/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070829.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 27, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 169 Headlines AIMCO PROPERTIES: Still Faces Several FLSA Violations Lawsuits AMERICAN ELECTRIC: 6th Circuit Hears ERISA Suit Dismissal Appeal AMERICAN EXPRESS: Accused of Withholding Clients' Credit Info BEAR STEARNS: Investors of Bankrupt Hedge Funds File Lawsuit BUY-RITE: Recalls Charm Bracelets Due to High Levels of Lead CAPT. WILLIAM JACKMAN: Court Okays Deal with Gynecology Patients DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP: Denied Review of Dodge Durango Suit Ruling DELPHI CORP: Settles Mich. Securities, Derivative, ERISA Suit FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Opting Out Deadline Extended to Sept. 1 GEORGIA: Suit Seeks to Keep Dental Care for Indigent Children GPC BIOTECH: Shalov Stone Launches Securities Lawsuit Web Site HILTON HOTELS: Suits Over Blackstone Merger Consolidated HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Still Faces Multiple Securities Suits in La. INTEGRATED HEALTH: Chiropractors' Motion to Certify Suit Denied J2 GLOBAL: Faces Suit Over Alleged Internet Facsimile Monopoly MILLENNIUM APPAREL: Recalls Clothing Sets with Drawstrings QUIXTAR INC: Mich. Distributors Seek TOR to Keep TEAM Contracts RJ REYNOLDS: No Oral Arguments Hearing Set in "Brown" Case Yet SLM CORP: Seeks Dismissal of FFELP Billing Practices Lawsuit SOLUTIA INC: Former Officers, Employees Face ERISA Suit in N.Y. STATE FARM: Ariz. Homeowner Files Breach of Contract Lawsuit SYMBION INC: Faces Suits in Tenn. Over Crestview Partners Merger TATTOO PARLOUR: Faces CAD10M Lawsuit Over Defective Sterilizer TELMEX USA: Faces FCRA Violations Lawsuit in California TENET HEALTHCARE: RICO Violations Suit by Fla. Hospital Junked THRESHOLD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in N.Y. TOBY NYC: Recalls Kids' Metal Jewelry Due to High Lead Levels UNITED STATES: Sued Over NCLB Act "Qualified Teacher" Definition VERIZON WIRELESS: Faces Suit Over "AOL Instant Messenger Fees" New Securities Fraud Cases GPC BIOTECH: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit ********* AIMCO PROPERTIES: Still Faces Several FLSA Violations Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- AIMCO Properties, L.P. and its subsidiary NHP Management Co. (NHPMN) still face several purported class actions that are alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Initially, AIMCO Properties and NHPMN were named as defendants in a lawsuit alleging that the company and NHPMN willfully violated FLSA by failing to pay maintenance workers overtime for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, attempts to bring a collective action under the FLSA and seeks to certify state subclasses in California, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that the company and NHPMN failed to compensate maintenance workers for time that they were required to be "on-call." Additionally, the complaint alleges that the company and NHPMN failed to comply with the FLSA in compensating maintenance workers for time that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. In addition to the District of Columbia case, in 2005 the plaintiffs filed class actions with the same allegations in the Superior Court of California (Contra Costa County) and in Montgomery County Maryland Circuit Court. On March 28, 2007, the court in the District of Columbia issued an opinion decertifying the collective action on both the on call and overtime issues. The court held that the 1,049 people who had opted into the collective action were not similarly situated and the case may not proceed as a collective action. On July 16, 2007, plaintiffs' counsel filed individual cases on behalf of at least 700 individual plaintiffs in Federal court in 21 different jurisdictions: * Northern District of Alabama; * District of Arizona; * Northern District of California; * District of Colorado; * Middle District of Florida; * Northern District of Georgia; * Northern District of Illinois; * Southern District of Indiana; * Western District of Kentucky; * District of Maryland; * Eastern District of Michigan; * Western District of Missouri; * District of New Jersey; * Western District of North Carolina; * Southern District of New York; * Southern District of Ohio; * Eastern District of Pennsylvania; * District of South Carolina; * Middle District of Tennessee; * Eastern District of Texas; and * Western District of Virginia. The cases in Illinois, New York and Texas were styled as class actions, according to the company's Aug. 3, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007. AIMCO Properties Co. L.P. -- http://www.aimco.com-- is the operating arm of residential real estate leader Apartment Investment and Management Co. (AIMCO), a company which is focused on apartment complexes, which it owns, manages, and redevelops. The company owns or manages more than 1,200 garden style, mid-rise, and high-rise apartment communities located throughout the US and in Puerto Rico. The company divides its operations into "conventional" and "affordable" operations (the latter are often subsidized by government agencies). AIMCO controls about 90% of AIMCO Properties. AMERICAN ELECTRIC: 6th Circuit Hears ERISA Suit Dismissal Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has heard oral arguments on an appeal regarding the dismissal of a purported class action against American Electric Power Co., Inc., which is alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act. In the fourth quarter of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003, three putative class actions were filed against AEP, certain executives and AEP's ERISA Plan Administrator alleging violations of ERISA in the selection of AEP stock as an investment alternative and in the allocation of assets to AEP stock. The suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Defendants are American Electric Power Co., Inc., American Electric Power Service Corp., E. Linn Draper, Jr., and Thomas V. Shockley, III. In July 2006, the court entered judgment denying plaintiff's motion for class certification and dismissing all claims without prejudice. In August 2006, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Briefing of this appeal was completed in December 2006. The Court of Appeals heard oral argument in July 2007, according to the company's Aug. 3, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "Bridges v. American Electric Po, et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-00067-ALM-MRA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Algenon L. Marbley with referral to Judge Mark R. Abel. Representing the plaintiffs are: Edwin J. Mills, Esq. Stull, Stull and Brody 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-687-7230 E-mail: ssbny@aol.com James Edward Arnold, Esq. Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott 471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: 614-469-1400 E-mail: jarnold@cpaslaw.com - and - Joseph J. Braun, Esq. Strauss & Troy - 1 The Federal Reserve Bldg., 150 E Fourth St., 4th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018 Phone: 513-621-2120 E-mail: jjbraun@strausstroy.com. Representing the defendants are: Michael J. Chepiga, Esq. Charlie L. Divine, Esq. Joseph M. McLaughlin, Esq. Issa Mikel, Esq. George S. Wang, Esq. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017-3954 Phone: 212-455-2000 Fax: 212-455-2502 Web site: http://www.stblaw.com/ AMERICAN EXPRESS: Accused of Withholding Clients' Credit Info ------------------------------------------------------------- American Express and Citibank are accused of depressing a large numbers of clients' credit scores by withholding credit account limits from credit bureaus Equifax, Experian and TransUnion, The San Francisco Chronicle reports. The accusation is contained in a class action filed July 25 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. According to the plaintiffs, without credit limits or account maximums, FICO software of Experian often penalizes the borrower by reducing scores. American Express told the San Francisco Chronicle its green and gold card holders do not have preset spending limits, and therefore there is no credit limit to report. Spokeswoman Molly Faust denied the FICO are artificially depressed. She also said that the latest FICO model "differentiates between charge cards and credit cards." A Citibank spokesman confirmed, as well, that some cards come with no preset limits, and therefore limits cannot be reported to the bureaus, according to the report. BEAR STEARNS: Investors of Bankrupt Hedge Funds File Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Four law firms have joined together to represent institutional and retail customers of Bear Stearns and purchasers of Bear Stearns Companies, Inc.'s (NYSE - BSC) sub-prime mortgage hedge funds which have recently collapsed. The funds are the Bear Stearns High Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund and the High Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leverage Master fund. On July 31, 2007 the two Bear Stearns hedge funds filed for bankruptcy protection in the Southern District of New York, wiping out nearly all investor capital. The associated law firms are Aidikoff, Uhl & Bakhtiari; Maddox Hargett & Caruso, P.C., David P. Meyer & Associates Co., LPA and Page Perry, LLC. The firms represent the interest of institutional and retail investors in disputes against Wall Street banks like Bear Stearns. "This team of attorneys provides small investors and financial institutions alike with local representation across the country," said Mark Maddox, a former Indiana Securities Commissioner, and partner in Maddox, Hargett & Caruso. "The team has significant experience in individual, multi-party and class cases and are dedicated to representing investors in an effort to make them whole. "Bear Stearns told its clients that the funds were backed by fixed income securities of which 90% of the portfolio were AAA to AA- rated by Standard and Poors," Mr. Maddox continued. "The collapse of the Bear Stearns funds over the last couple of months is stunning." On the Net: http://www.bearstearnshedgefundlitigation.com. For more information, contact: Philip M. Aidikoff, Esq. E-mail: paidi@aol.com Ryan K. Bakhtiari, Esq. E-mail: rbakthiari@aol.com Aidikoff, Uhl & Bakhtiari Beverly Hills, California Indian Wells, California Phone: (800) 382-7969 (310) 274-0666 Mark Maddox, Esq. E-mail: mmaddox@mhclaw.com Tom Hargett, Esq. E-mail: tahargett@mhclaw.com Steven Caruso, Esq. E-mail: SBCaruso@aol.com Phone: (800) 505-5515 (212) 837-7908 David P. Meyer, Esq. E-mail: dmeyer@dmlaws.com David P. Meyer & Associates Co., LPA Columbus, Ohio Phone: (866) 827-6537 Boyd Page, Esq. E-mail: jbpage@pageperry.com Page Perry, LLC Atlanta, Georgia Phone: (877) 673-0047 (770) 673-0047 BUY-RITE: Recalls Charm Bracelets Due to High Levels of Lead ------------------------------------------------------------- Buy-Rite Designs Inc., of Freehold, New Jersey, in cooperation with U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 7,900 children's Divine Inspiration charm bracelets. The company said the recalled jewelry contains high levels of lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects. No injuries have been reported. The recalled charm bracelets have silver-colored charms, including angels, crosses, and hearts, and clear and pink beads that hang from a silver-colored chain. These recalled charm bracelets were manufactured in China and are being sold at dollar stores and other small retail stores nationwide from March 2004 through August 2007 for about $1. Picture of recalled charm bracelets: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07281.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled jewelry away from children and return it to store where purchased for a full refund. If unable to return it to the store, contact Buy- Rite for information on how to receive a refund. For additional information, contact Buy-Rite at (888) 777-7952 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.buyriteinc.com CAPT. WILLIAM JACKMAN: Court Okays Deal with Gynecology Patients ---------------------------------------------------------------- Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Justice David Russell approved a settlement in which Health Labrador Corp. will pay CAD179,850 in connection with improperly sterilized instruments at its Capt. William Jackman Memorial Hospital, Jamie Baker of The Telegram reports. The class action by 327 women was filed in 2003 after these women were told about the possible exposure to contagious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis A and C, while they underwent tests at the gynecological clinic (Class Action Reporter, May 3, 2007). None of the patients were infected as a result of being subjected to the instruments. The settlement provides CAD450 payment for each woman in the suit, CAD100 for her spouse, and plaintiff legal fees payment of up to CAD93,571.50 It also states that Jackman hospital must publish changes in its policy and procedure in a local paper. The report by Jamie Baker also states that the non-monetary remedies of the settlement provide that that ad include an apology to the people affected by the case. A community representative must also be appointed by Health Labrador to the environmental services team "responsible for developing infection control processes," and the insurer for Health Labrador has to conduct an educational seminar about infection control. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP: Denied Review of Dodge Durango Suit Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied DaimlerChrysler Corp.'s petition for review of the class certification in the matter, "Bussian v. DaimlerChrysler AG et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-00387-WLO." Back in June 2007, Judge William Osteen of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina certified the case as a class action. It was filed against DaimlerChrysler AG over alleged defects in its Dodge Durangos made between 1998 and 2003 (Class Action Reporter, June 21, 2007). In 2003, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration started investigating Durangos after four drivers reported the failure of a ball joint in the front suspension. The agency said 749 complaints allege that those ball joints are wearing out prematurely. In 2004, North Carolina attorney John Bussian filed a lawsuit in Durham County Superior Court claiming DaimlerChrysler should repair alleged defects in the Dodge Durangos (Class Action Reporter, March 12, 2004). The suit was later moved to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The case involves all 1998 and 1999 model Durangos and two-wheel drive versions of the vehicle from 2000 to 2003. The lawsuit accuses DaimlerChrysler of putting faulty ball joints on the trucks. The class action certification allows residents who can show "actual injury," to join in the lawsuit. Judge Osteen's ruling defines actual injury as having sold the vehicle at a reduced amount, having had to replace the ball joint or having suffered property damage as a result of the ball joint's failure. The company would go on to appeal Judge Osteen's decision, and on Aug. 13, 2007, the Forth Circuit handed out its verdict. In the appeal, both parties had acknowledged the crux of the test for review was whether or not the certification decision contained a substantial weakness. Immediately after the decision, an order was issued in Aug. 21, 2007 in which U.S. Magistrate P. Trevor Sharp approved the parties' discovery scheduling order, and now discovery into the merits of the claims has commenced. The suit is "Bussian v. DaimlerChrysler AG et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-00387-WLO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, under Judge William Osteen. Representing plaintiffs are: John F. Bloss, Sr. David M. Clark Clark Bloss & Wall, PLLC POB 1349 Greensboro, NC 27402 Phone: 336-275-7275 Fax: 336-275-7276 E-mail: jblosslaw@gmail.com or cbw@cbw-law.com - and - Jonathan Wall Robertson Medlin & Troutman, PLLC 125 S. Elm St., STE. 100 Greensboro, NC 27401 Phone: 336-378-9881 Fax: 336-378-9886 E-mail: jwall@robertsonmedlin.com Representing defendants are: Christopher Terry Graebe Burley Bayard Mitchell, Jr. Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice POB 831 Rasleigh, NC 27601 Phone: 919-755-2158 or 919-755-8166 Fax: 919-755-6769 E-mail: bmitchell@wcsr.com Michael Montecalvo Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice One West Fourth Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Phone: 336-721-3770 Fax: 336-726-6912 E-mail: mmontecalvo@wcsr.com - and - Charles A. Newman Kathy A. Wisniewski Bryan Cave LLP One Metropolitan Sq. 211 N. Broadway, 3600 ST. Louis, MI 63102 Phone: 314-259-2000 or 314-259-2523 Fax: 919-755-6048 or 314-259-2020 E-mail: cgraebe@wcsr.com or kawisniewski@bryancave.com DELPHI CORP: Settles Mich. Securities, Derivative, ERISA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in "Delphi Corp. Securities, Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1725, Case No. 2:05-md-01725-GER," have agreed to a settlement of the case. Lead plaintiffs in the case, which is before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, are: -- Teachers' Retirement System of Oklahoma, -- Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, -- Raiffeisen Kapitalanlage-Gesellschaft m.b.H., and -- Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP The class action was brought against Delphi, which is currently in bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11, certain of its current or former officers and directors and certain investment banking firms. The settlement includes a comprehensive settlement with Delphi's insurers. The action has been litigated on behalf of a proposed Class of investors who purchased or acquired publicly traded shares, bonds, or notes of Delphi and securities issued by Delphi Trust I and Delphi Trust II between March 7, 2000 and March 3, 2005, inclusive. The Settlement, upon approval by both the District Court and the Bankruptcy Court, would end the securities litigation with respect to the Company and all Individual Defendants named in the action. The settlement shall also resolve claims against the investment banking firms named as defendants in the action, which pursuant to Delphi's reorganization plan, will be released having also contributed to the settlement consideration to be paid to the Class. The Action would continue with respect to: -- Deloitte & Touche, LLP, Delphi's outside auditor during the Class Period; as well as -- three independent companies alleged to have participated with Delphi in transactions designed to mask Delphi's financial problems during the Class Period: * JPMorgan Chase & Co (as successor in interest to Bank One Corp.); * SETECH Inc.; and * BBK, Ltd. None of these parties will be released from liability for these claims in connection with the Settlement. The consolidated suit is "Delphi Corp. Securities, Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1725, Case No. 2:05-md-01725-GER," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Gerald E. Rosen. Representing some of the plaintiffs are: Cari C. Laufenberg, Esq. Keller Rohrback 1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-623-1900 Fax: 206-623-3384 E-mail: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com - and - Sara L. Madsen, Esq. Lockridge Grindal 100 S. Washington Ave., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: 612-339-6900 Fax: 612-339-0981 E-mail: slmadsen@locklaw.com Representing the company are: Stuart Baskin, Esq. Shearman & Sterling 599 Lexington Ave. New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-848-4000 Fax: 212-848-7179 E-mail: sbaskin@shearman.com - and - Joseph E. Papelian, Esq. Delphi Corporation Legal Staff, 5825 Delphi Drive Troy, MI 48098-2815 Phone: 248-813-2000 E-mail: joseph.e.papelian@delphi.com FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Opting Out Deadline Extended to Sept. 1 ---------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court for the State of Arizona, Maricopa County extended from July 16 to Sept. 1, 2007 the deadline for former Phelps Dodge shareholders to object or opt out of the settlement of a class action filed by shareholders of Phelps Dodge in Arizona in connection with the company's merger transaction with Freeport-Mcmoran Copper & Gold Inc. Freeport-McMoRan is named a defendant in a purported class action filed in the Superior Court of the state of Arizona, County of Maricopa. The suit (Case No. CV2006-017963) was brought on behalf of a purported class of all of the shareholders of Phelps Dodge Corp. Plaintiffs allege breaches of fiduciary duties by the Phelps Dodge board of directors in connection with the merger transaction. The complaints allege, among other things, that the named defendants engaged in self-dealing, obtained personal benefits for themselves not shared equally by Phelps Dodge shareholders and failed to disclose all material information concerning the transaction to Phelps Dodge shareholders. Additionally, plaintiffs also allege that the company aided and abetted such alleged violations of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief barring consummation of the transaction and directing that the defendants obtain a transaction, which is in the best interests of Phelps Dodge shareholders. In March, Freeport-McMoRan and Phelps Dodge reached an agreement in principle to settle three purported class actions filed by shareholders of Phelps Dodge in Arizona and New York state courts (Class Action Reporter, March 15, 2007). The Court preliminarily approved the terms of the settlement on May 21, 2007, and notice thereof subsequently was provided to class members. The final approval hearing will be held on September 10, 2007. The Court extended the deadline at the parties' request, in order to provide class members with additional time to consider the terms of the proposed settlement. Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc. (NYSE: FCX) on the Net: http://www.fcx.com. For more information, contact: Robbins Umeda & Fink, LLP 610 West Ash Street, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 525-3990 Fax: (619) 525-3991 - and - The Weiser Law Firm, P.C. 121 N. Wayne Avenue, Suite 100 Wayne, PA 19087 Phone: (610) 225-2616 Fax: (610) 225-2678 GEORGIA: Suit Seeks to Keep Dental Care for Indigent Children ------------------------------------------------------------- State Representative Ed Lindsey filed a class-action complaint on Aug. 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia asking that the state's community health commissioner and two managed care organizations to preserve the children's access to dental care, reports say. Named defendants in the suit are: -- Rhonda Medows - Georgia Department of Community Health Commissioner; -- WellCare of Georgia Inc.; -- Peach State Health Plan Inc.; -- Avesis Third Party Administrators Inc.; and -- Doral Dental Services of Georgia LLC Parents of children who receive Medicaid or PeachCare dental treatment from a large dental care provider are asking for a federal court injunction they say is needed to keep benefits in place for more than 50,000 low-income children, Belinda Foskey of Today's MGT said. The lawsuit claims that means more than 50,000 low-income children will be unable to obtain dental care. The lawsuit requests an injunction that would prevent WellCare and Peach State Health Plan from terminating the contracts of dental providers Kool Smiles and Help A Child Smile, at least until the organizations can demonstrate that the contract terminations will not interfere with the requirements for operating Medicaid dental programs. The contracts allow the providers to provide dental care for children enrolled in Medicaid or PeachCare, which is Georgia's health insurance program for low-income children. Some parents of children who use Kool Smiles say they've looked for alternate dentists, but most either don't accept PeachCare and Medicaid, or they don't provide adequate service, Odette Yousef of WABE reported. Georgia Department of Community Health Commissioner Rhonda Medows disputes that claim. She said no child in Medicaid or PeachCare programs has lost dental benefits or been dropped due to the contract disputes. The suit is "Ellis et al. v. Medows et al., Case No 4:07-cv- 00167-ODE," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, under Judge Orinda D. Evans. Representing plaintiffs are: Edward H. Lindsey, Jr. Robert Malcolm Darroch Goodman McGuffey Lindsey & Johnson 3340 Peachtree Road, N.E. 2100 Tower Place Atlanta, GA 30326-1084 Phone: 404-264-1500 or 404-926-4117 Fax: 404-265-1737 E-mail: elindsey@gmlj.com or rdarroch@gmlj.com - and - Dorothy Anne Jarrell Presley Mabry & McClelland 2200 Century Parkway, N.E., Tenth Floor Atlanta, GA 30345-3105 Phone: 404-325-4800 GPC BIOTECH: Shalov Stone Launches Securities Lawsuit Web Site -------------------------------------------------------------- Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP created the Web site http://www.gpcclassaction.comto address investor interest in the GPC Biotech AG securities fraud class action. Shalov Stone filed a securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New against GPC Biotech AG and certain of its executive officers, on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired GPC securities between December 5, 2005, and July 24, 2007, inclusive (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 9, 2007). According to the complaint, GPC and the other defendants violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants made a series of materially false and misleading misrepresentations and omissions about the Company's operations, financial condition, and business prospects, including those concerning the prospects for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of GPC's leading drug candidate, Satraplatin (a treatment for advanced prostate cancer), thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's securities during the Class Period. The new Web site includes information about the case, a copy of the complaint, and instructions on how to join the class action. Following the publicity generated by the AHM class action, other lawyers have issued press releases about the litigation, even though many did not file cases of their own. Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP commenced one of the first lawsuits relating to GPCB and is continuing to conduct an extensive investigation of the company. For additional information about the lawsuit, contact: Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr. Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000 New York, New York 10018 Phone: (212) 239-4340 E-mail: tciarlone@lawssb.com HILTON HOTELS: Suits Over Blackstone Merger Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------- Hilton Hotels Corp. faces several purported class actions over a merger agreement it entered with entities controlled by investment funds affiliated with The Blackstone Group L.P. Between July 5 and July 17, 2007, twelve purported stockholder class actions related to the Merger Agreement with BH Hotels LLC and BH Hotels Acquisition, Inc., entities controlled by investment funds affiliated with The Blackstone Group L.P. Seven of these lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles: -- "Guiseppone v. Hilton Hotels Corporation, et al. (Case No. BC373765)," filed on July 5; -- "Garber v. Hilton Hotels Corporation, et al. (Case No. BC373766)," filed on July 5; -- "Staehr v. Hilton Hotels Corporation, et al. (Case No. BC373798)," filed on July 5; -- "Simon v. Hilton Hotels Corporation, et al. (Case No. BC373834)," filed on July 6; -- "Frechter v. Hilton Hotels Corporation, et al. (Case No. BC373836)," filed on July 6; -- "Kops v. Hilton Hotels Corporation, et al. (Case No. BC373945)," filed on July 6; and -- "Hawaii Reinforcing Ironworkers Pension Trust Fund, et al. v. Hilton Hotels Corporation, et al. (Case No. BC374209)," filed on July 13. Four lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County: -- "Shaev v. Hilton Hotels Corporation, et al. (Civil Action No. 3072-VCN)," filed on July 5; -- "Oh v. Hilton Hotels Corporation, et al. (Civil Action No. 3091-VCN)," filed on July 13; -- "Lasker v. Bollenbach, et al. (Civil Action No. 3092- VCN)," filed on July 13; and -- "Levine v. Bollenbach, et al. (Civil Action No. 3100- VCN)," filed on July 17. On Aug. 1, 2007, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated these actions into a single proceeding entitled, "In re Hilton Hotels Corporation Shareholders Litigation (Civil Action No. 3072- VCN)." One lawsuit was filed on July 12 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned, "Duchman v. Hilton Hotels Corp., et al. (Case No. CV 07 4542)." Each of the twelve lawsuits names the company's and each of its directors as defendants. Each of the lawsuits except the Simon, Duchman, Lasker, and Levine actions also names Blackstone Group L.P. as a defendant. These lawsuits, which contain substantially similar allegations, claim that our directors breached their fiduciary duties to the company and its stockholders in connection with negotiating and approving the Merger Agreement, that various terms of the Merger Agreement are preclusive and/or unfair, and that the consideration to be received by the company's stockholders under the Merger Agreement is inadequate. In all but the Simon, Duchman, Lasker, and Levine actions, Blackstone is alleged to have aided and abetted the other defendants' alleged fiduciary breaches. The lawsuits seek a variety of equitable and injunctive relief, including enjoining defendants from completing the Transaction, rescission of any consummated transaction, attorneys' fees and expenses, and in the Simon, Duchman, and each of the Delaware actions, unspecified compensatory damages in the event the Transaction is completed. HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Still Faces Multiple Securities Suits in La. --------------------------------------------------------------- Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. continues to face several purported securities fraud class actions that were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. On Jan. 18, 2007, Anthony Caiafa filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. and Todd M. Hornbeck, its Chairman of the Board, President, and Chief Executive Officer. On Jan. 24, 2007, Thomas Schedler filed a similar action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc., Todd M. Hornbeck and James O. Harp, Jr., its Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. On Jan. 26, 2007, Michael D. Fontenelle filed another similar action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. and Todd M. Hornbeck. On Feb. 8, 2007, Oakmont Capital Management, LLC filed a similar action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc., Todd M. Hornbeck, James O. Harp, Jr. and Carl G. Annessa, its Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. These lawsuits purport to be filed as a class action on behalf of the plaintiffs and other similarly situated purchasers of our securities from Nov. 1, 2006 to Jan. 10, 2007. In their complaints, the plaintiffs allege that Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. and the other defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by allegedly making false and misleading statements, and/or by omitting to state material facts necessary to make the statements not misleading, in connection with its forward earnings guidance and its Jan. 10, 2007 announcement of preliminary financial results for the fourth quarter of 2006 that fell short of such guidance and indicated a reduction in 2007 guidance. The company reported no development in the matter in it's Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007. The first identified complaint is "Anthony Caiafa, et al. v. Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Plaintiff firms in this or similar case: Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP 212 East 39th Street New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-889-3700 Fax: 212-684-519 E-mail: info@abbeyspanier.com Gardy & Notis, LLP 440 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Phone: 201-567-7377 Fax: 201-567-7337 E-mail: info@gardylaw.com Paskowitz & Associates 60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor New York, NY 10165 Phone: 212.685.0969 Fax: 212.685.2306 E-mail: classattorney@aol.com Roy Jacobs & Associates 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000 New York, NY 10118 E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com - and - Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Phone: 925.945.0200 Fax: 925.945.8792 E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com INTEGRATED HEALTH: Chiropractors' Motion to Certify Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge David Herndon refused to certify as class action a suit filed against Integrated Health Plan over alleged breach of contracts, Steve Korris of the Madison County Record reports. Integrated Health Plan is a preferred provider organizations in Florida. It has 39 employees. The suit was filed by Lakin Law Firm on behalf of Illinois chiropractors Ann Stock and Richard Coy. Judge Herndon wrote in his Aug. 22 order that, "...given the variations in contracts and state specific laws and regulations governing different lines of insurance, the Court has determined that the issues are too complex for this matter to be certified as a class action." He directed the defendant's lawyer to submit a proposed order by Aug. 31. Representing Health Plan is Michael Kendall of Boston. J2 GLOBAL: Faces Suit Over Alleged Internet Facsimile Monopoly -------------------------------------------------------------- j2 Global Communications, Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging that the company has attempted to monopolize and/or monopolized the market for Internet facsimile services to home and small offices in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The suit was filed on June 29, 2007 by Justin Lynch. The claims in it relate in substantial part to the patent infringement actions by the company against various companies. The suit seeks treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10- Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "Justin Lynch v. j2 Global Communications Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-04304-DDP-AJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Dean D. Pregerson with referral to Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. Representing the plaintiffs are: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro 1301 5th Avenue, Ste 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq. Wexler Toriseva Wallace 1610 Arden Way, Suite 290 Sacramento, CA 95815 Phone: 916-568-1100 E-mail: mjt@wtwlaw.us MILLENNIUM APPAREL: Recalls Clothing Sets with Drawstrings ---------------------------------------------------------- Millennium Apparel Group, of New York, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 4,700 Basic Editions-brand girls' clothing sets. The company said the recalled shirts have drawstrings at the waist. Children can get entangled or caught in a vehicle door and can be dragged, posing a serious risk of injury or death. In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist by drawstrings in upper garments. No injuries have been reported. The two Basic Edition-brand girls' sets have fully tunneled waist drawstrings and two-fer style layered shirts. One set has a light green screen print top with "Varsity Club Winning Attitude" text, over a white shirt, paired with turquoise cuff shorts. The second set has an orange screen print top with "Paradise University Girls Club" text, over a white shirt paired with light green knit shorts. Both sets were sold in the following girls' sizes: 4/5, 6/6X, 7/8, and 10/12. These recalled girls' clothing sets were manufactured in Egypt and are being sold exclusively at Kmart stores nationwide from March 2007 through May 2007 for between $10 and $13 per set. Pictures of recalled girls' clothing sets: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07284a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07284b.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately remove the drawstrings to eliminate the hazard. For additional information, contact Kmart at (800) 659-7026 between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. CT Monday through Saturday, or visit Kmart's Web site: http://www.kmart.com QUIXTAR INC: Mich. Distributors Seek TOR to Keep TEAM Contracts --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a Michigan class action that accuses Quixtar Inc. of engaging in a Ponzi scheme requested temporary and preliminary injunctive relief to prevent the company from interfering with plaintiffs' business relationships until a distributor class action filed in the Central District of California is resolved. Quixtar -- the Internet-based successor to Amway -- retaliated by firing every distributor who signed on to a class-action complaint in Los Angeles that accused Quixtar's business plan of being a Ponzi scheme, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Earlier, 16 distributors of Quixtar filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California accusing the company of running an illegal pyramid recruitment scheme under the guise of a multi-level, home-based "business opportunity" (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 14, 2007). It claims Quixtar products are so expensive it's impossible to make a living selling them, but Amway's founding family continues to profit by recruiting distributors. The complaint alleges Quixtar knows its products are priced so high they cannot be sold and yet it continues to recruit distributors in a concerted effort to enrich the founding families at the expense of the rank and file simply trying to earn a living. Quixtar holds itself out as a legitimate, multi-level home-based business opportunity, but in fact it operates an illegal pyramid recruitment scheme, according to the complaint. Quixtar leads participants to believe that they can build a viable business retailing Quixtar products; but once the participants sign up and pay their initial investment into the pyramid, it quickly becomes evident that Quixtar's products cannot be retailed because they are hopelessly overpriced, it added. The Michigan plaintiffs are requesting temporary and preliminary injunctive relief pursuant to MCR 3.310, pending resolution of the distributor class action filed in the Central District of California. They allege that Quixtar sent an email to all TEAM affiliated Platinum-level Independent Business Owners (IBOs) and above on Aug. 17, 2007, requiring a "signed commitment" as to whether the IBOs individually intend to continue their businesses with Quixtar in "full compliance" with some newly established criteria. The new provisions require all Platinums and above to discontinue their use of TEAM materials and to disavow the TEAM business model. The plaintiffs further claim that the email sent by Quixtar to the Platinums and above is unambiguous threat that, either the IBOs and their downlines, including plaintiffs, swear allegiance to Quixtar and the new rules it has unilaterally imposed, or they will be terminated. These plaintiffs fear their contracts will be terminated if they do not swear allegiance to Quixtar. They are concerned that Quixtar will retaliate against them if they notify Quixtar that they are filing this request for injunctive relief. Quixtar has terminated all named plaintiffs in the distributor class action and is threatening to terminate the Plaintiffs for their past association with TEAM. The Plaintiffs do not feel they can peaceably notify Quixtar and still retain their businesses. Plaintiffs pray that the court: -- grant a Temporary Restraining Order and thereafter a preliminary injunction enjoining Quixtar during the pendency of the parties' distributor class action from interfering with the plaintiffs' business relationships and expectancies by releasing unsubstantiated and disparaging information about the TEAM business materials or training methods; -- grant a TRO and thereafter a preliminary injunction enjoining Quixtar during the pendency of the parties' distributor class action from suspending, terminating, or taking any other action adverse to the plaintiff's distributorships for their unwillingness to enter into comply with Quixtar's demands or to the new contractual terms with Quixtar that interfere or restrict plaintiffs' ability or freedom to do business with any TEAM affiliate or TEAM affiliated IBO; -- grant a TRO and thereafter a preliminary injunction enjoining Quixtar while the plaintiffs exhaust their due process and administrative right under the applicable Rules of Conduct from suspending, terminating, or taking any other action adverse to the plaintiffs' distributorships for their unwillingness to enter into comply with Quixtar's demands or to the new contractual terms with Quixtar that interfere or restrict plaintiffs' ability or freedom to do business with any TEAM affiliate or TEAM affiliated IBO; -- grant a TRO prohibiting Quixtar from taking any action to suspend or terminate any plaintiff unless and until it has complied with the dispute resolution procedures of Quixtar's contract and with such plaintiff; -- grant a TRO and thereafter a preliminary injunction enjoining Quixtar during the pendency of the parties' distributor class action from suspending the earned bonus payments for any IBO in good standing; and -- grant such further relief as the court deems just and equitable. The suit is "John Mar Mossner et al. v. Quixtar, Inc., Case No. 07-08751-CK," filed in the Circuit Court for the County of Kent in the State of Michigan, under Judge Paul J. Sullivan. Representing plaintiffs is: Thomas V. Hubbard Ledyard Building, Suite 300 125 Ottawa Avenue NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2898 Phone: 616-454-8300 Fax: 616-454-0036 RJ REYNOLDS: No Oral Arguments Hearing Set in "Brown" Case Yet -------------------------------------------------------------- The California Supreme Court has yet to schedule oral arguments with regards to a review of a ruling decertifying the class in "Brown v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.," which names R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., (RJR Tobacco), as a defendant. The suit was filed in June 1997 in the Superior Court, San Diego County, California. On April 11, 2001, the court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a class composed of residents of California who smoked at least one of the defendants' cigarettes from June 10, 1993 through April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to the defendants' marketing and advertising activities in California. The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., (B&W), seeking to recover restitution, disgorgement of profits and other equitable relief under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. and Section 17500 et seq. Certification was granted as to the plaintiffs' claims that the defendants violated Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code pertaining to unfair competition. The court, however, refused to certify the class under the California Legal Remedies Act and on the plaintiffs' common law claims. Following the November 2004 passage of a proposition in California that changed the law regarding cases of this nature, the defendants filed a motion to decertify the class. On March 7, 2005, the court granted the defendants' motion. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 19, 2005. On Sept. 5, 2006, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judge's order decertifying the class. On Oct. 13, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. The petition for review was granted on Nov. 1, 2006. Briefing is complete. Oral argument has not been scheduled, according to the Reynolds American, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is primarily a holding company. The company's wholly owned operating subsidiaries include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc., Lane, Limited (Lane) and R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc. SLM CORP: Seeks Dismissal of FFELP Billing Practices Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ SLM Corp. is seeking for the dismissal of a purported class action filed against it in California federal court over its Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) billing practices. The suit, "Chae, et al. v. SLM Corp. et al.," was filed on April 14, 2007. It was served to the Company by several borrowers. The complaint alleges violations of California Business & Professions Code 17200, breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of consumer legal remedies act and unjust enrichment. The complaint challenges the Company's FFELP billing practices as they relate to use of the simple daily interest method for calculating interest. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on June 21, 2007, with a hearing on the motion expected in late August, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007. SLM Corp., -- http://www.salliemae.com/-- also known as Sallie Mae, is engaged in education finance. The company is a holding company that operates through a number of subsidiaries. The Company's primary business is to originate and hold student loans by providing funding, delivery and servicing support for education loans in the U.S. through its participation in the Federal Family Education Loan Program and through offering non- federally guaranteed Private Education Loans. The Company provides an array of credit products and related services to the higher education and consumer credit communities and others through two primary business segments: Lending business segment and Debt Management Operations business segment. SOLUTIA INC: Former Officers, Employees Face ERISA Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Former officers and employees of Solutia, Inc., and Solutia's Employee Benefits Plans Committee and Pension and Savings Funds Committee faces a purported class action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The suit, "Reiff v. Metz," was filed on June 25, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The purported class representative in "Reiff" is a current Solutia employee. The suit is "Reiff v. Metz et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-06011-LAP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Loretta A. Preska. Representing the plaintiff is: Ronen Sarraf, Esq. Sarraf Gentile, LLP 485 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 868-3610 Fax: (212) 918-7967 E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com STATE FARM: Ariz. Homeowner Files Breach of Contract Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. is facing a class action for alleged breach of insurance contract in relation to the repair of polybutylene pipe system of a Pima County (Ariz.) resident. Plaintiff Rosemary Guadiana had a polybutylene pipe system in her home. It is now known that polybutylene is not a suitable material for water pipes because oxidants in public water supplies, such as chlorine, cause the piping system to become brittle resulting in micro-fractures which eventually cause the system to fail and leak. Because the defect in a PB pipe is the very chemical nature of the piping system itself, there is no feasible way to repair the system other than replacing the PB piping with a more suitable type of pipe. On September 9, 2004, plaintiff said she sustained water damage in her home caused by a leak in her plumbing system. Plaintiff had an insurance policy with defendant which defendant admitted covered the cost of tearing out and replacing any part of the building necessary to repair the system or appliance. Because of the nature of the defect in Plaintiff's PB piping system, the "system" that needed to be repaired was the entire PB Pipe system, not just the specific part of the PB Pipe system which was leaking. Defendant acknowledged that the PB Pipe system is defective and cannot be repaired and that the entire PB Pipe system must be replaced, but it refused to pay for the cost of tearing out and replacing the PB Pipe system, according to the complaint. Defendant takes the position that its policy only provides coverage to tear into the "part of the building necessary to repair the portion of the pipe from where the water escaped." Defendant's interpretation ignores the plain meaning of the word "system" and its refusal to pay the costs involved with removing and replacing the entire defective system violated its insurance policy which constitutes its contract with Plaintiff, according to the suit. Accordingly, it is alleged that defendant's action constitutes breach of contract. The plaintiff brought the action for herself and on behalf of a proposed class consisting of all policyholders who: -- own or owned real property located in the U.S. who was insured by defendant; -- submitted to defendant a claim for a covered loss to the insured real property during the period from four years prior to the filing of the Original Complaint in this case to the present, which claim included a claim for costs for tearing out and replacing part of the building necessary to replace the entire polybutylene piping system; and -- received a payment from Defendant which covered only costs for tearing out and replacing only the part of the building necessary to repair part of the polybutylene piping system. Plaintiff and the class members seek damages for the unpaid portions of the claims they submitted to defendant for the cost of tearing out and replacing all parts of their buildings that were required to replace PB piping systems after they suffered a water-related, covered loss, plus pre-judgment interest, at the highest rate allowed by law, on the damages awarded. Plaintiff and the class members seek additional exemplary damages due to the fact that defendant's implementation of this PB piping replacement policy allegedly constitutes bad faith. The case is docketed 4:2007cv00326. It was filed in the U.S. District Court District of Arizona on July 9, 2007. Representing the plaintiff are: Michael Caddell, Esq. Cynthia Chapman, Esq. Cory S. Fein, Esq. Richard D. Daly, Esq. Caddell & Chapman, P.C. 1331 Lamar, Suite 1070 Houston, TX 77010-3027 Phone: (713) 751-0400 Fax: (713) 751-0906 SYMBION INC: Faces Suits in Tenn. Over Crestview Partners Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Symbion, Inc. is facing two lawsuits filed in connection with it planned merger with an affiliate of Crestview Partners, LP, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007. On May 17, 2007, C. Steadman Morris, III filed a class action petition in the Circuit Court for Davidson County, Tennessee against Symbion and all of the directors of Symbion. On May 29, 2007, the plaintiff filed to have the lawsuit voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, and an order of dismissal was granted on June 5, 2007. On May 30, 2007, Tracy Swiderski filed a class action petition in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee against Symbion and all of the directors of Symbion. On July 23, 2007, attorneys for Ms. Swiderski filed an amended complaint alleging, among other things, that the Symbion directors breached their fiduciary duties to Symbion's stockholders in approving the merger agreement and that the Symbion directors engaged in self-dealing. In addition, the amended complaint alleges that the proxy statement relating to the merger that the company filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission does not provide full disclosure of all material information. The relief sought under the amended complaint includes, among other things, class certification, an injunction preventing the merger, and the awarding of attorneys' fees to the plaintiff. Symbion, Inc., -- http://www.symbion.com/-- through its wholly owned subsidiaries, owns interests in partnerships and limited liability companies that own and operate surgical facilities in joint ownership with physicians and physician groups, hospitals and hospital networks in 23 states. TATTOO PARLOUR: Faces CAD10M Lawsuit Over Defective Sterilizer -------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyer Colleen Arsenault, on behalf of Kaleb Beaulieu, filed in Whitby court, Canada a $10 million class action against an Oshawa tattoo parlor after the health department found that a unit used to sterilize instruments and equipment on site was intermittently malfunctioning, Jennifer Stone of the Newsdurhamregion.com reports. The Durham Region Health Department closed the tattoo parlor from Aug. 1 to 9 after launching an investigation into potential exposure to non-sterile equipment by clients. It re-opened after passing a number of tests on the previously malfunctioning sterilizing equipment that had forced the closure. The health department then used waiver forms filled out by clients to send letters to those who received services at Longhorn between Nov. 17, 2006 and Aug. 1, 2007. The use of non-sterile equipment could lead to transmission of diseases like hepatitis C and HIV. The complaint claims "compensatory damages for negligence and breach of contract" of $3 million and "punitive, exemplary or aggravated damages" of $7 million. According to the report, the suit has not been certified in court as a class action, nor have any of the allegations been proven in court. Longhorn has not yet filed a statement of defense. Messages left at the Oshawa tattoo parlour owner Hugh Towie received no reply, the report said. TELMEX USA: Faces FCRA Violations Lawsuit in California ------------------------------------------------------- Telmex USA, L.L.C. is facing a class action accusing it of defrauding people who buy its prepaid telephone cards, CourtHouse News Service. The suit was filed by Nora Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 19. It alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is docketed 2:07-cv-04687-GAF-FMO. It is under Judge Gary A. Feess, with referral to Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Representing the plaintiff are: Michael Goldberg, Esq. Glancy Binkow and Goldberg 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 -- and - Paul M. Weiss, Esq. Freed and Weiss 111 West Washington Street, Suite 1331 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312-220-0000 TENET HEALTHCARE: RICO Violations Suit by Fla. Hospital Junked -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed a purported class action filed against Tenet Healthcare Corp., which was filed in March 2005 by Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. (BRCHI). The suit is principally alleging that Tenet's past pricing policies and receipt of Medicare outlier payments violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, causing harm to plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks unspecified amounts of damages (including treble damages under RICO), restitution, disgorgement and punitive damages. In December 2006, the district court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification, which decision the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit declined to review. On Aug. 1, 2007, the district court granted the company's motion for summary judgment on all claims, thereby dismissing this case, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation, Case No. 05-80183-CIV," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Patricia A. Seitz. Representing the plaintiff are: Greenberg Traurig, P.A 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Phone: 305-579-0500 Fax: 305-579-0717 Web site: http://www.gtlaw.com -and - Melvyn I. Weiss, Esq. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP Tower One, 5200 Town Center Road, Suite 600 Boca Raton, Florida 33486 Phone: 561-361-5000 Telecopier: 561-367-8400 Web site: http://www.milbergweiss.com Representing the defendant are: Kenny Nachwalter, Esq. Seymour Arnold Critchlow & Spector, P.A. 1100 Miami Center, 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 373-1000 Fax: (305) 372-1861 -and - Holland & Knight, LLP 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000 Miami, Florida 33131 P.O. Box 015441, Florida, 33101 Phone: 305-374-8500 Fax: 305-789-7799 Web site: http://www.hklaw.com THRESHOLD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. faces several purported securities fraud class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007. The suits were filed on July 5 and July 18, 2007 alleging violations of the federal securities laws. They were filed against the company, its chief executive officer Harold E. Selick and its former chief financial officer Janet I. Swearson. The securities lawsuits, which the company expects will be consolidated into a single proceeding, allege claims arising under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of the Company's common stock from the date of the Company's initial public offering of securities on Feb. 4, 2005 through July 14, 2006. Plaintiffs allege generally that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by, among other things, making material misstatements or omissions concerning the Company's Phase II and Phase III clinical trials of Lonidamine (TH-070). Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.thresholdpharm.com -- is a biotechnology company. The Company focuses on the discovery and development of drugs. Based on Metabolic Targeting, an approach that targets fundamental differences in metabolism between normal and certain diseased cells. TOBY NYC: Recalls Kids' Metal Jewelry Due to High Lead Levels -------------------------------------------------------------- TOBY N.Y.C., of New York, in cooperation with U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 14,000 TOBY & ME jewelry sets. The company said the recalled metal jewelry sets contain high levels of lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects. No injuries have been reported. The three recalled jewelry sets include: a princess pink and clear crystal bead necklace and bracelet set with a painted metallic crown pendant; a pink and white pearl necklace and bracelet set with a painted metallic poodle pendant; and a pink pearl necklace, earrings and ring set. All sets are sold in a pink gift box with "TOBY & ME" printed on the front and "TOBY & ME" hangtags attached to the packaging. These recalled jewelry sets were manufactured in China and are being sold at T.J. Maxx, Marshalls, and A.J.Wright from August 2006 through May 2007 for about $8. Pictures of the recalled jewelry sets: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07280a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07280b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07280c.jpg Consumers should immediately take the recalled jewelry away from children and contact TOBY N.Y.C. for information on receiving a full refund or replacement item. For additional information, contact TOBY N.Y.C. toll-free at (866) 235-0588 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or email the firm at info@tobynyc.com. UNITED STATES: Sued Over NCLB Act "Qualified Teacher" Definition ---------------------------------------------------------------- Students, parents, the California Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now and another group have filed a class action claiming the Education Department's "No Child Left Behind Act" is a fraud, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Plaintiffs claim U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings eviscerated the Act that seeks to have all students "proficient" in reading and math by 2014 by issuing a regulation defining as "highly qualified" more than 10,000 novice teachers in California "who are merely participating in alternative preparation routes". The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 21. Plaintiffs say, "Congress expressly mandated that only teachers that have completed their teacher preparation programs and have received full state certification are to be deemed 'highly qualified'." Plaintiffs want the court, among others, to enter a declaratory judgment that defendants' regulation defining a "highly qualified" teacher as one who "is participating in an alterative route to certification program," is unlawful and void for the reason that Defendants' regulation contravenes the definition of "highly qualified" established by Congress in the No Child Left Behind Act. They also want the court to enjoin defendants from submitting the 2005-2006 report to Congress on teacher quality and the percentage of classes nationwide taught by "highly qualified" teachers; as well as any further outstanding reports or future reports due to Congress relating to "highly qualified" teachers under NCLB-that fail to designate teachers participating in alterative certification programs as not "highly qualified. Also, they want the court to order defendants to notify states that the regulation defining a "highly qualified" teacher as one who "is participating in an alterative route to certification program" is unlawful and void. Plaintiffs also want reimbursement of litigation costs, and attorneys' fees. The suit is "Renee et al. v. Spellings et al., Case No. 3:07-cv- 04299-EMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge Edward M. Chen. Representing plaintiffs are: John T. Affeldt Tara Elizabeth Kini Jenny Pearlman Public Advocates, Inc. 131 Steuart Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 431-7430 David B. Cook Goodwin Procter LLP 901 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 346-4000 Fax: (202) 346-4444 Nicole Elise Perroton Elizabeth Frances Stone Patrick Shaun Thompson Goodwin Procter LLP 101 California Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-733-6069 or (415) 733-6054 or 415-733-6054 Fax: 415-677-9041 E-mail: nperroton@goodwinprocter.com or estone@goodwinprocter.com - and - Jeffrey Simes Goodwin Procter LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212/813-8879 Fax: 212/355-3333 VERIZON WIRELESS: Faces Suit Over "AOL Instant Messenger Fees" -------------------------------------------------------------- Verizon Wireless and Cellco Partnership are facing a class- action complaint filed Aug. 22 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging the companies overcharge for text messaging, the CourtHouse News Service reports. "Verizon Wireless represents that customers will be charged only for messages sent or received," the complaint states. "Contrary to Verizon's representations, after a Verizon Wireless consumer logs in to AIM (AOL Instant Messenger) on a Verizon Wireless cell phone, Verizon Wireless imposes charges which Verizon Wireless claims are for instant messages, but actually are imposed simply as a result of logging in, and this occurs even if the user does not send or receive any instant messages. Allegedly, when customers complain about these charges, Verizon Wireless 'upsells' customers to more expensive monthly packages and thus profits further from these improper charges." Named plaintiff Albert Halprin brings this action on behalf of all persons whom Verizon Wireless charged for use of AOL instant messenger from Aug. 17, 2001 to the present. The plaintiff wants the court to rule: (a) whether Verizon Wireless has charged plaintiff and class members for instant messages that have not actually been sent or received; (b) whether Verizon Wireless' charges for instant messaging, are charges and/or practices in connection with communication service, subject to the requirements of the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 201(b); (c) whether Verizon Wireless' charges for instant messaging are unjust and/or unlawful under Section 201(b); (d) whether VErizon Wireless' imposition of charges for instant messaging, is an act or practice in the conduct of trade or commerce; (e) whether the imposition of charges for instant messaging, is deceptive, unfair, and unconscionable because Verizon Wireless charges consumers for instant messages that are not actually sent or received; (f) whether Verizon Wireless' practice of upselling consumers to more expensive monthly plans, based on complaints about instant messaging charges, is deceptive, unfair, and unconscionable because Verizon Wireless charges consumers for instant messages that are not actually sent or received; (g) whether, as a direct and proximate result of Verizon Wireless' deceptive and unfair acts and practices, plaintiff and class members suffered an ascertainable loss; (h) whether Verizon Wireless has committed deceptive acts or practices within the meaning of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act by engaging in the acts and practices alleged; (i) whether Verizon Wireless has breached its contracts with plaintiff and class members by charging for instant messages that are not in fact sent or received; (j) whether Verizon Wireless breached its contracts with plaintiff and class members by its practice of upselling consumers to more expensive monthly plans; (k) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to injunctive relief; and (l) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to damages, interest and attorneys' fees and costs. The suit is "Halprin v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, Case No. 3:07-cv-04015-JAP-TJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, under Judge Joel A. Pisano, with referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Representing plaintiffs is: Lisa J. Rodriguez Trujillo, Rodgriguez & Richards, LLP 8 Kings Highway West Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Phone: (856) 795-9002 E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com New Securities Fraud Cases GPC BIOTECH: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of securities of GPC Biotech AG from December 5, 2005 through July 24, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges GPC and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. GPC is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in the discovery, development and commercialization of new drugs to treat cancer. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the U.S. Federal Drug Administration ("FDA") had previously expressed disapproval regarding the Company's choice of methodology and a primary endpoint in the satraplatin studies; (2) that the Company continued to evaluate satraplatin using the disputed endpoint; (3) that the Company disregarded the FDA's previously expressed concerns about the disputed primary endpoint, and submitted the satraplatin study results to the FDA with the disputed primary endpoint supporting its satraplatin New Drug Application ("NDA"); (4) that the FDA's evaluators would be unable to determine disease progression from the Company's NDA submission; and (5) that the interim data submitted with the NDA would not allow the FDA to conclude that satraplatin was more effective than placebo in terms of overall survival. Throughout the Class Period, the Company reported positive results from its satraplatin Phase 3 trial, and indicated that data from the trial would form the Company's New Drug Application (NDA) with the FDA. The Company reported a 40 percent reduction in risk of disease progression for study participants who received satraplatin, and reported that the study data showed that the results for PFS were highly statistically significant. The Company's investors were shocked on July 20, 2007, when the FDA released its "Briefing Document" in advance of the FDA's Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee's meeting to consider the satraplatin NDA. Therein, the FDA cited five "issues" that it had with the Company's satraplatin NDA. On this news, the Company's shares declined $7.80 per share, or over 24.5 percent, to close on July 20, 2007 at $24.00 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. On the following trading day, the Company's shares declined an additional $3.05 per share, to close on July 23, 2007 at $20.95 per share. Then on July 24, 2007, the FDA's advisory panel voted 12-0 to recommend delaying a decision on satraplatin until the Company gathered additional data to determine whether satraplatin actually helped men with prostate cancer live longer. In response, the Company disclosed that it did not expect to have the necessary survival analysis for another year. On this news, the Company's shares declined an additional $7.19 per share, or 35.36 percent, to close on July 25, 2007 at $13.16 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Inteerested parties may move the court no later than September 24, 2007, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all common stock purchasers of Limelight Networks, Inc. pursuant or traceable to the Company's June 8, 2007 Initial Public Offering through August 8, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges Limelight and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Limelight is a provider of high-performance content delivery network services. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company's revenues were subject to seasonal fluctuation; (2) that the Company was experiencing severe pricing pressure for its services; (3) that the Company was experiencing a declining customer demand, which would affect the Company's revenues in subsequent financial quarters; (4) that the Company was experiencing rising expenses; and (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls. On June 8, 2007, the Company conducted its IPO. In connection with the IPO, the Company filed a Registration Statement and Prospectus with the SEC. The IPO was a financial success for the Company and certain selling stockholders, as they were able to sell 16 million shares of the Company's stock to investors at a price of $15.00 per share, for gross proceeds of $240 million. The Company shocked investors on August 9, 2007 when it reported disappointing financial results for its second quarter of 2007. The Company disclosed for the first time that its revenues were subject to seasonality, and that it had experienced a drop-off in media customers in the quarter due to the seasonality that media companies experience after the television season ends. Finally, the Company admitted that it was experiencing price pressures in certain customer segments. On this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $5.81 per share, or over 39 percent, to close on August 9, 2007 at $8.99 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than October 12, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 E-mail: info@sbtklaw.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, 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 * * *