their co- conspirators, as alleged in the complaint, caused injury to the business and property plaintiffs and other members of the classes; (f) the effect of defendants' conspiracy on the prices of LTL services sold in the United States during the class period; and (g) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by plaintiffs and other members of the damages class. Plaintiffs pray that: -- the court determines that this action may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- the contract, combination or conspiracy, and the acts done in furtherance thereof by defendants and their co- conspirators, b adjudged to have been in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1; -- judgment be entered for plaintiffs and members of the damages class against defendants for three times the amount of damages sustained by plaintiffs and the damages class as allowed by law, together with the costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees; -- defendants and their affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors, partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to ac on their behalf, be permanently enjoined and restrained from, in any manner: (i) continuing, maintaining or renewing the contract, combination or conspiracy alleged, or from engaging in any other contract, combination or conspiracy having a similar purpose or effect, and from adopting or following any practice, plan, program or device having a similar purpose or effect; and (ii) communicating or causing to be communicated to any other person engaged in the manufacture, distribution or sale of any product except to the extent necessary in connection with a bona fide sales transaction between the parties to such communications; and -- plaintiffs and members of the class have such other, further and different relief as the case may require and the court may deem just and proper under the circumstances. The suit is "Water Tech et al. v. Arkansas Best Corp., et al. Case No. 07 CV 1389 BEN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Representing plaintiffs are: Patrick J. Coughlin Christopher M. Burke Gregory s. Weston Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 Fax: 619-231-7423 E-mail: patc@lerachlaw.com or chrisb@lerachlaw.com or gweston@lerachlaw.com Larry W. Gabriel Daniel Mulligan Jenkins Mulligan & Gabriel, LLP 78065 Main Street, Suite 202 La Quinta, CA 92253 Phone: 760-777-1500 Fax: 760-777-1350 - and - Allan Steyer Jeffrey H. Lowenthal D. Scott Macrae Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP One California Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-421-3400 Fax: 415-421-2234 MICROSOFT CORP: Ariz. Gov’t. Alleges Antitrust Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corp. is facing a class action filed July 24 in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona accusing it of abusing its monopoly in the PC software market, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff, Daisy Mountain Fire District claims Microsoft systematically and knowingly violated court orders and agreements to overcharge Arizona government entities, to eliminate competition and preclude entry into the software market of superior products, such as those made by Digital Research Inc., IBM and Be, Inc. “Microsoft also directed its exclusionary conduct at complementary software products, often of a type known as middleware. Although middleware targets did not directly compete with Microsoft’s operating system, Microsoft understood that they had the potential to become direct competitors and/or to greatly strengthen the competitive position of actual or potential competitors.” This action concerns Microsoft's alleged anticompetitive and monopolistic practice, specifically those acts or practices that it intended to use, did use, and continues to use to prevent and destroy competition and acquire and/or maintain monopoly power and raise prices to supra-competitive levels in the U.S., including in Arizona, in the following product markets: (a) the sale and/or licensing of Intel-compatible personal computer operating system software; (b) the sale and/or licensing of Intel-compatible personal computer word processing applications software; and (c) the sale and/or licensing of Intel-compatible personal computer spreadsheet applications software. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of any Arizona state or local government, or any of its subdivisions (agencies, bureaus, departments, divisions, offices, etc), or any entity that derives at least 66% of its funding from one or more of the aforementioned entities, including without limitation public schools who acquired indirectly from Microsoft a license in the U.S. for Microsoft single-user operating system software, including upgrades, compatible with X86 personal computers at any time during the class period. The plaintiff wants the court to rule: (a) whether Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive conduct which renders it liable to members of each class under Arizona's antitrust laws; (b) whether Microsoft possesses monopoly power within the relevant geographic and product markets; (c) whether Microsoft acquired or maintained monopoly power within the relevant geographic and product markets through anticompetitive and/or unlawful activity; and (d) whether Microsoft's unlawful conduct has caused legally cognizable injury to plaintiff and class members by unlawfully increasing, maintaining or stabilizing above competitive levels the prices that plaintiff and the class members have paid for Microsoft covered Products. Plaintiff prays: -- that the court declare, adjudge and decree this action to be a proper class action pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of the class; -- that plaintiff and the class recover their actual damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, that they have sustained and will have sustained as a result of the antitrust violations alleged; -- that plaintiff and the class recover their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and -- that plaintiff and the class b granted such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "Daisy Mountain Fire District et al. v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. CV 2007-013118," filed in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for Maricopa County. Representing plaintiffs are: Ron Kilgard Gary A. Gotto Mark D. Samson Keller rohrback, PLC 3101 North Central Ave., Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Louis DeRoon III DeRoon & Seyffer 2929 N. 44th St. Suite 330 Phoenix, AZ 85018 - and - Lynn L. Sarko Mark A. Griffin Raymond J. Farrow Keller Rohrback LLP 1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200 Seattle., WA 98101 MIDWEST AIR: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Nixed AirTran Offer ------------------------------------------------------------- Midwest Air Group, Inc., and members of the Company’s board of directors filed a motion seeking the dismissal of the purported class action, “Market Street Securities v. Midwest Air Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-C-0345.” The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on April 12, 2007, purports to have been filed by a shareholder of the Company who seeks to maintain the suit as a class action on behalf of all holders of Company Common Stock. The complaint asserts claims arising out of the Company’s rejection of AirTran’s offer to acquire the Company and alleges that the Board breached its duties of care and good faith owed to the Company’s shareholders by rejecting AirTran’s initial and revised unsolicited exchange offers. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent the Company from enforcing its shareholder rights plan and damages and other monetary relief. Pending before the Court are the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which was filed on May 17, 2007, and the motion of the Company and the directors to dismiss the complaint, which was filed on May 22, 2007. The suit is “Market Street Securities Inc. v. Midwest Air Group Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00345-JPS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin under Judge J P Stadtmueller. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jill S. Abrams, Esq. Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis LLP 212 E. 39th St., New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-889-3700 Fax: 212-684-5191 - and - Christopher J. Ahrens, Esq. Previant Goldberg Uelmen Gratz Miller & Brueggeman SC 1555 N. River Center Dr. – Ste. 202 PO Box 12993 Milwaukee, WI 53212 Phone: 414-271-4500 Fax: 414-271-6308 E-mail: cja@previant.com Representing the defendants are: Michael B. Apfeld, Esq. Godfrey & Kahn SC 780 N. Water St., Milwaukee, WI 53202-3590 Phone: 414-273-3500 Fax: 414-273-5198 E-mail: mbapfeld@gklaw.com - and - Walter C. Carlson Sidley Austin LLP 1 S Dearborn St. Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-853-7000 Fax: 312-853-7036 NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Multiple Railroads Antitrust Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- Norfolk Southern Corp. and other railroads face 20 antitrust class actions in various federal courts regarding fuel surcharges. These actions are expected to be consolidated in one court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, according to the company’s July 27, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. Norfolk Southern Corp. -- http://www.nscorp.com-- controls a freight railroad, Norfolk Southern Railway Co., which is primarily engaged in the rail transportation of raw materials, intermediate products and finished goods primarily in the southeast, east and Midwest and, via interchange with rail carriers, to and from the rest of the United States and parts of Canada. NS also transports overseas freight through several Atlantic and Gulf Coast ports. The Company provides logistics services and offers an intermodal network in the eastern half of the U.S. NS’ non-carrier subsidiaries engage principally in the acquisition, leasing and management of coal, oil, gas and minerals; the development of commercial real estate; telecommunications, and the leasing or sale of rail property and equipment. OLYMPIC SECURITY: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Oregon ------------------------------------------------------------ Olympic Security Services, Inc. is facing a class action filed July 16 in Eugene, Oregon federal court. Plaintiffs Brandon Rutherford, Dean Herbert Lettenmaier, Jr., and Sandra Rutherford alleges Labor Code violations. The suit is “Rutherford et al. v. Olympic Security Services, Inc., Case No. 6:07-cv-06173-TC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon under Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Representing the plaintiffs are: Kevin T. Lafky, Esq. Lafky & Lafky 429 Court Street, NE Salem, OR 97301 Phone: (503) 585-2450 Fax: (503) 585-0205 E-mail: klafky@lafky.com Larry L. Linder, Esq. Lafky & Lafky 429 Court Street, NE Salem, OR 97301 Phone: (503) 585-2450 Fax:(503) 585-0205 (fax) E-mail: llinder@lafky.com Jon H. Weiner, Esq. 429 Court Street, NE Salem, OR 97301 Phone: (503) 399-7001 Fax: (503) 399-0745 E-mail: jonhweiner@aol.com OMNICOM GROUP: Still Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Omnicom Group Inc. remains a defendant in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against it and certain senior executives in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Beginning on June 13, 2002, several putative class actions were filed. The actions have since been consolidated under the caption, “In re Omnicom Group Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02-CV-4483 (RCC),” on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of our common stock between Feb. 20, 2001 and June 11, 2002. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that our public filings and other public statements during that period contained false and misleading statements or omitted to state material information relating to: -- the company’s calculation of the organic growth component of period-to-period revenue growth, -- the company’s valuation of and accounting for certain internet investments made by its Communicade Group, which it contributed to Seneca Investments LLC in 2001, and -- the existence and amount of certain contingent future obligations in respect of acquisitions. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages plus costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and on March 28, 2005, the court dismissed portions (1st) and (3rd) of the complaint detailed above. The court’s decision denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss the remainder of the complaint did not address the ultimate merits of the case, but only the sufficiency of the pleading. Defendants have answered the complaint. Discovery concluded in the second quarter of 2007. On April 30, 2007, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification, certifying the class proposed by plaintiffs. On June 15, 2007, the Court set a schedule for briefing of defendants’ motion to exclude one of plaintiff’s experts and defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Briefing and hearings on those motions are scheduled to be completed in the third quarter of 2007, according to the company’s July 26, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "In Re: Omnicom Group, Inc. Securities Litigation," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge John Keenan. Representing the plaintiffs are: Max W. Berger, Esq. Douglas M. McKeige, Esq. Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann, L.L.P. Phone: (212) 554-1400 and (212) 554-1481 - and - David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 and 631-367-1173 E-mail: drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com and srudman@lerachlaw.com Representing the defendants are: David Harold Braff, Esq. Stacey Rubin Friedman Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-558-4705 and 212-558-4000 Fax: 212-558-3333 and 212-558-3588 E-mail: braffd@sullcrom.com and friedmans@sullcrom.com PEPSICO INC: N.Y. Lawsuit Alleges “Aquafina” is Just Tap Water -------------------------------------------------------------- Pepsico, Inc., The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. and Pepsi Bottling Ventures LLC are facing a class-action complaint filed July 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Named plaintiff Brian Fielman claims Pepsico deceived the public by failing to inform that that Aquafina bottled water is just tap water, not mountain spring water, as the label implies. Whether through intentional, reckless, or negligent action, defendants allegedly marketed and sold Aquafina notwithstanding the fact that its content was undisclosed, mislabel, misleading. As a result, consumers lie plaintiff herein purchased Aquafina not knowing the water's true source and accordingly have suffered harms sounding in their claims set forth for: (a) violations of Uniform Deceptive Acts and Practices statutes (sometimes also referred to as "Consumer Protection Statutes"); (b) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and (c) unjust enrichment. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of all individuals in the United States who purchased Aquafina from the date of its introduction through the present. The plaintiff wants the court to rule: (a) whether the water marketed and sold as Aquafina was bottled from sources of what is generally known as "tap water"; (b) whether defendants withheld information from and/or omitted to inform consumers of Aquafina labels that the water marketed and sold as Aquafina was bottled from sources of what is generally known as "tap water"; (c) whether defendants' withholding of information and/or failure to inform consumers as to the true source of the water marketed and sold as Aquafina resulted from negligent, reckless or intentional behavior; (d) whether defendants' affirmatively promoted the water marketed and sold as Aquafina as being better fit for human consumption because of the "perfect" or more "pure" nature of the water's source; (e) whether defendnats' conduct respecting Aquafina violated New York GBL Section 349, and the state consumer protection and/or uniform deceptive acts and practices statutes in effect in the various States; (f) whether defendant's conduct breached the implied warranty of merchantability; and (g) whether defendants' omissions in the labeling of Aquafina so as to conceal the true nature of the source of the water marketed and sold under the brand name Aquafina caused defendants to be unjustly enriched when the totality of the circumstances are considered. Plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants as follows: -- for an order certifying the class and any appropriate subclasses thereof under the appropriate provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and appointing plaintiff and his counsel to represent such classes and subclasses as appropriate under Rule 23(g); -- for the declaratory and equitable relief requested; -- for compensatory, equitable and/or restitutionary damages according to proof and for all applicable statutory damages under New York GBL Section 349 et seq. and under the consumer protection legislation of the other states and the District of Columbia; -- for an award of attorney's fees and costs; -- for prejudgment interest and the costs of suit; -- for such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is “Fielman v. PepsiCo, Inc. et al., Case No. 7:07-cv-06815-CLB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Charles L. Brieant. Representing plaintiffs are: Andrew Palmer Bell Locks Law Firm PLLC 110 East 55th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-838-3333 Fax: 212-838-3735 E-mail: abell@lockslawny.com Jeffrey Alan Klafter Klafter & Olsen LLP 1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220 White Plains, NY 10602 Phone: (914) 997-5656 Fax: (914) 997-5656 E-mail: jak@klafterolsen.com - and - Seth Richard Lesser Locks Law Firm PLLC 110 East 55th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-838-3333 Fax: 212-838-3735 E-mail: slesser@lockslawny.com PHARMANET DEVELOPMENT: Settles N.J. Securities Suit for $28.5M --------------------------------------------------------------- PharmaNet Development Group Inc., formerly SFBC International Inc., entered into a $28.5 million agreement to settle a 2005 shareholder securities class action. Beginning in late December 2005, a number of class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that SFBC and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The company was served notice of these lawsuits in early January 2006. The suits allege that the defendants misrepresented the company's business conditions, prospects and financial results and failed to disclose the company's allegedly improper and reckless business practices, such as improper recruiting practices and mismanagement of clinical trials. They purport to have been brought by one of two proposed classes: those who purchased the company's common stock from Aug. 4, 2003 through Dec. 15, 2005 or from Feb. 17, 2004 through Dec. 15, 2005. On June 21, 2006, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of the suits for pre-trial proceedings in the District of New Jersey (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 26, 2006). The recent settlement agreement involved no admission of "liability" by the Company or any of its current and former directors, officers, and employees named in the lawsuit. The settlement is subject to court approval and other customary conditions. "We are pleased to have reached this significant milestone towards the conclusion of the securities class action litigation. We look forward to having this matter behind us as we continue to focus on the future opportunities for our business," commented Jeffrey P. McMullen, president and chief executive officer. The Company will record an $8.9 million charge associated with the settlement and other related litigation in the second quarter ended June 30, 2007; of which the Company may elect to pay the class up to $4.0 million in stock. The suit is “Michael et al. SFBC International, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-00165- SRC-CCC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, under Judge Stanley R. Chesler, with referral to Judge Claire C. Cecchi. Representing plaintiffs is: Joseph J. DePalma Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor Newark, NJ 07102-5003 Phone: (973) 623-3000 E-mail: jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com Representing defendants are: Patrick Charles English Dines & English, LLC 685 Van Houten Avenue Clifton, NJ 07013 Phone: (973) 778-7575 E-mail: dinesandenglish@aol.com - and - Stephen Patrick Warren Holland & Knight, LLP 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 374-8500 E-mail: stephen.warren@hklaw.com RADIOSHACK CORP: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Tex. -------------------------------------------------------------- RadioShack Corp. and certain of its former and current directors and officers continue to face two putative class actions that were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on March 16, 2007, and March 27, 2007, respectively. The suits are: -- "Damore v. RadioShack et al.," and -- "Hawana v. RadioShack et al." These actions purport to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased RadioShack's common stock between Jan. 14, 2003, and June 7, 2006. The complaints allege, among other things, that the company failed to disclose material adverse facts about its financial well-being, business relationships, and prospects. The complaints seek, among other things, a declaration that the actions are a proper class action, as well as awards for damages and interest, reasonable costs and expenses (including attorneys' and experts' fees). The company reported no development in the case at its June 30, 2007 Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2007. The first identified complaint is "Richard Damore, et al. v. RadioShack Corporation, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Plaintiff firms in this or similar case: Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA, 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 Fax: 619-231-7423 - and - Provost & Umphrey Law Firm, LLP 3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: 214-744-3000 Fax: 214-744-3015 E-mail: info@provostumphrey.com RADIOSHACK CORP: Awaits Approval of Ill. FLSA Suits Settlements --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has yet to approve a settlement of a purported class action filed against Radioshack Corp., which is alleging that the company misclassified certain RadioShack store managers as exempt from overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act or similar state laws. The company has reached a tentative settlement with counsel for the plaintiffs in "Alphonse L. Perez, et al. v. RadioShack Corp." The suit was filed on Oct. 31, 2002. It also reached a settlement in four other wage-hour lawsuits pending against it. This global settlement would result in a payment by the company of approximately $8.8 million, in the aggregate, to resolve all five of the pending lawsuits. Of this amount, a charge of $8.5 million was recognized during the quarter ended June 30, 2006, with the balance recognized during the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006. The respective courts will need to approve the tentative settlement. The company reported no development in the case at its June 30, 2007 Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2007. The suit is "Perez, et al. v. RadioShack Corp., Case No. 02 C 7884," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer. Representing the plaintiffs are: Timothy J. Touhy, Esq. Daniel K. Touhy, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Touhy & Touhy, Ltd. 161 North Clark Street, Suite 2210 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Phone: (877) 372-2209 Fax: (312) 456-3838 E-mail: lawyers@touhylaw.com Web site: http://www.radioshackclassaction.com - and - Peter M. Callahan, Esq. Robert W. Thompson, Esq. Lee A. Sherman, Esq. Callahan, McCune & Willis 111 Fashion Lane Tustin, California 92780 Phone: (714) 730-5700 Fax: (714) 730-1642 E-mail: classaction@cmwlaw.net Representing the company are: Edward W. Bergmann, Esq. Justin M. Crawford, Esq. Brian J. Hipp, Esq. Seyfarth Shaw 55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Phone: (312) 346-8000 Fax: (312) 269-8869 - and - Robert S. Brewer, Jr., Esq. Ross H. Hyslop, Esq., Robert A. Cocchia, Esq. McKenna, Long & Aldridge, LLP 750 B Street, Suite 3300 San Diego, California 92101 Phone: (619) 595-5400 Fax: (619) 595-5450 E-mail: rsattorneys@mckennalong.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued in Mich. Over “Defective” Camcorders -------------------------------------------------------------- Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed July 26 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan accusing it of making and selling camcorders with a defective image sensor device known as CCD that causes the camera to fail. Named plaintiff Russ Siegel alleges that despite scores of consumer complaints regarding the premature failure and defective nature of the products containing the defective CCD imager, Samsung has done nothing to provide a remedy or to accurately disclose the problem to its current and future customers and consumers. Rather, Samsung has concealed information about the defect while making misrepresentations in an attempt to conceal the problem. At the same time, SEA has charged or attempts to charge consumers $150 or more for "fixing" this known defect. Plaintiff asserts claims based on the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) and similar statutes applicable in other states, inter alia for false and misleading advertising, for Breach of Samsung's express and/or implied warranty, for Fraud in the Inducement and for Unjust Enrichment. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased, not for resale, a Samsung Digital Camcorder Model SCD27, Model SCD23 and any other model that uses the same faulty CCD imager. The plaintiff wants the court to rule: (a) whether the CCD imager used in the camcorders fail at an unacceptably high rate; (b) whether the CCD imager used in the camcorders is inherently defective; (c) whether the CCD imager used in the camcorders is not of merchantable quality; (d) whether SEA made false and/or misleading statements of fact to the class and the public concerning the defects that are inherent in the CCD imager used in the camcorders; (e) whether SEA concealed material facts concerning the defective nature of the CD imager used in the camcorders; (f) whether SEA knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that its statement of fact to the class and the public about the performance and reliability of the CCD imager used in the camcorders; (g) whether SEA learned from consumers that the CCD imager and module were failing at an unacceptable rate and then failed to provide a remedy to consumers regarding the failure and failed to disclose the failures to consumers; (h) whether by its misconduct SEA engage in unfair and/or unlawful business practices with respect to the advertising, marketing and sale of the camcorders; (i) whether by its misconduct, SEA engaged in unfair, deceptive, untrue and/or misleading advertising of the camcorders; (j) whether SEA breached its expressed warranty to the class for the camcorders; (k) whether SEA's conduct violated the Michigan Consumer Protection Act and/or other similar applicable statutes in other states; (l) whether, as a result of SEA's misconduct, the named plaintiff and the class are entitled to damages, restitution, equitable relief and/or other relief and the amount and nature of such relief. Plaintiff seeks actual and/or compensatory damages, restitution, equitable relief, including injunctive relief, actual damages, disgorgement or profits, punitive damages, treble damages, interest costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available to the class. The suit is “Siegel v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv- 13135-PDB-RSW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, under Judge Paul D. Borman, with referral to Judge R. Steven Whalen. Representing plaintiffs are: Brian H. Herschfus Wood, Kull 37000 Grand River Avenue, Suite 290 Farmington Hills, MI 48335 Phone: 248-476-2006 E-mail: bhh@woodkull.com - and - Stuart Sandweiss Sandweiss Law Center 18930 W. Ten Mile Road, Suite 2000 Southfield, MI 48075 Phone: 248-559-2400 E-mail: stuart@sandweiss.net UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Served with Lawsuit Over Merger Proposal ------------------------------------------------------------ Universal American Financial Corp. reviewed a purported class action filed by Elizabeth A. Conolly, Thomas McCormack, Shelley Z. Zhang, Green Meadows Partners, James Stellato and Rocco Sorrentino in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester against: -- Universal American Financial Corp., -- Richard A. Barasch, -- Lee Equity Partners LLC, -- Perry Capital LLC, -- Union Square Partners Management LLC, -- Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, -- Barry Averill, -- Bradley E. Cooper, -- Mark M. Harmeling, -- Bertram Harnett, -- Linda H. Lamel, -- Eric W. Leathers, -- Patrick J. McLaughlin, and -- Robert A. Spass, and Robert F. Wright, On Oct. 24, 2006, the company received an acquisition proposal from members of management led by: -- Richard A. Barasch, chairman and chief executive officer; and -- private equity firms: * Capital Z Partners, Ltd., * Lee Equity Partners, LLC, * Perry Capital, LLC, and * Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe X, L.P. to acquire all of the company's publicly held common stock for $18.15 per share in cash (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 11, 2006). The complaint alleges that: (i) the defendants who are directors of the Company allegedly breached fiduciary duties they owed to Universal American's shareholders in connection with Universal American entering into its previously announced merger agreement to acquire MemberHealth, Inc. and concurrent agreements with certain equity investors for such equity investors to acquire securities in Universal American, and the defendants who are equity investors purportedly aided and abetted that breach; and (ii) the defendants who are directors of the Company allegedly breached their duty of candor to Universal American's shareholders by failing to disclose material information concerning the Transactions. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an injunction against the consummation of the transactions and damages in an amount to be determined. Universal American has reviewed the complaint and believes that the lawsuit is without merit, and intends to defend against the claims vigorously. The suit is "Elizabeth A. Conolly, et al v. Universal American Financial Corporation et al., Case No.13422-07,” filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester. WESTBROOK MOTORS: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- Westbrook Motors, Inc. is facing a class action filed in Miami federal court on July 19. Plaintiff Juan Carlos Villamizar alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit is “Villamizar v. Westbrook Motors, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-21861- UU,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Representing the plaintiff is: Reynaldo Velazquez, Esq. Velazquez Law Firm PA 100 Almeria Avenue Suite 340 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: 305-529-0005 Fax: 305-529-0058 E-mail: rey@velazquezlawfirm.com YOUTHLAND ACADEMY: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------ Youthland Academy Inc. is facing a class action filed July 19 in Cincinnati federal court. Plaintiff Qiana Bradley alleges violations of Federal Labor Standards Act. The suit is “Bradley v. Youthland Academy Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00553- SJD,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Susan J. Dlott. Representing the plaintiff is: Elmer Morton Goldman, Esq. 6659 Villager Place Mason, OH 45040 Phone: 513/398-6786 Fax: 513/398-6786 E-mail: elmergoldman@aol.com New Securities Fraud Cases AMERICAN HOME: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announces that a class action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities of American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. between July 26, 2006 and July 27, 2007, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint charges American Home Mortgage and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Exchange Act. According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements that misrepresented and failed to disclose that: (i) the Company was experiencing an increasing level of loan delinquencies which was depressing its earnings; (ii) that the Company was experiencing increasing difficulties in selling its loans and, therefore, was required to decrease prices, thereby reducing margins and profits; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was overstating its financial results by failing to write- down the value of certain of the loans in its portfolio as these loans had declined substantially in value. Then, on June 28, 2007, American Home Mortgage issued a press release announcing that it will take "substantial charges for credit-related expenses in the second quarter." The Company reported that the increase in losses was related to its practice of extending a three month timely payment warranty that the Company granted to loan buyers who purchased stated income loans. In response to this announcement, the price of American Home Mortgage stock declined from $20.91 per share to $18.38 per share on extremely heavy trading volume. Then, on July 27, 2007, after the close of the market, American Home Mortgage issued a press release announcing that its Board of Directors had determined to delay paying its dividend. In response to this announcement, on July 30, 2007, the NYSE halted trading in American Home Mortgage stock before the market opened. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased the behalf of purchasers of the securities of American Home Mortgage between July 26, 2006 and July 27, 2007, inclusive. American Home Mortgage is a real estate investment trust (REIT), which engages in the investment and origination of residential mortgage loans in the United States. The Company primarily originates and sells securitized adjustable-rate mortgage loans, as well as engages in the sale of mortgage loans to institutional investors and servicing mortgage loans owned by others. For more information, contact: Samuel H. Rudman David A. Rosenfeld Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com Website: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/americanhome ********* 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 * * *