/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070925.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, September 25, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 189 Headlines ALS ENTERPRISES: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit Over "Scent-Lok" ANALOG DEVICES: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Suit in Massachusetts CALIFORNIA: Los Angeles, Orange County Towing Firms Face Suit ESTEE LAUDER: No Amended Complaint Filed in N.Y. Securities Suit FINANCE AMERICA: Settles Suit Over Alleged FCRA Violation GINN RESORTS: Sued in Mich. for Failing to Register Sales GUAM: Fairness Hearing on $90M EITC Lawsuit Settlement Held HUNTSMAN CORP: Reaches MOU to Settle Lawsuits Over $10.6B Buyout IMERGENT INC: Settles Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Utah INTER-AMERICAN PRODUCTS: Recalls Ice Cream with Undeclared Milk IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of Ind. ERISA Suit LEVEL 3: Still Faces Rights of Way Litigation in Ill., Idaho MISSOURI: Ruling in Suit Over Blind Pension Fund Expected Soon MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Litigation in N.Y. MONSTER WORLDWIDE: N.Y. Securities Suit Plaintiffs Amend Claims NUMISMATIC GUARANTY: Settles Fla. Suit Over "First Strike" Coins PACIFIC CAPITAL: Canieva Hood Allowed to Go Ahead with Suit PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Lawsuit Over Unlawful SMS Charges PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT: Col. Royalties Suit Now in Federal Court PINNACLE GROUP: Class Status Sought for Suit Over Evictions PREMIERE GLOBAL: Calif. Suit Over Junk Faxes Partly Dismissed PRESSTEK INC: Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.H. Moves Forward SANDERSON FARMS: Reaches Settlement for La. Employee's Lawsuit SIMPLICITY INC: Recalls Cribs with Drop-Side that can Detach STARBUCKS COFFEE: Fla. Court Certifies Class in Overtime Lawsuit TJX COMPANIES: Settles Privacy Breach Suit Filed by Customers WASHINGTON MUTUAL: No Hearing Set for Securities Suit Appeal * Cohen Milstein Mulls Suit Over U.K. Dairy Goods Price Fixing * Melvyn Weiss to Face Trial in Plaintiff Kickback Lawsuit New Securities Fraud Cases NETBANK, INC: Schoengold Sporn Files Ga. Securities Lawsuit THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit ********* ALS ENTERPRISES: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit Over "Scent-Lok" ----------------------------------------------------------- ALS Enterprises, Inc. and several other outdoor goods retailers are accused of fraudulently selling a hunting clothing "Scent- Lok," that is supposed to mask human scent, The Associated Press reports. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on Sept. 13, 2007 by four Minnesota hunters: -- Mike Buetow of Shakopee, -- Theodore Carlson of Edina, -- Gary Richardson Jr. of St. Paul, and -- Joe Rohrbach of Shakopee. In the complaint, the four are alleging claiming that clothing they bought to mask the human scent doesn't work, and that hunters have been defrauded for years. Besides ALS Enterprises, a handful of outdoors retailers, were also named as the defendants in the suit. They are: -- Gander Mountain Co., -- Cabela's Inc., -- Bass Pro Shops Inc., and -- Browning Arms Co. The complaint states that ALS Enterprises, a Muskegon, Michigan- based clothing manufacturer, produces and licenses "Scent-Lok" clothing sold under that name and others. It also states that the company is the largest maker of such clothing and licenses it to at least 22 others, including Gander Mountain, Cabela's, Bass Pro, and Browning Arms. Generally, the lawsuit claims that the five businesses conspired to deceive consumers and suppressed and concealed the truth. It further claims, "consumers have been duped into spending significant amounts of money on a product that does not work as represented." Plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking class-action status, saying "tens of thousands" of Minnesota hunters have been deceived into buying millions of dollars of odor-eliminating clothing. The suit is "Carlson et al. v. A L S Enterprises Inc et al., Case No. 0:07-cv-03970-RHK-JSM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Richard H. Kyle with referral to Judge Janie S. Mayeron. Representing the plaintiffs are: Vincent J. Esades, Esq. Heins Mills & Olson, PLC 80 S. 8th St., Ste. 3550 Mpls, MN 55402 Phone: 612-338-4605 Fax: 612-338-4692 E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com - and - Ernest W. Grumbles, III Merchant & Gould PC 80 S 8th St., Ste. 3200 Mpls, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 332-5300 Fax: (612) 332-9081 E-mail: egrumbles@merchantgould.com ANALOG DEVICES: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Suit in Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- Analog Devices, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of a purported class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. On Oct. 13, 2006, a purported class action complaint was filed on behalf of participants in the company's Investment Partnership Plan from Oct. 5, 2000 to the present. The complaint named as defendants the company, certain officers and directors, and the company's Investment Partnership Plan Administration Committee. The complaint alleges purported violations of federal law in connection with the company's option granting practices during the years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, including breaches of fiduciary duties owed to participants and beneficiaries of the company's Investment Partnership Plan under ERISA. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, as well as equitable and injunctive relief. On Nov. 22, 2006, the company and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. On Jan. 8, 2007, the Plaintiff filed memoranda in opposition. On Jan. 22, 2007, the company and the individual defendants filed further memoranda in support of the motions to dismiss. The company provided no development in the case at its Aug. 21, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007. The suit is "Bendaoud v. Hodgson et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-11873- NG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Nancy Gertner. Representing plaintiffs are: Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq. Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP 53 State Street Boston, MA 02108 Phone: 617-439-3939 Fax: 617-439-0134 E-mail: ted@shulaw.com tshapiro@shulaw.com CALIFORNIA: Los Angeles, Orange County Towing Firms Face Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Bisnar Chase LLP filed a class action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against seven Los Angeles and Orange County businesses, alleging they engaged in the predatory towing of cars, according to the Daily Pilot. The suit was filed by Alejandro Stephens, who said his car was legally parked in the lot of a restaurant where he was eating, when it was towed. His suit accuses towing companies of ignoring the state-mandated one-hour grace period before towing, and of charging exorbitant fees to release a towed car. It seeks an order barring the companies from the alleged predatory practices. Bisnar Chase expects that as many as 500 people are eligible to join the suit, according to the report. Bisnar Chase LLP on the Net: http://www.bisnarchase.com. ESTEE LAUDER: No Amended Complaint Filed in N.Y. Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against the Estee Lauder Cos. Inc. were unable to file an amended complaint at a court-determined June deadline. The Court dismissed the Complaint on grounds that the allegations did not sufficiently show that the Lead Plaintiff suffered economic losses from his purchases of Estee Lauder common stock during the Class Period. On March 30, 2006, a purported securities class action complaint, "Thomas S. Shin, et al. v. The Estee Lauder Cos. Inc., et al.," was filed against the company and certain of its officers and directors. The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. between April 28, 2005 and Oct. 25, 2005, inclusive. The complaint alleged that the defendants made statements during the period April 28, 2005 to Oct. 25, 2005 in press releases, the company's public filings and during conference calls with analysts that were materially false and misleading and that artificially inflated the price of the company's stock. It also alleged claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Additionally, the complaint asserted that during the class period, certain executive officers and the trust for the benefit of a director sold shares of our Class A Common Stock at artificially inflated prices. Three additional purported securities class action complaints were subsequently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York containing similar allegations. On July 10, 2006, the court consolidated these actions as "In Re Estee Lauder Companies Securities Litigation," appointed lead plaintiff, and approved the selection of lead counsel. A consolidated amended complaint addressing the same issues as the original complaint was filed on Sept. 8, 2006. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on Nov. 7, 2006 and the plaintiff responded to the motion on Jan. 5, 2007. Defendants replied to plaintiff's response on Feb. 5, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, May 14, 2007). In it's May 22, 2007 order dismissing the complaint, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, granted Plaintiff permission to file an Amended Complaint on or before June 4, 2007. The plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the deadline, according to the company's Aug. 28, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "In re: Estee Lauder Cos. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-02505-LAK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A. Kaplan. Representing the plaintiffs are: James Henry Glavin, Esq. Stull Stull & Brody 6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 687-7230 Fax: (212) 490-2022 E-mail: jhglavin@ssbny.com Eric James Belfi, Esq. Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP 100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 907-0790 Fax: (212) 883-7579 E-mail: ebelfi@labaton.com FINANCE AMERICA: Settles Suit Over Alleged FCRA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Connie Thompson of KOMOTV.com reports that a settlement notice of a suit about solicitations from a mortgage company called Finance America is going out to millions of consumers across the country. Ms. Thompson found out that the settlement is for a lawsuit that claimed Finance America violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by sending unsolicited ads to consumers. Finance America allegedly did not use pre-screened information it supposedly obtained through credit bureaus to offer actual mortgage loans. Finance America denied the allegation, but settled nonetheless. In what she describes as "one of the most baffling deals," she has come across, Ms. Thompson learned from the California firm that filed the class action that consumers won't get back cash from the settlement. "The settlement is a non-cash settlement. Instead, you have the opportunity to apply to receive a mortgage loan from Finance America on favorable terms," according the law firm's recorded message. She said, "To sum it up, the company got sued and settled, but then they get the benefit of people in the settlement class to come and do business with them..." Attorney Edwared Zusman of Markun, Zusman and Compton told her consumers who apply and qualify for a loan will get what amounts to a wholesale rate without the normal brokers' markup, resulting to several thousand dollars in savings. Whereas, if the settlement was in cash, consumers wouldn't be rewarded more than $1,000 under the Fair Credit Reporting statutes. The class consists of people who received the solicitation between March 2, 2003 and December 18, 2006. Claims filing deadline is Oct. 22. Markun, Zusman and Compton will get up to $3.5 million in legal fees once the settlement is approved. GINN RESORTS: Sued in Mich. for Failing to Register Sales --------------------------------------------------------- Ginn Resorts is facing a purported class action that accuses the company of violating federal law by selling individual properties at four of its Florida resorts multiple times for investment purposes without registering investment contracts with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Steve Lynn of The Vail Daily News reports. According to the lawsuit, which was filed back in May in a Michigan federal court, Ginn real estate agents told the plaintiffs that "as soon as the property was purchased, the agents could immediately sell the properties at a substantial profit." Ginn Resorts -- http://www.ginncompany.com-- specializes in land acquisition, real estate development and management, architectural design and engineering, resort development and operation and golf course construction and management. GUAM: Fairness Hearing on $90M EITC Lawsuit Settlement Held ------------------------------------------------------------ Guam's district court has concluded a final fairness hearing on a $90 million settlement of a suit filed over the state's Earned Income Tax Credit, Stephanie Godlewski of the Pacific Daily News reports. The settlement arose out of class actions filed against the government by Julie Babauta Santos, and Charmaine Torres in 2004 claiming the state owes tax refunds to taxpayers under the EITC. The earned income credit was intended as an incentive to keep the working poor on the job instead of on welfare. In June 2006, Gov. Felix Camacho signed a $90 million agreement to settle the suit. In January, District Court Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood granted preliminary approval to the settlement. A final approval would trigger the payments of about $5 million that has been set aside for claims. So far, the government has paid out $10.5 million in claims for 1997 and 1998, according to the report. The remainder will be paid out annually, as the settlement specifically states that 15% of all funds used to pay tax returns every year will be used to pay EITC arrears. Attorneys representing Christina Naputi and Marygrace Simpao have objected to the settlement on various grounds, including that the government has no enough money to pay off the settlement and its current deficit, the notice to possible claimants was insufficient, there were too many disparities in the payouts to certify the class, and that 72 percent of potential claims were not filed. The challengers also noted that the number of claims filed so far this year only totaled $71.5 million. Another hearing is scheduled for Oct. 22 to address the issue of attorney's fees. According to the report, Judge Tydingco-Gatewood indicated that she might rule on the case by Thanksgiving. The plaintiffs are represented by lawyers Peter Perez, Mike Philips, and James Canto. Claimants Christina Naputi and Marygrace Simpao are represented by attorneys Nancy Pacharzina and Thomas Fisher. HUNTSMAN CORP: Reaches MOU to Settle Lawsuits Over $10.6B Buyout ---------------------------------------------------------------- Huntsman Corp. entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle lawsuits that seek to stop a vote on its pending $10.6 billion acquisition by private-equity company Apollo Management LP, The Associated Press reports. On July 12, 2007 Hunstman agreed to be acquired by private- equity firm Apollo Management for $28 a share, or $10.6 billion, including debt. Huntsman will be combined with Apollo's Hexion Specialty Chemicals Inc. From July 5 to July 13, 2007, four shareholder class-action complaints were filed against the Company and its directors alleging breaches of fiduciary duty over the deal (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 18, 2007). Three actions were filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware. They are: -- "Cohen v. Archibald, et al., No. 3070," (filed July 5, 2007); -- "Augenstein v. Archibald, et al., No. 3076," (filed July 9, 2007);" and -- "Murphy v. Huntsman, et al., No. 3094," (filed July 13, 2007). The fourth action, entitled, "Schwoegler v. Huntsman Corp., et al., Cause No. 07-07-06993-CV," was filed in the 9th Judicial District Court of Montgomery County, Texas on July 6, 2007. Generally, the suits are alleging that the company and its directors breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in an unfair sales process, approving an unfair price for the buyout and making inadequate disclosures to stockholders. Under the proposed settlement, the company agrees to make additional disclosures in its definitive proxy statement, which it sent to shareholders last week. The company was quick to point out that the settlement won't affect the timing of the buyout. Huntsman Corp. -- http://www.huntsman.com/-- manufactures chemical products and formulations that are marketed in more than 100 countries to a group of consumer and industrial customers. IMERGENT INC: Settles Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Utah ---------------------------------------------------------------- iMergent, Inc. settled a consolidated securities fraud class action that alleged it had concealed information about its sales practices as the company's share price soared and company officers sold stock,. According to a report by Tom Harvey of The Salt Lake Tribune, the company disclosed that an insurance policy for directors and officers would pay $2.8 million to settle the lawsuit filed in March 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. Case Background On March 8, 2005, Elliott Firestone filed a lawsuit, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against the company, certain current and former officers, and current and former directors (Class Action Reporter, June 15, 2007). This suit was followed by several other similar complaints. The court ordered that the cases be consolidated, and on Nov. 23, 2005, allowed a "consolidated amended complaint for violation of the federal securities laws" against the company, certain current and former officers, and current and former directors, together with the former independent registered public accounting firm for the company, Grant Thornton LLP, as defendants. The amended consolidated complaint alleges violations of securities laws claiming that the defendants either made or were responsible for the making of material misleading statements and omissions, providing inaccurate financial information, and failing to make proper disclosures, which required the company to restate its financial results. The suit seeks unspecified damages, including attorneys' fees and costs. Although this action was determined by the court to be the "consolidated action," Hillel Hyman filed a complaint in October 2005 on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against the company, certain current and former officers, current and former directors, and Grant Thornton LLP. The group in subsequent filings refers to itself as the "accounting restatement group" and alleges that it should be determined by the court to be the consolidated plaintiff as it properly alleges a class period consistent with timing necessary to raise a claim based upon the restatement of financial results announced by the company. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws by the company and Grant Thornton LLP. On Feb. 28, 2006, at a "Status Conference," the court determined that the complaint filed by the accounting restatement group should be substituted as the new consolidated amended complaint. On April 3, 2006, the court entered a consent order substituting Mr. Hyman as the lead plaintiff. On Sept. 21, Imerget announced a settlement. The MOU is subject to certain contingencies which require court approval. The parties have not filed a formal stipulation seeking approval but expect to do so within the next month. The court has not yet scheduled a hearing on this matter. The suit is "Hyman v. Imergent, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00861- DAK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah under Judge Dale A. Kimball. Representing the plaintiffs are: C. Richard Henriksen, Jr., Esq. Henriksen & Henriksen 320 S. 500 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Phone: (801) 521-4145 E-mail: hhlaw@sisna.com - and - Ira M. Press, Esq. Kirby Mcinerney & Squire 830 Third Ave. New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 317-6600 E-mail: ipress@kmslaw.com Representing the defendants is: Jacqueline Benson, Esq. Gary F. Bendinger, Esq. Howrey, LLP Phone: (713) 654-7693 and (801) 533-8383 E-mail: bendingerg@howrey.com INTER-AMERICAN PRODUCTS: Recalls Ice Cream with Undeclared Milk --------------------------------------------------------------- Inter-American Products, Inc., a division of The Kroger Co., is recalling all codes of Private Selection Classic Churned Light Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough Ice Cream in 1.75-quart containers. The ice cream is being recalled because it may contain eggs, which are not listed in the ingredient statement. People who have an allergy to eggs run the risk of serious or life- threatening reaction if they consume this product. The ice cream was distributed only to Ralphs Food Stores in California and Food 4 Less stores in Southern California. No other Private Selection Ice Cream products are affected by this recall. Customers are encouraged to return the product to a Ralphs or Food 4 Less store for a full refund. No illnesses have been reported. For most consumers, there is no safety issue with the ice cream. Consumers with questions or concerns may call Inter-American Products, Inc. at 1-800-697- 2448. IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of Ind. ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., which agreed to be acquired by AES Corp., reports that plaintiffs in a purported class action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act are appealing the dismissal of the case. In March 2002, IPALCO Enterprises, the pension committee for the Indianapolis Power & Light Co.'s 401(k) Thrift Plan, and certain former officers and directors of IPALCO were named as defendants in a purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. In May 2002, an amended complaint was filed in the lawsuit. The amended complaint asserts that IPALCO and former members of the Pension Committee breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs under ERISA by investing assets of the thrift plan in the common stock of IPALCO prior to the acquisition of IPALCO by the Company. In September 2003 the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A trial addressing only the allegations of breach of fiduciary duty was held in February 2006. In March 2007, the Court issued a decision in favor of defendants and dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. In April 2007, plaintiffs appealed the Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit as to the former officers and directors of IPALCO, but not as to IPALCO or the Pension Committee. On March 28, 2007 the court issued its judgment, finding for the defendants. An appeal is pending, according to the company's Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "Nelson, et al. v. IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-00477-DFH-TAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under Judge David Frank Hamilton. Representing the plaintiffs are: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Nicholas Styant-Browne, Esq. Andrew M. Volk, Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Fax: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com nick@hagens-berman.com andrew@hbsslaw.com Representing the defendants are: Dane Hal Butswinkas, Esq. Williams & Connolly, LLP 725 Twelfth Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 434-5110 Fax: (202) 434-5029 E-mail: dbutswinkas@wc.com Web site: http://www.wc.com - and - James H. Ham, III, Esq. Baker & Daniels 300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2700 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 237-1256 Fax: (317) 237-1000 E-mail: jhham@bakerd.com Web site: http://www.bakerd.com LEVEL 3: Still Faces Rights of Way Litigation in Ill., Idaho ------------------------------------------------------------ Level 3 Communications, Inc. continues to face several purported right of way class actions in Illinois and Idaho. In April 2002, Level 3 Communications, Inc., and two of its subsidiaries were named as a defendant in "Bauer, et al. v. Level 3 Communications, LLC, et al.," a purported class action covering 22 states, filed in state court in Madison County, Illinois. In July 2001, Level 3 was named as a defendant in "Koyle, et al. v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et al.," a purported two-state class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. In November of 2005, the court granted class certification only for the state of Idaho, which decision is on appeal. In September 2002, Level 3 Communications, LLC and Williams Communications, LLC were named as defendants in "Smith et al. v. Sprint Communications Co., L.P., et al.," a purported nationwide class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In April 2005, the Smith plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint, which did not include Level 3 or Williams Communications, Inc. as a party, thus ending both companies' involvement in the Smith case. On Feb. 17, 2005, Level 3 Communications, LLC and Williams Communications, LLC were named as defendants in "McDaniel, et al., v. Qwest Communications Corp., et al.," a purported class action covering 10 states filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. These actions involve the companies' right to install its fiber optic cable network in easements and right-of-ways crossing the plaintiffs' land. In general, the companies obtained the rights to construct their networks from railroads, utilities, and others, and have installed their networks along the rights-of-way so granted. Plaintiffs in the purported class actions assert that they are the owners of lands over which the companies' fiber optic cable networks pass, and that the railroads, utilities, and others who granted the companies the right to construct and maintain their networks did not have the legal authority to do so. The complaints seek damages on theories of trespass, unjust enrichment and slander of title and property, as well as punitive damages. The company reported no development in the matter on its Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. Level 3 Communications, Inc. -- http://www.level3.com/-- through its operating subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the communications business. The company is a facilities-based provider of a range of integrated communications services. MISSOURI: Ruling in Suit Over Blind Pension Fund Expected Soon -------------------------------------------------------------- A Cole Country District Court is expected to rule in the coming weeks on a suit that will determine whether the state must pay about $20 million in back benefits from its Blind Pension Fund, T.J. Greaney of the Columbia Tribune reports. The suit was filed in 2004. It alleges that since 1992 the state has wrongly used some of those funds to pay for blindness- related rehabilitation and prevention services and miscalculated annual increases to the pension. The fund holds nearly $13 million in 2006, according to the report. The pension pays beneficiaries $541 a month. The actual monthly pension for individuals has not kept the same pace, according to the report. Pensioners now want to know how the state computes the payments. One of the seven plaintiffs in the suit is Linda Gerken of Sedalia. According to the report, not all of Missouri's 3,600 recipients of the blind pension fund support the suit. The suit is before Circuit Judge Patricia Joyce. MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Litigation in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Monster Worldwide, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of a purported class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. In October 2006, a former company employee filed a putative class action against the company and a number of its current and former officers and directors. The action purports to be brought on behalf of all participants in the company's 401(k) plan. It alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary obligations to plan participants under Sections 404, 405, 409 and 502 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1104 et seq., by allowing plan participants to purchase and to hold and maintain company stock in their plan accounts without disclosing to those plan participants the historical stock option practices. The complaint seeks, among other relief, equitable restitution, attorney's fees and an order, enjoining defendants from violations of ERISA. The Company and the individual defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint, according to the company's Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "Taylor v. McKelvey et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-08322- AKH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. Representing the plaintiffs is: Thomas James McKenna, Esq. Gainey & McKenna, LLP 295 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 983-1300 Fax: (212) 983-0383 E-mail: tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com Representing the defendants are: Evan T. Barr, Esq. Steptoe & Johnson 750 Seventh Avenue, Ste. 1900 New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212)-506-3918 Fax: (212)-506-3961 E-mail: ebarr@steptoe.com Geoffrey Shannon Stewart, Esq. Jones Day 222 East 41st Street New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212)-326-3939 Fax: (212)-755-7306 E-mail: gstewart@jonesday.com MONSTER WORLDWIDE: N.Y. Securities Suit Plaintiffs Amend Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a securities class action filed against Monster Worldwide, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York have filed an amended complaint. On or about March 15, 2007, a putative securities shareholder class action was filed by Middlesex County Retirement System against the Company and certain former employees in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York designated as "In re Monster Worldwide Securities Litigation, 07 Civ. 2237 (S.D.N.Y.) (JSR)." The suit seeks an indeterminate amount of damages on behalf of all persons or entities, other than defendants, who purchased or acquired the securities of the Company from May 6, 2005 until June 9, 2006. On July 9, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the securities class action asserting claims against the Company, Andrew McKelvey and Myron Olesnyckyj based on an alleged violation of Section 10(b) the Exchange Act and against the individual defendants based on an alleged violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The suit is "In Re: Monster Worldwide, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-02237," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Jed S. Rakoff. Representing the plaintiffs are: Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP 100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY, 10017 Phone: 212-907-0700 Fax: 212-818-0477 E-mail: info@labaton.com - and - Goldman, Scarlato & Karon. P.C. 101 West Elm Street, Suite 360 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: 484.342.0700 or 888.668.4130 Fax: 484.342.0701 E-mail: info@gsk-law.com NUMISMATIC GUARANTY: Settles Fla. Suit Over "First Strike" Coins ---------------------------------------------------------------- Numismatic Guaranty Corp. (NGC) reached a proposed settlement in a class action brought against it in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by a coin collector who accuses the company of violating the state's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The suit, "Thomas Francisco v. Numismatic Guaranty Corporation of America d/b/a NGC," claims that NGC took U.S. Mint bullion coins and designated them "First Strikes" and "improperly informed the coin buying public that the designation of these coins were among the first coins struck by the U.S. Mint." That led to the inference that they "were worth more money than identical coins that did not carry NGC's 'First Strikes' designation." "First strikes" coins are billed as among the first of the year's batch "struck" by the U.S. Mint from a certain die set, and are thought to have far higher quality than those created later when the die is allegedly worn (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 22, 2006). Coin collectors are often willing to pay an additional price for them, $30 more for a silver American Eagle and $2,200 more for a gold American Buffalo, according to attorney Charles Lipcon, who filed the lawsuits on behalf of collector Thomas Francisco and others. But Mr. Lipcon said the label is misleading because it's impossible to know which coin is the "first strike." The U.S. Mint states at its Web site it does not keep track of the date individual coins were created. The suit purports to include anyone in the U.S. who bought a "first strike" coin in 2005 and 2006. Since Jan. 1, 2005, about 150,000 coins have been reportedly sold to collectors and investors in all 50 states. Damage payout is estimated to come at more than $10 million. The court ruled early on that the litigation could be maintained on behalf of all persons who purchased and or otherwise paid for NGC-designated "First Strikes" U.S. bullion coins. Recently, a tentative settlement was reached by the company in the matter. A Dec. 13, 2007 public fairness hearing will be held before Judge Jose E. Martinez in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 301 N. Miami Ave., Miami, FL 33128 with regards to the settlement. Details on the deal are available at: http://www.FirstStrikesSettlement.com. The suit is "Francisco v. Numismatic Guaranty Corp. of America d/b/a NGC, Case No. 0:06-cv-61677-JEM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Jose E. Martinez. Representing the plaintiff is: Charles R. Lipcon, Esq. Lipcon Margulies & Alsina 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, 2480 One Biscayne Tower Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-373-3016 Fax: 373-6204 E-mail: sealaw@aol.com T. Tucker Ronzetti Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 372-1800 Fax: (305) 372-3508 E-mail: TR@kttlaw.com - and - David H. Pollack, Esq. Law Office of David H. Pollack, LLC 540 Brickell Key Drive, Suite C-1 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-372-5900 Fax: 305-372-5904 E-mail: david@davidpollacklaw.com Web site: http://www.davidpollacklaw.com/ PACIFIC CAPITAL: Canieva Hood Allowed to Go Ahead with Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Capital Bancorp continues to face a purported class action filed by Canieva Hood and Congress of California Seniors against: * Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, * Pacific Capital Bank, N.A., and * Jackson-Hewitt, Inc." The suit was brought on behalf of persons who entered into a refund anticipation loan application (RAL) and agreement with the company from whose tax refund the company deducted a debt owed by the applicant to another RAL lender. The lawsuit was filed on March 18, 2003 in the Superior Court in San Francisco, California as "Canieva Hood and Congress of California Seniors v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, Pacific Capital Bank, N.A., and Jackson-Hewitt, Inc." The company is a party to a separate cross-collection agreement with each of the other RAL lenders by which it agrees to collect sums due to those other lenders on delinquent RALs by deducting those sums from tax refunds due to its RAL customers and remitting those funds to the RAL lender to whom the debt is owed. This cross-collection procedure is disclosed in the RAL Agreement with the RAL customer and is specifically authorized and agreed to by the customer. Plaintiff does not contest the validity of the debt, but contends that the cross-collection is illegal and requests damages on behalf of the class, injunctive relief against the company, restitution of sums collected, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Venue for this suit was changed to Santa Barbara. The company filed an answer to the complaint and a cross complaint for indemnification against the other RAL lenders. On May 4, 2005, a superior court judge in Santa Barbara granted a motion filed by the Company and the other RAL lenders, which resulted in the entry of a judgment in favor of the Company dismissing the suit. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal. A hearing before the Court of Appeal was held on June 14, 2006, and the matter was taken under submission. On Sept. 29, 2006 the Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, issued an opinion, which held that the claims in the Complaint that the Company had violated certain California consumer protection laws were not preempted by Federal law and regulations. The Company and the Cross-Defendants have filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to reverse the Court of Appeal's opinion. The petition was denied and the case returned to trial court. The Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint in the trial court. Pacific Capital Bancorp -- http://www.pcbancorp.com/-- is a bank holding company and has one subsidiary Pacific Capital Bank, N.A. (PCBNA). PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Lawsuit Over Unlawful SMS Charges --------------------------------------------------------------- Partner Communications Company Ltd., a leading Israeli mobile communications operator, announced that it was served on Thursday, September 20, 2007, with a lawsuit requesting certification as a class action. The suit was filed against Partner and against two other cellular operators in Israel in the District Court of Jerusalem by plaintiffs claiming to be subscribers of the Defendants. The claim alleges that the Defendants charged consumers unlawfully, for SMS messages sent to handsets which cannot receive such messages. Furthermore, the claim alleges that the Defendants misled consumers who sent such messages, as those consumers received an alert notifying that those messages were sent. If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount claimed from the Defendants is estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately $45.07 million (for all Defendants together). Partner said it will contest this lawsuit vigorously. At this preliminary stage, Partner is considering the merits of the claim and is unable to assess the extent of the validity of the claim against it. For more information contact: Mr. Emanuel Avner - Chief Financial Officer Mr. Oded Degany - Carrier, Investor and International Relations Partner Communications Company Ltd. Tel: +972-54-7814951 or +972-54-7814151 Fax: +972-54-7815961 or +972-54 -7814161 E-mail: emanuel.avner@orange.co.il or oded.degany@orange.co.il Website: http://www.orange.co.il/investor_site/ PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT: Col. Royalties Suit Now in Federal Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Petroleum Development Corp. moved a purported class action over royalty payments that was originally filed against the company in the District Court, Weld County, Colorado, to the Federal Court. The suit is alleging that the Company underpaid royalties on gas produced from wells operated by the Company in the State of Colorado. Glen Droegemueller filed the suit on May 29, 2007. He seeks declaratory relief and to recover an unspecified amount of compensation for underpayment of royalties made by the Company to the plaintiff pursuant to leases. The Company moved the case to Federal Court on June 28, 2007, and on July 10, 2007, the Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses, according to the company's Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "Droegemueller v. Petroleum Development Corp., Case Number: 1:2007cv01362," filed in Colorado District Court before Judge John L. Kane. Petroleum Development Corp. -- http://www.petd.com/-- is an independent energy company engaged primarily in the development, production and marketing of natural gas and oil. PINNACLE GROUP: Class Status Sought for Suit Over Evictions ----------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers who filed a civil-racketeering lawsuit against Pinnacle Group and its chief officer Joel Wiener have filed a motion to certify the suit as a class action, reports say. The original suit was filed by a group of Harlem residents in July accusing the company of "corporate slumlording" by turning out more than 5,000 eviction notices in two years and breaking rent-stabilization laws. A certification of the suit as a class action would add some 21,000 people living in 420 Pinnacle-owned buildings, according to the New York Post. The original suit accuses the company of harassment, fraud, rent overcharges and illegal evictions. The evictions are allegedly concentrated in Harlem, Washington Heights and the Bronx. The suit was filed in federal court in Manhattan by several individual Pinnacle tenants and tenants' group, Buyers and Renters United to Save Harlem. According to the New York Times, Pinnacle has acknowledged sending out some 5,000 letters, called dispossess notices, to tenants in about a quarter of its 21,000 units during a 29-month period from 2004 through 2006, citing nonpayment of rent, invalid line of succession for occupancy and other violations; however, it said only a few hundred people had actually been evicted. Plaintiffs are Buyers and Renters United to Save Harlem, Majorie Charron, Theodore Charron, Anthony Casasnovas, Karen Flannagan, Andres Mares-Muro, Tracey Moore, Raymond Andrew Stahl-David, Russell Taylor and Diane Trummer The suit is "Buyers and Renters United to Save Harlem et al. v. Pinnacle Group Corp. et al., Case No. 1:2007cv06316," filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Colleen McMahon. Representing the plaintiffs is: Richard F. Levy, Esq. Jenner & Block Chicago Office Phone: (312) 923-2648 Fax: (312) 923-2748 E-mail: rlevy@jenner.com Pinnacle's lawyer is: Kenneth K. Fisher, Esq. 250 Park Avenue New York, NY 10177 Phone: (212) 883-4962 Fax: (212) 672-1162 E-mail: kfisher@wolfblock.com PREMIERE GLOBAL: Calif. Suit Over Junk Faxes Partly Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed some defendants in the suit "Gibson & Co. Ins. Brokers, Inc., et al. v. The Quizno's Corp., et al.," which names as defendants Premiere Global Services, Inc. and its subsidiary Xpedite Systems, LLC. On May 18, 2007, Gibson & Co. Ins. Brokers served an amended complaint upon Premiere Global and its subsidiary, Xpedite, in a purported class action entitled, "Gibson & Co. Ins. Brokers, Inc., et al. v. The Quizno's Corp., et al." The underlying complaint alleges that Quizno's sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements on or about Nov. 1, 2005 in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended, and seeks damages of $1,500 per facsimile for alleged willful conduct in sending of the faxes. The court has also granted Quiznos' motion to file a third party complaint to add Premiere Global and Xpedite as defendants. On June 26, 2007, Premiere Global answered the plaintiff's amended complaint, including asserting cross-claims against the Quizno's defendants. On June 29, 2007, the Quizno's defendants filed their answer and asserted cross-claims against the company and Xpedite. On July 31, 2007, the court entered an order in which it granted certain Quizno's defendants' motion to dismiss and denied the motion with respect to other Quizno's entities. The case was in discovery as of the company's Aug. 9, 2007 regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The suit is "Gibson & Co. Ins. Brokers, Inc., et al. v. The Quizno's Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05849-PSG-PLA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Philip S. Gutierrez with referral to Judge Paul L. Abrams. Representing the plaintiff is: C. Darryl Cordero, Esq. Payne and Fears 660 South Figueroa, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-439-9911 E-mail: cdc@paynefears.com Representing the defendants is: Nancy M. Barnes, Esq. Thompson Hine, LLP 3900 Key Center, 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: 216-566-5578 PRESSTEK INC: Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.H. Moves Forward ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Joseph DiClerico of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire rejected a motion to dismiss a purported securities class action charging Presstek Inc. officials of inflating the company's stock value with misleading public statements last year, Andrew Wolfe of the Nashua Telegraph reports. The company was served with the complaint on Oct. 26, 2006. The suit was brought on behalf of purchasers of Presstek's common stock during the period from July 27, 2006 through Sept. 29, 2006. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company and the other defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. James Sloman of Belmont, Mass., and his lawyers charge the company's executives violated securities law by repeatedly stating they predicted 10 percent revenue growth in 2006, when they had reasons to believe sales would slow, the report said. According to the report, Mr. Sloman and his charge that company officials knowingly misled investors to artificially inflate the stock price. Presstek countered that the federal Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 shield them from liability, because they had cautioned their statements were only predictions, the report states. The company also argued Mr. Sloman and other investors could not prove their losses were a result of misleading statements. But Judge DiClerico wrote, "It makes no difference that the alleged misrepresentation in this case was an omission rather than an affirmative statement...When a corporation does make disclosure -- whether it be voluntary or required -- there is a duty to make it complete and accurate." "Even if the defendants did not consciously intend to defraud, the allegation that they were aware of material issues that would likely affect Presstek's revenues for the third quarter is sufficient to establish that they 'acted with a high degree of recklessness,'" he wrote. The suit is "Sloman v. Presstek, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv- 00377-JD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire under Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. Representing plaintiffs are: Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq. Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. Shapiro Haber & Urmy 53 State St., Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617 439-3939 Fax: 617-439-0134 E-mail: ted@shulaw.com or tshapiro@shulaw.com; and Mark L. Mallory, Esq. Mallory & Friedman PLLC 8 Green St., Concord, NH 03301 Phone: 228-2277 E-mail: mark@malloryandfriedman.com Representing defendants is: Robert E. McDaniel McDaniel Law Offices 755 North Main St. Laconia, NH 03246 Phone: 603 527-0520 Fax: 603 279-0540 E-mail: remcdanielesq@aol.com SANDERSON FARMS: Reaches Settlement for La. Employee's Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- A processing division subsidiary of Sanderson Farms, Inc. reached a tentative settlement for a purported class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The suit was filed by a former hourly employee who is claiming back wages for time spent on donning protective and sanitary uniform. On June 6, 2006, Annie Collins, a former employee of the processing division subsidiary, on behalf of herself and as representative of "a class of individuals who are similarly situated and who have suffered the same or similar damages" filed a complaint against the Company's processing and production subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Plaintiffs allege that the Company's subsidiaries violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay plaintiffs and other hourly employees for the time spent donning and doffing protective and sanitary clothing and performing other alleged compensable activities, and that "Sanderson automatically deducted thirty minutes from each worker's workday for a meal break regardless of the actual time spent on break." Plaintiffs also allege that they were not paid overtime wages at the legal rate. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, liquidated damages and injunctive relief. On July 31, 2006, following various procedural motions, the Company filed its Answer to the plaintiffs' Complaint. On July 20, 2006, ten current and former employees of the processing division subsidiary filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana nearly identical to the one described above. Approximately 3,700 individuals purportedly have given their consent to be a party plaintiff to this and the aforementioned actions. Since the filing of these two complaints, six other substantially similar lawsuits were filed in U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of Mississippi. Unlike the two previous suits referenced above filed in Louisiana (which suits were consolidated into one action), these complaints are specific to individual processing locations of the subsidiary Corporation. On March 26, 2007, the parties to the Louisiana action filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Collection Action Settlement and Appointment of Plaintiff's Counsel as Class Counsel. Although not a party to the Louisiana matter, the plaintiffs in the Mississippi suits agreed to be bound by the settlement reached in the Louisiana suit, and the Mississippi suits have been stayed pending approval of the settlement motion before the Louisiana Court. On April 11, 2007, the Court denied the joint motion on two grounds: -- The motion was premature because no motion to certify a collective action had been filed in the case, and -- certain contingencies contained in the settlement agreement gave rise to concerns about whether the settlement agreement was in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties filed a Joint Motion for Reconsideration of this order of the Court, which was granted in part and denied in part by order dated May 3, 2007. In the order, the Court stated it would permit notice to the class to proceed. The Court also stated that if certain contingencies agreed to by the parties in the settlement agreement concerning class participation are met, it will consider the reasonableness of the proposed settlement at a fairness hearing. An August 1, 2007 hearing was set. the Court has authorized the distribution of notice to the class. Sanderson Farms, Inc. -- http://www.sandersonfarms.com-- is a fully integrated poultry processing company engaged in the production, processing, marketing and distribution of fresh and frozen chicken products. SIMPLICITY INC: Recalls Cribs with Drop-Side that can Detach ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is announcing a voluntary recall with Simplicity Inc., of Reading, Pa., of about 1 million cribs. The drop-side can detach from the crib, which can create a dangerous gap and lead to the entrapment and suffocation of infants. CPSC is aware of two deaths in Simplicity manufactured cribs with older style hardware, including a 9-month-old child and a 6-month-old child, where the drop-side was installed upside down. CPSC is also aware of seven infant entrapments and 55 incidents in these cribs. CPSC is also investigating the death of a 1-year-old child in a Simplicity crib with newer style hardware, in which the drop- side was installed upside down. CPSC is warning parents and caregivers to check all Simplicity cribs to make sure the drop- side is installed right side up. The drop-side failures result from both the hardware and crib design, which allow consumers to unintentionally install the drop-side upside down. This, in turn, can weaken the hardware and cause the drop-side to detach from the crib. When the drop- side detaches, it creates a gap in which infants can become entrapped. CPSC is also aware of two incidents that occurred when the drop- side was correctly installed with older style hardware, though the upside down installation greatly increases the risk of failure. The recalled Simplicity crib models include: Aspen 3 in 1, Aspen 4 in 1, Nursery-in-a-Box, Crib N Changer Combo, Chelsea and Pooh 4 in 1. The recall also involves the following Simplicity cribs that used the Graco logo: Aspen 3 in 1, Ultra 3 in 1, Ultra 4 in1, Ultra 5 in 1, Whitney and the Trio. The recalled cribs have one of the following model numbers, which can be found on the envelope attached to the mattress support and on the label attached to the headboard: 4600, 4605, 4705, 5000, 8000, 8324, 8800, 8740, 8910, 8994, 8050, 8750, 8760, and 8996. The cribs, which were made in China, were sold in department stores, children's stores and mass merchandisers nationwide from January 1998 through May 2007 for between $100 and $300. As an immediate precaution, consumers should check to see if the drop-side is installed right side up. To do this, check to see that the slightly rounded rail with the decorative groove is installed at the top and the plain rail is on the bottom. Next, consumers should make sure the drop-side is securely attached to the tracks in all four corners. If the drop-side is installed upside down or not securely attached, consumers should stop using the crib immediately. Incorrect installation can cause permanent damage to the hardware and re-installing the drop-side using the same hardware is unsafe. Consumers should check to see if their crib contains the recalled hardware. Recalled hardware has a flexible tab at the bottom of the lower tracks and the top of the lower tracks are open. Newer hardware, which is not subject to the recall, has the flexible tab located at the top of the lower track, and a permanent stop at the bottom. Consumers who have a crib with older style hardware can receive a free repair by immediately contacting Simplicity toll-free at (888) 593-9274 between 8:30 a.m. and 10 p.m. ET Monday through Thursday, between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET on Friday, and between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET on Saturday, or by visiting http://www.simplicityforchildren.com Consumers who have a crib with newer style hardware and have installed the drop-side upside down or have broken hardware, should also contact Simplicity immediately. Picture of the parts of the crib: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07307a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07307b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07307c.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07307d.jpg STARBUCKS COFFEE: Fla. Court Certifies Class in Overtime Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has ruled that plaintiffs in an overtime lawsuit against Starbucks Coffee Co. were "similarly situated" and, thus the matter could continue as a class action. The suit, "Pendlebury, et al. v. Starbucks Coffee, et al., Case No. 9:04-cv-80521-KAM," which was filed on June 3, 2004 is part of a national debate over whether many managers are improperly classified as exempt from overtime laws. It was filed on behalf of 900 Starbucks store managers who claimed they are glorified "baristas" and should be eligible for overtime. They argue that their daily duties are virtually the same as the hourly workers they supervise. In general, plaintiffs in the matter seek unpaid overtime wages, damages and attorney's fees that could total tens of millions of dollars. The suit is "Pendlebury, et al. v. Starbucks Coffee, et al., Case No. 9:04-cv-80521-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Kenneth A. Marra with referral to Judge Linnea R. Johnson. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robin Ilene Cohen, Esq. Shapiro Blasi Wasserman & Gora PA 7777 Glades Road, Suite 400 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Phone: 561-477-7800 fax: 561-477-7722 E-mail: ricohen@sbwlawfirm.com Representing the defendant are: Susan Nadler Eisenberg, Esq. Akerman Senterfitt Suntrust International Ctr., 1 SE 3rd Ave., 28th Flr. Miami, FL 33131-1714 Phone: 305-374-5600 Fax: 305-374-5095 E-mail: susan.eisenberg@akerman.com - and - Catherine A. Conway, Esq. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-552-6435 Fax: 310-552-6746 TJX COMPANIES: Settles Privacy Breach Suit Filed by Customers ------------------------------------------------------------- The TJX Companies, Inc. (NYSE: TJX) entered into a Settlement Agreement with respect to the customer class actions in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico relating to customer claims arising from the criminal intrusion(s) into TJX's computer system. The settlement is subject to court approval and other conditions. The estimated costs for this settlement were reflected as part of the Company's previously reported fiscal 2008 second quarter charge and estimated fiscal 2009 non-cash costs. Carol Meyrowitz, President and Chief Executive Officer of The TJX Companies, stated, "From the inception of our Company, our customers have always come first. We deeply regret any inconvenience our customers may have experienced as a result of the criminal attack on our computer system. Importantly, we truly appreciate our customers' continued patronage. "TJX has been working diligently to reach a settlement that offers a good resolution for our customers. This Settlement Agreement addresses the different ways customers have told us they have been impacted by the intrusion(s). TJX remains committed to providing a secure shopping experience for our customers along with the exciting fashions, brands and great values for which we are famous. We believe that the terms of this settlement are beneficial to our customers." TJX has established a helpline in the U.S. (866) 484-6978 and Canada (866) 903-1408 and is providing information on its website, http://www.tjx.com,to respond to customer questions regarding the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement, which is subject to court approval and other conditions, includes the following provisions: -- Those customers who returned merchandise without a receipt to our stores and to whom TJX sent letters reporting that their drivers' license or other identification information may have been compromised in the intrusion(s), will be offered three years of credit monitoring along with identity theft insurance coverage (two years for those who previously accepted TJX's credit monitoring/identity theft insurance offer), paid for by TJX; -- TJX will also reimburse these customers for the documented cost of certain drivers' license replacements and, if their drivers' license or other ID numbers were the same as their social security number, for certain losses from identity theft; -- For any customers who show they shopped at TJX stores located in the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico (excluding Bob's Stores) during the relevant periods and incurred certain costs as a result of the intrusion, TJX will offer vouchers for use in these TJX stores in the country in which they reside. TJX will hold a future, one-time, three-day Customer Appreciation special event in which prices at all T.J. Maxx, Marshalls, HomeGoods and A.J. Wright stores in the U.S. and Puerto Rico and all Winners and HomeSense stores in Canada will be reduced by 15%. The timing of this future special event will be advertised, open to all customers and is expected to occur sometime in 2008, at the earliest. The settlement is contingent on completion of an evaluation by plaintiffs' independent security expert on the computer security enhancements made and planned by TJX and acceptance by the plaintiffs' counsel of these enhancements. Estimated costs to TJX related to this settlement were reflected as part of the $107 million (after tax) reserve for estimated potential losses from the intrusion(s) recorded in the Company's fiscal 2008 second quarter and previously reported estimated future non-cash charges of $21 million (after tax) anticipated to be taken in fiscal 2009. This settlement covers all customer class actions in the United States, Puerto Rico and Canada with respect to the intrusion(s) and is subject to satisfaction of various conditions and final court approval after notice to the plaintiff class and expiration of the time for appeal from any order of the court approving the settlement. While TJX denies the claims and allegations underlying the putative class actions, TJX has concluded that further legal activity would be time consuming and expensive, making it desirable that the actions be settled. The settlement agreement is available at http://www.tjx.com. The TJX Companies, Inc. is the leading off-price retailer of apparel and home fashions in the U.S. and worldwide. The Company operates 841 T.J. Maxx, 767 Marshalls, 278 HomeGoods, and 128 A.J. Wright stores, as well as 34 Bob's Stores, in the United States. In Canada, the Company operates 186 Winners and 70 HomeSense stores, and in Europe, 214 T.K. Maxx stores. WASHINGTON MUTUAL: No Hearing Set for Securities Suit Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Appeals Court for the 9th Circuit has yet to schedule a hearing date for oral arguments on Washington Mutual, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. In July 2004, the company and a number of its officers were named as defendants in a series of cases alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. By stipulation, those cases were consolidated into a single case currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington styled, "South Ferry L.P. #2 v. Killinger, et al., No. CV04-1599C (W.D. Wa. Filed Jul. 19, 2004)." In brief, the plaintiffs in the securities action allege, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Washington Mutual, Inc., securities from April 15, 2003, through June 28, 2004, that in various public statements the defendants purportedly made misrepresentations and failed to disclose material facts concerning, among other things, alleged internal systems problems and hedging issues. The defendants moved to dismiss the securities action on May 17, 2005. After briefing, but without oral argument, the court on Nov. 17, 2005, denied the motion in principal part, however, the Court dismissed the claims against certain of the individual defendants, dismissed claims pleaded on behalf of sellers of put options on Washington Mutual stock, and concluded that the plaintiffs could not rely on supposed violations of accounting standards to support their claims. The remaining defendants subsequently moved for reconsideration or, in the alternative, certification of the opinion for interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The District Court denied the motion for reconsideration, but on March 6, 2006, granted the motion for certification. On June 9, 2006, the Ninth Circuit granted the defendants' motion indicating that the Court will hear the merits of the defendants' appeal. The defendants filed their initial brief on Sept. 25, 2006. Pursuant to an updated, stipulated briefing schedule, the plaintiffs filed their responsive brief on Jan. 10, 2007, and the defendants filed their reply on March 12, 2007. Oral argument has not yet been scheduled, according to the company's Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "South Ferry L.P. #2 v. Killinger, et al., No. CV04- 1599C," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under Judge John C. Coughenour. Representing the plaintiffs are: Clifford A. Cantor, Esq. 627 208TH Ave., SE Sammamish, WA 98074-7033 Phone: 425-868-7813 Fax: 425-868-7870 E-mail: cacantor@comcast.net - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. Salvatore J Graziano, Esq. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119-0165 Phone: 212-594-5300 E-mail: lfeldman@milbergweiss.com sgraziano@milbergweiss.com Representing the defendants are: Fred B. Burnside, Esq. Davis Wright Tremaine 1501 4th Ave., STE. 2600 Seattle, WA 98101-1688 Phone: 206-622-3150 Fax: 206-903-3791 E-mail: fredburnside@dwt.com - and - Jay B. Kasner, Esq. Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom Four Times Square, STE. 45-100 New York, NY 10036-6522 Phone: 212-735-2628 E-mail: jkasner@skadden.com * Cohen Milstein Mulls Suit Over U.K. Dairy Goods Price Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- Class action law firm Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll is considering starting a collective action over alleged price fixing by U.K. supermarkets and dairies, The Lawyer reports. The idea came after the Office of Fair Trading said that collusion by supermarkets and dairy processors to fix the price of dairy products during 2002 and 2003 may have caused customers to spend some GBP270 million more than they should. "This is a classic case where consumers collectively suffer massive harm, but individually will not be able to recover compensation because the cost of claiming is too great," Cohen Milstein London office head Rob Murray said, according to the report. * Melvyn Weiss to Face Trial in Plaintiff Kickback Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Milberg Weiss co-founder Melvyn I. Weiss was indicted by a Los Angeles grand jury on charges he paid people to act as injured shareholders in class actions against companies, reports say. Milberg Weiss was first indicted for illegal payments to plaintiffs in May 2006. The recent indictment expanded the original allegations against the firm to include, obstruction of justice, and of making false statements related to the case. If convicted, he faces a maximum of 40 years in prison. The charges against Mr. Weiss contend that he knew about and participated in the plaintiff kickback scheme since it started in the late 1970s, and that he continued to participate in it even after federal prosecutors began their investigation. The scheme has allegedly brought some $250 million in legal fees. The firm has denied the charges. Meanwhile, federal prosecutors secured a plea deal with Steven Schulman, a former named partner at Milberg Weiss. He agreed to plead guilty to a conspiracy charge in connection with the plaintiff kickback and agred to disgorge $1.85 million in profits, pay a $250,000 fine and accept a prison sentence that is likely to be 27 to 33 months, according to court papers. Mr. Schulman will also have to cooperate with prosecutors. Mr. Weiss' former partner in the alleged kickback scheme, William Lerach had agreed earlier to plead guilty of conniving to conceal the secret payments. In his plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office, he admitted that he and other Milberg Weiss partners made the claimed payments. Mr. Lerach will forfeit $7.8 million, pay a $250,000 fine and accept a one- to two-year prison sentence. He will not be required to cooperate with the investigation, though. He has retired from the class action firm he founded. New Securities Fraud Cases NETBANK, INC: Schoengold Sporn Files Ga. Securities Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C. filed a class action against NetBank, Inc. (PINKSHEETS: NTBK) and certain key current and former officers and/or directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. This action has been brought on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired NetBank securities during the period between May 1, 2006 and September 17, 2007. Lead plaintiff filing deadline is November 19, 2007. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making materially false and misleading statements to artificially inflate the value of NetBank stock. Specifically, it is alleged that the defendants repeatedly represented, beginning in May 2006, that NetBank was restructuring its operations to rid its strong core banking business from high risk non-conforming loan origination operations and other business segments which detracted from the performance of its core business. Defendants claimed its restructuring was largely complete by February 2007 and that investors could rely on the book value of the Company as reflecting its true value. However, defendants shocked investors by disclosing that as of May 21, 2007, NetBank's core banking business was so deficient in meeting regulatory capital requirements that bank regulators compelled NetBank to consummate a $2.5 billion asset sale at a significant $60-70 million loss in order to cover NetBank depositors as required by law. The Company's common stock price fell 66% -- from $1.75 per share on May 18, 2007 to $0.59 per share on May 21, 2007 on massive volume of 11,190,400 shares -- over forty-five times the previous day's volume. Further, on August 6, 2007, NetBank announced that its wholly owned retail mortgage business, Market Street Mortgage Corporation, was completely valueless. NetBank also announced that the NASDAQ securities exchange was delisting the Company's common stock from trading. On August 7, 2007, NetBank's stock price dropped to $0.14 per share from its previous day's close of $0.20 per share, a 30% drop in one day on massive volume of 5,190,600 shares. Finally, on September 17, 2007, the purported buyer of NetBank's assets announced that it had terminated its purchase of the NetBank assets, announced on May 21, 2007, because it had become "clear" that NetBank would not be able to meet its regulatory requirements. NetBank's stock price then closed at $0.08 per share on September 17, 2007. For more information, contact: Jay P. Saltzman, Esq. Daniel B. Rehns, Esq. Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C. 19 Fulton Street, Suite 406 New York, New York 10038 Phone: (212) 964-0046 Fax: (212) 267-8137 Toll Free: (866) 348-7700 Website: http://www.spornlaw.com THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott, LLP filed a class action against Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. (Nasdaq:TMA) and certain officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 19, 2007. The action is on behalf of Thornburg Mortgage common stock purchasers during the period April 19, 2007 and through August 14, 2007, inclusive, for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements and material omissions regarding the Company's business and operations and that, as a result, the price of the Company's securities was inflated during the Class Period, thereby harming investors. Lead plaintiff filing deadline is October 22, 2007. According to the complaint, during the Class Period, it is alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions to the investment community, which served to artificially inflate the price of Company securities. In spite of the Company's repeated claims of "a unique approach to loan originations," affluent lender clientele and lending channels, defendants knew and concealed the flawed, defective and materially overstated nature of the Company's financial results. Defendants knew and concealed that: (i) the Company's financial position had deteriorated, to the point where it faced increasing margin calls; (ii) leveraging capacity and capabilities at the Company were adversely impacted; and (iii) the financial situation had deteriorated to the point where the Company would be forced to sell certain assets. On August 14, 2007, Thornburg Mortgage issued a shocking press release, announcing that its Board of Directors has rescheduled the payment date of the company's second quarter common dividend of $0.68 per share to September 17, 2007, signaling the Company's inability to continue its mortgage securitization and mortgage lending operations. Following the shocking news, on August 14, 2007, shares of Thornburg Mortgage stock tumbled $6.67 or 46.7%, closing at $7.61 on volume of 27.2 million shares, for a loss of $805 million in market capitalization. On August 20, 2007, the true dimensions of Company's liquidity and financing needs materialized, as the Company announced capital losses of as much as $930 million, resulting in part from the Company's liquidation of $20.5 billion of its "AAA- rated" mortgage backed securities. The plaintiff is represented by Scott+Scott. For more information, contact: Scott+Scott, LLP Phone: (800) 404-7770 (860) 537-5537 E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice Mendoza, 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 * * *