/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070927.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, September 27, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 191 Headlines APPLERA CORP: Antitrust Suit Over Taq DNA Polymerase Continues BANK JOS: Md. Court Denies Dismissal Motion in Securities Suit BCI BURKE: Recalls Single Post Swing Sets Due to Fall Hazard BEBE STORES: Sued in N.J. Over Alleged Labor Code Violations CALIFORNIA: San Bernardino Settles Strip-Search Suit for $25.5M CARDINAL HEALTH: Court Approves $600M Securities Suit Settlement CARDINAL HEALTH: Ohio Court Approves $40M ERISA Suit Settlement CHECKFREE CORP: Ga. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits COMCAST CORP: Suit Over "Pass-Through" Franchise Fees Remanded DEVRY INC: Cal. Court Certifies Class in Student's Lawsuit DOLLAR TREE: Continues to Face Calif. Labor Law Violations Suit DOLLAR TREE: Post-2007 Trial Expected for Ore. Labor Lawsuit DOLLAR TREE: Cal. Court Mulls Bid to Consolidate Managers’ Suit DOLLAR TREE: Seeks Dismissal of Former Employees' Litigation FEDERAL DEPOSIT: Suit Over Demutualization Fund Certified FLOWSERVE CORP: Seeks Summary Judgment in Tex. Securities Suit INDIANA: Highland Faces Negligence Suit Over 2006 Flooding LABELSTOCK ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Ruling to Certify Suit Pending MOM ENTERPRISES: Recalls Baby’s Gripe Water Due to Contamination MONEY MART: Ontario Residents File Suit Over Check Cashing Fee PACIFIC BEST: Faces RICO Act Violations Lawsuit in California PATHMARK STORES: Amended Complaint Filed in Suit Over A&P Merger PREMIUM STANDARD: Nuisance Suit by Mo. Residents Transferred RECORDING INDUSTRY: Faces Ore. Lawsuit Over Anti-Piracy Tactics URETHANE ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Defendant Settles Suit for $55M VITAMIN C ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Discovery Ongoing, Law Firm Says WEYERHAEUSER CO: Continues to Face Alder Antitrust Litigation WEYERHAEUSER CO: Classes Certified in OSB Antitrust Litigation New Securities Fraud Cases LJ INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit ORBCOMM INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.J. Securities Fraud Suit ********* APPLERA CORP: Antitrust Suit Over Taq DNA Polymerase Continues -------------------------------------------------------------- Applera Corp. and Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. continue to face a certified class action filed by Molecular Diagnostics Laboratories in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia over alleged anticompetitive practices. Molecular Diagnostics filed the complaint against on Sept. 23, 2004. It filed an amended complaint on July 5, 2006. The amended complaint alleges anticompetitive conduct in connection with the sale of Taq DNA polymerase. The anticompetitive conduct is alleged to arise from the prosecution and enforcement of U.S. Patent No. 4,889,818. The patent is assigned to Hoffmann-La Roche, with whom the company has a commercial relationship covering, among other things, this patent and the sale of Taq DNA polymerase. The complaint seeks monetary damages, costs, expenses, injunctive relief, and other relief, as the court deems proper. On July 5, 2006, the court certified the case as a class action. The company reported no material development in the matter in its Aug. 24, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "Molecular Diagnostics Laboratories v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:04-cv-01649-HHK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge Henry H. Kennedy. Representing the plaintiffs are: Paul Thomas Gallagher, Esq. Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C 1100 New York Avenue, NW West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005-3934 Phone: (202) 408-4600 Fax: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: pgallagher@cmht.com - and - Scott E. Gant, Esq. Boies, Schiller & Flexner 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (202) 237-2727 E-mail: sgant@bsfllp.com Representing the defendants are: Joanne M. Guerrera, Esq. Weil, Gotshal & Manges, L.L.P. 1501 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 682-7153 Fax: 202-857-0939 E-mail: david.southard@weil.com - and - Heather Holden Brooks, Esq. Arnold & Porter, LLP, 555 12th Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-1206 Phone: (202) 942-6309 Fax: (202) 942-5999 E-mail: holden_brooks@aporter.com BANK JOS: Md. Court Denies Dismissal Motion in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. On July 24, 2006, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and Robert N. Wildrick, the company’s chief executive officer, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by Roy T. Lefkoe, Civil Action Number 1:06-cv- 01892-WMN. On Aug. 3, 2006, a lawsuit substantially similar to the Class Action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by Tewas Trust UAD 9/23/86, Civil Action Number 1:06-cv-02011-WMN. The Tewas Trust Action was filed against the same defendants as those in the Class Action and purported to assert the same claims and seek the same relief. On Nov. 20, 2006, the July lawsuit and the Tewas Trust Action were consolidated under the Class Action case number (1:06-cv-01892-WMN) and the Tewas Trust Action was administratively closed. Massachusetts Labor Annuity Fund has been appointed the lead plaintiff in the Class Action and has filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. R. Neal Black, the company’s president and David E. Ullman, the Company’s Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, have been added as defendants. On behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between Dec. 5, 2005 and June 7, 2006, the Class Action purports to make claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 (a) and Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on the Company's disclosures during the Class Period. The Class Action seeks unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Company has filed a Motion to Dismiss. However, the Motion was not granted, according to the company's Sept. 12, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007. The suit is “Lefkoe v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv- 01892-WMN,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland under Judge William M. Nickerson. Representing the plaintiffs is: Deborah R. Gross, Esq. Law Office of Bernard M Gross PC John Wanamaker Bldg., Ste. 450, Juniper and Market Sts. Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: 12155613600 Fax: 12155613000 E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com Representing the defendants is: Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP 399 Park Ave. New York, NY 10022 Phone: 12129377220 Fax: 12122308888 E-mail: michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com BCI BURKE: Recalls Single Post Swing Sets Due to Fall Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ BCI Burke Company LLC, of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 670 single post swing sets. The company said the connection on the top beam of the swing set can break, causing the swing beam to collapse, posing a fall hazard to the user. A user or bystander also can be injured by the falling top rail. The firm has received four reports of the swing set beam breaking and one report of child with bruises after falling from the swing. The recall includes the Single Post Swing Set (model 550-0033) and added bay swings (model 550-0035) with belt or bucket seats. The swings are made with a 2-3/8-inch diameter top beam that is welded to a formed plate on each end to attach to the upright post. These recalled swing sets were manufactured in the United States and are being sold through BCI Burke or BCI Burke Company representatives from January 2000 through August 2007 for between about $900 to $1500. Consumers are advised to stop using the product immediately and remove the existing swings from the top beam immediately. Consumers can re-install the swings once the repair kit is received and installed with the current beam. BCI Burke will contact the owners directly by mail and provide a free repair kit. For additional information, please contact Burke customer service at (800) 356-2070 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.bciburke.com(pdf), or e-mail: customerservice@bciburke.com. BEBE STORES: Sued in N.J. Over Alleged Labor Code Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firms of Mager & Goldstein LLP and Console Law Offices LLC announce that on behalf of their clients Tracy Kronick and Jen Kaczmarski, they have filed a class and collective action against bebe stores, inc., in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that bebe stores violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage Payment Laws by willfully failing to pay store managers, store co-managers and sales leaders for all time worked, including overtime compensation. The complaint includes allegations that store managers were required to "shave" (i.e., delete) all hours recorded in excess of forty (40) hours in a work week. It also alleges that Store Managers and Sales Leaders were required to work "off the clock" during meal breaks, to recruit for employees for bebe stores, to solicit for attendance at store function such as "trunk shows", to stay late to prepare the store for corporate visits and to close the stores, all in addition to their 40-hour work week and without compensation. For more information, contact: Mager & Goldstein LLP Phone: 866-284-3280 E-mail: info@magergoldstein.com CALIFORNIA: San Bernardino Settles Strip-Search Suit for $25.5M --------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Stephen G. Larson signed an agreement in which San Bernardino County in California will pay $25.5 million to settle a class action alleging illegal strip searches in county jails, the UPI Top Stories reports. Judge Larson will decide whether to formally approve the agreement on Feb. 4. The seven plaintiffs in the lawsuit stated that the searches were conducted from May 2003 to December 2006 at West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga and the Central Detention Center in San Bernardino, according to The Associated Press. Plaintiffs’ attorneys said as many as 160,000 prisoners were subjected to illegal strip searches. Each could get several hundred dollars of the settlement money if the case is successful, the Los Angeles Times reported. Deputies strip-searched a large number of prisoners at the county's two central jails between May 2003 and December 2006, even in cases where there was no reason to suspect them of smuggling contraband, plaintiffs’ attorneys alleged. David Wert, a spokesman for the county, said San Bernardino still denies any wrongdoing and disputes many of the allegations in the lawsuit. Barry Litt is lead attorney for the plaintiffs. For more information, contact: Litt, Barry - Litt & Associates 3435 Wilshire Blvd Ste 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1912 Phone: (213) 386-3114 CARDINAL HEALTH: Court Approves $600M Securities Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio gave preliminary approval to the $600 million settlement of a consolidated securities class action filed against Cardinal Health, Inc. Since July 2, 2004, purported purchasers of the company's securities have filed 10 purported class action complaints. They named the company and certain of its officers and directors, asserting claims under the federal securities laws. The Cardinal Health federal securities actions purport to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's securities during various periods beginning as early as Oct. 24, 2000 and ending as late as July 26, 2004. The suits allege, among others, that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act by issuing a series of false and/or misleading statements concerning the company's financial results, prospects and condition. Certain of the complaints also allege violations of Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, claiming material misstatements or omissions in prospectuses issued by the company in connection with its acquisition of Bindley Western Industries, Inc. in 2001 and Syncor in 2003. The alleged misstatements relate to the company's accounting for recoveries relating to antitrust litigation against vitamin manufacturers, and to classification of revenue in the company's Pharmaceutical Distribution business as either operating revenue or revenue from bulk deliveries to customer warehouses, and other accounting and business model transition issues, including reserve accounting. The alleged misstatements are claimed to have caused an artificial inflation in the company's stock price during the proposed class period. The complaints sought unspecified money damages and equitable relief against the defendants and an award of attorney's fees. On Dec. 15, 2004, the Cardinal Health federal securities actions were consolidated into one action captioned, "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Federal Securities Litigation." On Jan. 26, 2005, the court appointed the Pension Fund Group as lead plaintiff in this consolidated action. On Apr. 22, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint naming the company, certain current and former officers and employees and the company's external auditors as defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and other unspecified relief against the defendants. On Mar. 27, 2006, the court granted a motion to dismiss with respect to the company's external auditors and a former officer and denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the company and the other individual defendants. On Dec. 12, 2006, the parties stipulated that the case could proceed as a class action with a class comprised of all persons other than Company officers or directors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s stock during the class period. On April 23, 2007, the Company announced that it had determined that it was necessary to record a reserve of $600 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 in respect of the Cardinal Health federal securities actions. Since that announcement, the Company has negotiated a proposed memorandum of understanding with counsel for the plaintiffs to settle these actions, including an agreement by the Company to pay $600 million. On May 2, 2007, the Company’s Board of Directors approved the proposed memorandum of understanding; however, the proposed memorandum of understanding remains subject to approval by the class representatives for the plaintiffs. Under the MOU, the Cardinal Health federal securities actions will be terminated for a payment of $600 million, an amount reserved by the Company in the third quarter of fiscal 2007. The Company transferred the $600 million into an escrow account on May 25, 2007. The Company has entered into a stipulation of settlement with counsel for the plaintiffs, which was filed with the Court on July 27, 2007. On July 31, 2007, the Court entered an Order preliminarily approving the settlement. The suit is "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04- CV-575," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Representing the plaintiffs are: Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor New York, NY, 10016 Phone: 800-217-1522 E-mail: info@bernlieb.com Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San Diego, CA, 92101 Phone: 800.449.4900 E-mail: support@milberg.com - and - John R. Climaco, Esq. Climaco Lefkowitz Peca Wilcox & Garofoli LPA 1228 Euclid Avenue, Suite 900 Cleveland, OH 44115-1891 Phone: 216-621-8484 Fax: 216-771-1632 E-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com Representing the company are: John M. Newman, Jr., Esq. Geoffrey J. Ritts, Esq. Jones, Day, Reavis, & Pogue North Point, 901 Lakeside Ave. Cleveland, OH 44114-1190 Phone: 216-586-3939 E-mail: jmnewman@jonesday.com gjritts@jonesday.com CARDINAL HEALTH: Ohio Court Approves $40M ERISA Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio gave preliminary approval to a $40 million settlement of the matter, “In re Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Case No. 2:04-cv-00643-ALM-NMK." Beginning July 2, 2004, several purported class-action complaints have been filed by purported participants in the Cardinal Health Profit Sharing, Retirement and Savings Plan, collectively referred to as the Cardinal Health ERISA actions. The Cardinal Health ERISA actions purport to be brought on behalf of participants in the 401(k) Plan and the Syncor Employees' Savings and Stock Ownership Plan, and also on behalf of the Plans themselves. The complaints allege that the defendants breached certain fiduciary duties owed under ERISA, generally asserting that the defendants failed to make full disclosure of the risks to the Plans' participants of investing in the company's stock, to the detriment of the Plans' participants and beneficiaries, and that company stock should not have been made available as an investment alternative for the Plans' participants. The misstatements alleged in the Cardinal Health ERISA actions significantly overlap with the misstatements alleged in the Cardinal Health federal securities actions. The complaints sought unspecified money damages and equitable relief against the defendants and an award of attorney's fees. On Dec. 15, 2004, the Cardinal Health ERISA actions were consolidated into one action captioned, "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISA Litigation." On Jan. 14, 2005, the court appointed lead counsel and liaison counsel for the consolidated Cardinal Health ERISA action. On April 29, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended ERISA complaint naming the company, certain current and former directors, officers and employees, the company's Employee Benefits Policy Committee and Putnam Fiduciary Trust Co. as defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and other unspecified relief against the defendants. On Dec. 1, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On March 31, 2006, the Court granted the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the consolidated complaint with respect to Putnam Fiduciary Trust Co. (the former trustee of the Plan) and with respect to plaintiffs’ claim for equitable relief. The Court denied the remainder of the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Company and certain defendants. On Sept. 8, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification, seeking certification of a class of Plan participants who bought or held Company shares in their Plan accounts between Oct. 24, 2000 and July 2, 2004. In May 2007, the Company reached an understanding with the counsel for the plaintiffs regarding a proposed settlement of the Cardinal Health ERISA litigation under which the litigation would be terminated for a payment by the Company of $40 million. On June 21, 2007, the Company entered into a class action settlement agreement with counsel for the plaintiffs. The settlement agreement provides that the Cardinal Health ERISA litigation will be terminated for a payment by the Company to the Plan of $40 million, with the net proceeds of the settlement to be apportioned to the Plan accounts of participants who bought or held Company shares in their Plan accounts between Oct. 24, 2000 and July 2, 2004. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on June 28, 2007 and the Company transferred the $40.0 million into an escrow account on June 29, 2007, according to the company's Aug. 24, 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 Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Case No. 2:04-cv-00643-ALM-NMK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Algenon L. Marbley. Representing the plaintiffs are: 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 - George E. Barrett, Esq. Barrett Johnston & Parsley 217 Second Avenue N. Nashville, TN 37201 Phone: 615-244-2202 E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com Representing the company are: J. Kevin Cogan, Esq. Jones Day 325 John H. McConnell Blvd., P.O. Box 165017 Columbus, OH 43216-5017 Phone: 614-469-3939 Fax: 614-461-4198 E-mail: jcogan@jonesday.com; - and - Roger Philip Sugarman, Esq. Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter 65 E. State Street, Suite 1800 Columbus, OH 43215-4294 Phone: 614-462-5400 Fax: 614-462-5422 E-mail: rsugarman@keglerbrown.com CHECKFREE CORP: Ga. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has consolidated two purported class actions filed against CheckFree Corp. On or about April 10, 2007, the first of two related shareholder securities putative class actions was filed against CheckFree Corp. and Messrs. Peter J. Kight and David E. Mangum in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The suits are: -- “Skubella v. CheckFree Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 1:07-CV-0796-TWT,” and -- “Gattelaro v. CheckFree Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 1:07-CV-0945-TWT.” The actions were filed on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of CheckFree common stock between April 4, 2006 and Aug. 1, 2006 and allege violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against CheckFree and the individual defendants, as well as of Section 20(a) against the individual defendants, related to CheckFree’s disclosures concerning its Electronic Commerce and Payment Services business. Plaintiffs seek undisclosed damages. On June 29, 2007, the Court entered an order that, among other things, consolidated these two actions and appointed Southwest Carpenters Pension Trust as the Lead Plaintiff. The suit is “Rudolf Skubella, et al. v. CheckFree Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-CV-00796,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. Representing the plaintiffs are: Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP 2300 Promenade II; 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (888) 873-3999 Fax: (404) 876-4476 E-mail: attorney@chitwoodlaw.com 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 - and - Scott & Scott LLC P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue Colchester, CT 06415 Phone: 860.537.5537 Fax: 860.537.4432 E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com COMCAST CORP: Suit Over "Pass-Through" Franchise Fees Remanded -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit remanded to the district court a case filed by Comcast Corp. subscribers against the cable TV provider after finding that the firm’s arbitration agreements are unenforceable. Georgia residents who are subscribers of television provider Comcast filed the suit alleging violations of state law based on the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 47 U.S.C. 521. The Cable Act authorizes local governments to charge cable operators a franchise fee for the use of public rights-of- way, provided the fee does not exceed five percent of the cable operator's gross revenue. The Act permits cable operators, in turn, to pass the franchise fees through to their subscribers. The Act also requires cable operators to "pass through..." the amount of any decrease in a franchise fee. The subscribers allege Comcast calculate its "pass-through" franchise fees by using estimates of future revenue from advertising sales and home-shopping channel commissions. The subscribers contend that by using these estimates, Comcast charges its customers more than it actually pays in franchise fees based on actual revenues. They claim Comcast retains the excess franchise fees even though they never consented to Comcast's estimated calculation of the "pass through" fees or to its retention of the excess fees. The suit was filed on Dec. 12, 2005 by Gene Dale, Marrell Waring et al. in state court asserting claims of "unjust enrichment" and "money had and received." The class seeks an accounting of funds wrongfully withheld, repayment of excess franchise fees, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Comcast removed the action to the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and filed a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss, arguing the subscribers' individual claims were governed by written arbitration agreements. The district court dismissed the action and compelled arbitration, finding the subscribers had entered into binding arbitration agreements with Comcast. The subscribers timely appealed. They presented the issue of whether the Arbitration Provision's class action waiver is unconscionable under Georgia law and thus unenforceable as a matter of law. After oral argument and a careful review of the record, the 11th Circuit ruled on Sept. 4 that the arbitration agreements were uneforceable and so reverse and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. The court stated: Without the benefit of a class action mechanism, the subscribers would effectively be precluded from suing Comcast for a violation of 47 USC 542. The cost of vindicating an individual subscriber's claim, when compared to his or her potential recovery, is too great. Additionally, because the Cable Act does not provide for the recovery of attorneys' fees or related costs for the violations alleged by the subscribers, and because state law allows fees and costs to be awarded only where bad faith is shown, it will be difficult for a single subscriber to obtain representation. This will allow Comcast to engage in unchecked market behavior that may be unlawful. Corporations should not be permitted to use class action waivers as a means to exculpate themselves from liability for small-value claims The case is No. 06-15516, D. C. Docket No. 05-03315-CV-WCO-1 on appeal from the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. DEVRY INC: Cal. Court Certifies Class in Student's Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California certified a class under the California Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code in a suit filed against DeVry, Inc. and DeVry Universtiy, Inc. Saro Daghlian, a former student at a California DeVry University campus, filed a lawsuit over defendants' alleged violations of state education laws. Originally, Ms. Daghlian brought the putative class action in the California state district court for the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff alleges that DeVry's materials distributed to students did not comply with California state statutes including a California Education Code requirement to provide a specified statement to prospective students concerning the transferability of credits. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. A motion to dismiss was filed, but it was later denied. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which the court denied without prejudice, and the plaintiff has filed a new motion for class certification. On June 11, 2007, the District Court issued an Order certifying a class under the California Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code, section 17200 (UCL), comprised of students who enrolled and paid tuition at a California DeVry school in the four years prior to the date when the suit was filed. Defendants have now filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking dismissal of all claims due to the unconstitutionality of the California Education Code (a statute that has since sunset, is currently "inoperative," and will be repealed as of January 2008) because it discriminates against out of state regionally accredited universities and it compels speech in violation of the First Amendment. Defendants also seek judgment for the separate and independent reason that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proving a viable theory of restitution or entitlement to injunctive relief under their UCL claim. The suit is "Saro Daghlian v. DeVry University, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06- cv-00994-MMM-PJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Margaret M. Morrow with referral to Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Representing the plaintiffs are: Michael D. Braun, Esq. Braun Law Group 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: 310-442-7755 E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com - and - Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq. Janet L. Spielberg Law Offices 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: 310-392-8801 E-mail: jlspielberg@jlslp.com Representing the defendants is: Van T. Lam, Esq. Reed Smith 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514 Phone: 213-457-8000 DOLLAR TREE: Continues to Face Calif. Labor Law Violations Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. still faces a purported class action filed in California state court alleging wage and hourly violations. In 2003, the company was were served with the lawsuit, which was filed by a former employee who alleged that employees did not properly receive sufficient meal breaks and paid rest periods, along with other alleged wage and hourly violations. The suit requested that the California state court certify the case as a class action. The parties engaged in mediation and reached an agreement which will be presented to the Court for acceptance and certification of a class. The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept. 12, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com-- operates discount variety stores, offering merchandise at the fixed price of one dollar. As of Feb. 3, 2007, the company operated 3,219 discount variety retail stores. DOLLAR TREE: Post-2007 Trial Expected for Ore. Labor Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. is expecting a post-2007 trial for a purported class action filed by its former employees in Oregon, alleging that they did not properly receive sufficient meal breaks and paid rest periods. In 2005, the company was served with the lawsuit, which also alleges other wage and hour violations. Plaintiffs requested the court to certify classes for their various claims and the presiding judge did so with respect to two classes, one alleging that the company's Oregon employees, in violation of that state's labor laws, were not paid for rest breaks and the other that upon termination of employment, employees were not tendered their final pay in a timely manner. Other claims of the plaintiffs were dismissed by an earlier order of the court and are being appealed by the plaintiffs. Discovery will ensue on the certified class issues; no trial is anticipated before the end of 2007. The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept. 12, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com-- operates discount variety stores, offering merchandise at the fixed price of one dollar. As of Feb. 3, 2007, the company operated 3,219 discount variety retail stores. DOLLAR TREE: Cal. Court Mulls Bid to Consolidate Managers’ Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A California federal court has yet to rule on a motion seeking to consolidate two purported class actions filed against Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. by either a present or a former store manager. Federal Action The suit was served on the company on 2007. In it, plaintiffs claim that they should have been classified as non-exempt employees under both the California Labor Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act. They filed the case as a class action on behalf of California based store managers. The company responded with a motion to dismiss, which has not yet been heard by the court. State Court Action The Company was thereafter served with a second suit in a California state court which alleges essentially the same claims as those contained in the federal action and which likewise seeks class certification of all California store managers. The Company has removed the case to the same federal court as the first suits, answered it and asked the Court to consolidate the two actions, according to the company's Sept. 12, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com-- operates discount variety stores, offering merchandise at the fixed price of one dollar. As of Feb. 3, 2007, the company operated 3,219 discount variety retail stores. DOLLAR TREE: Seeks Dismissal of Former Employees' Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of a purported class action that was filed by two former employees in a California federal court. In 2007, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in federal court in California by two former employees who allege they were not paid all wages due and owing for time worked, that they were not paid in a timely manner upon termination of their employment and that they did not receive accurate itemized wage statements. They filed the suit as a class action and seek to include in the class all former company employees in the state of California. The Company responded with a motion to dismiss which has not yet been argued, according to the company's Sept. 12, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com-- operates discount variety stores, offering merchandise at the fixed price of one dollar. As of Feb. 3, 2007, the company operated 3,219 discount variety retail stores. FEDERAL DEPOSIT: Suit Over Demutualization Fund Certified --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Rhode Island certified a class action filed by employees of bankrupt company Eastland Financial Corp. against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the receiver who oversaw the dissolution of the company, Paul Grimaldi of Providence Journal reports. The bank’s trustee is Cranston lawyer Jason D. Monzack. Five former employees of Eastland Financial filed the suit on behalf of 300 other former Eastland workers to recoup some unexpected proceeds tied to the bank's pension plan. The employees listed in the lawsuit -- represented by attorney Brian J. Lamoureux -- are: -- Nicholas E. Oliveri, of North Smithfield; -- Donat A. Fournier, of Beverly, Mass.; -- Arthur R. Gauthier, of South Kingstown; -- Ellen D. Miller, of Pawtucket; and, -- Sheila A. Tenney, of Attleboro. After its bankruptcy, Eastland was sold to Fleet Financial Group, which itself was sold to Bank of America in 2004. In 1996, a bankruptcy court judge approved a settlement that terminated Eastland Financial's pension plan. Money in the plan was invested in a group annuity contract held by the Principal Mutual Life Insurance Co., of Des Moines, Iowa. Principal Mutual demutualized in 2001, becoming Principal Financial Inc. and resulting to an undetermined amount of money being assigned to the Eastland pension annuity. The employees claim the money belongs to them. The institution had about $555 million in assets when it was dissolved, and $2.77 million in debt to various creditors. The case is before U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Arthur N. Votolato. FLOWSERVE CORP: Seeks Summary Judgment in Tex. Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Flowserve Corp. filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in a purported securities fraud class action filed against it in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC filed a class action against Flowserve Corp. and certain of its officers and directors in August 2003 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The action was filed on behalf of all purchasers of Flowserve securities between Oct. 23, 2001 and Sept. 27, 2002. The Complaint specifically alleges that Defendants, among other things: (a) misrepresented that the Company's aftermarket sales (the Company's "quick turnaround" business) were steady, stable and consistent streams of revenue; (b) misrepresented that the Company's growth made it less dependent upon the chemical and industrial segments, which had historically been very sensitive to economic downturn; (c) failed to disclose that the Company had instructed one or more of its plants to stop building inventory as a result of the projected (albeit undisclosed) continuing decline in sales; and (d) without any reasonable basis, projected full year 2002 earnings at ranges that were unattainable due to the declines the Company was experiencing in critical business segments. On September 27, 2002, the Company warned of a 21% earnings shortfall for the quarter ending September 30, 2002, and cut its full year 2002 earnings guidance by over 60%, to $1.45 per share, from the $2.30 per share earnings guidance shared with investors during road show presentations promoting Flowserve's public offerings less than six months earlier. Market reaction to the Company's announcement was swift and severe. Flowserve shares fell over 38% to close at $8.70 on September 27, 2002, a decline of more than 75% from the Class Period high of $34.90 reached on May 2, 2002. During the Class Period, Flowserve completed two public offerings of its common stock, raising more than $430 million, and Flowserve insiders sold their Flowserve common stock for substantial profit. Alaska Electrical Pension Fund Named Lead Plaintiff On October 29, 2003 the Court appointed lead plaintiff, The Alaska Electrical Pension Fund and lead counsel. Due to further investigation by Plaintiff’s counsel, an amended consolidated complaint was filed on February 5, 2004. Plaintiffs then filed a second consolidated amended complaint in May 2004. The Class Period was modified to March 29, 2001 through Sept. 27, 2002. In July 2004, the case was reassigned from Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn to Judge Jane J. Boyle. Also, in July 2004, a third consolidated amended complaint was filed. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third consolidated amended complaint in August 2004. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court denied all defendants’ motions to dismiss. Initial discovery disclosures were exchanged on February 6, 2006. Class Certification, Summary Judgment Motion A hearing was held on plaintiffs' motion for class certification on September 7, 2006. The court has allowed plaintiffs to file written rebuttal to defendants' confidential witnesses' testimony contained in defendants' opposition to class certification. On October 20, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to modify the scheduling order, which extended fact discovery through June 22, 2007. The parties are continuing to engage in discovery in this matter. On March 26, 2007, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification without prejudice. The Court requested further briefing concerning Plaintiffs' Motion and will resume consideration of Plaintiffs' motion after it has received the requested briefing. On June 28, 2007, the Court permitted limited, additional briefing on class certification. On July 9, 2007, Flowserve filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff opposed Defendant's Motion and a decision will be rendered on the merits. The first identified complaint is "Ryan et al. Flowserve Corp. et al., Case No. 03-cv-0179," with the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. For more information, contact: Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC 35 East State Street, Media, PA, 19063 Phone: 877.891.9880 Fax: jshah@classactioncounsel.com INDIANA: Highland Faces Negligence Suit Over 2006 Flooding ---------------------------------------------------------- The city of Highland and its sanitary district face a class action in relation to flooding that destroyed nearly 2,000 homes in northwest Indiana in September last year, ABC7Chicago.com reports. The Merrillville law firm of Marshall P. Whalley and Associates filed the suit on behalf of the residents. More than 130 households have retained the law firms. One of them is Tammy Wagoner. The plaintiffs accuse the defendants of failing to anticipate the impact the rainfall would have on the sewer system; that the entities failed to sandbag areas likely to be damaged by flooding; and that sewer water accumulated in homes was a result of a failure to reasonably design, engineer, maintain, repair and/or operate the sewage system. The lawsuit seeks compensation for residents whose homes were damaged and asks that the town clean and fix its sewer system, Mr. Whalley said. LABELSTOCK ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Ruling to Certify Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has yet to decide whether to certify the Pressure Sensitive Labelstock Antitrust Litigation. Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC filed a class action against: * Avery Dennison Corp., * Bemis Company, Inc., * Morgan Adhesives Company, * Raflatac, Inc., and * UPM Kymmene Corp. in May 2003 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint was brought on behalf of direct purchasers of pressure- sensitive labelstock alleging violations of the antitrust laws. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered all related cases transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Class discovery is complete and Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended and Consolidated Class Action Complaint in January 2006. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification is fully briefed and argued, and awaiting decision. In addition, in August 2007, plaintiffs requested that the Court allow limited discovery pending the decision on class certification. Defendants opposed this request, which is fully briefed. The suit is "In Re Pressure Sensitive Labelstock Antitrust Litigation, case no. 3:03-mdl-01556-TIV," filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, under Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie. Among those representing plaintiffs is: Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC 35 East State Street, Media, PA, 19063 Phone: 877.891.9880 Fax: jshah@classactioncounsel.com MOM ENTERPRISES: Recalls Baby’s Gripe Water Due to Contamination ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Department of Consumer Protection has removed a product from three stores where it was sold following a voluntary recall by the manufacturer and a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning consumers not to drink or serve the beverage. The product is Baby's Bliss Gripe Water, apple flavor, with a code of 26952V and expiration date of October 2008 (shown as "10/08" on the label), distributed by MOM Enterprises, Inc., of San Rafael, Calif. The FDA confirmed through laboratory analysis the presence of cryptosporidium after investigating the illness of a 6-week-old infant in Minnesota who consumed the product. Cryptosporidium is a parasite that can cause intestinal infections. "We have identified three stores in the state that have sold this beverage, and we have made sure that the product has been removed from sale," Consumer Protection Commissioner Jerry Farrell, Jr. said. "Consumers who have this item at home should be sure it is not coded and dated as described in the FDA warning. If it is, please do not use the beverage, but discard it immediately." The three stores known to have carried Baby's Bliss Gripe Water are: -- Over the Moon, Avon -- Bissell Pharmacy, Ridgefield -- Starlight Baby, Southbury All of the above stores have been contacted by Consumer Protection and are aware of the recall. The most common symptom of infection is watery diarrhea. Other symptoms can include dehydration, weight loss, stomach cramps or pain, fever, nausea and vomiting. Symptoms generally begin two to ten days after becoming infected with the parasite and generally last one to two weeks. While most people with healthy immune systems will recover without treatment, the infection could be serious or life-threatening for certain individuals. Infants, children and pregnant women are susceptible to dehydration resulting from diarrhea, which can be life-threatening. Individuals with weakened immune systems are also at risk for a more serious and life-threatening form of illness. Parents of children who have recently consumed apple flavored Baby's Bliss Gripe Water and have these symptoms should seek immediate medical attention. Parents and caregivers who have given this product to their infants and children should be alert for diarrhea and other signs of Cryptosporidium infection. The product was sold in a four-ounce plastic bottle packaged inside of a cardboard carton, labeled with the following: Baby's Bliss. Pediatrician Recommended Gripe Water. Apple Flavor. MOM Enterprises, Inc. is fully cooperating with FDA's investigation into the cause of the contamination and is recalling all potentially contaminated products. FDA continues to investigate and will provide updates as more information becomes available. Consumers can call the FDA at 1-888-723-3366. MONEY MART: Ontario Residents File Suit Over Check Cashing Fee -------------------------------------------------------------- A Windsor (Canada) law firm lodged a civil class action against Money Mart on behalf of 200,000 Ontario residents who received a fast cash advance between August 19, 1997 and September 9, Renee Berube of CD98.9, reports. According to the report, the major issue in the suit centers around a check cashing fee. The government guidelines allow for the maximum interest charge to be no more than 60%, but with these hidden fees added in -- the interest is really between 300-100%. The trial is expected to begin before the end of the year. Money Mart -- http://www.moneymart.com-- is a financial services company owned by the Dollar Financial Group. It operates the largest network in our category of retail financial services stores in both Canada and the U.K. and the second largest network of their kind in the U.S.A. PACIFIC BEST: Faces RICO Act Violations Lawsuit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Best Group, South China Investment, Wei-Man Raymond Tse and others are facing a class-action complaint filed Sept. 24 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over alleged illegal foreign currency trades, the CourtHouse News Service reports. The Bay Area Affordable Housing LLC and other investors claim the defendant, including Christ Investment Service, run their unregistered scam in defiance of injunctions from the California Department of Corporations and the U.S. Commodity Futures Commission. This is an action, both in law and in equity, brought by victims of commodities fraud under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act and the Commodity Exchange Act. Defendants also include: -- Run Pin Zhou aka Flora Zhou, -- Theresa Wong, -- James Yu, -- Bill Shu Wai Ma, -- Molly Lau, -- Victor So, -- Jian Xiao, and -- CIS Service Inc. Plaintiffs demand punitive damages and more injunctions. The suit is "Mei-FAng Lisa Zhang et al. v. Wei-Man Raymond Tse et al., Case No. C 07 4946," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Representing plaintiffs are: Christopher Cooke Stephen S. Wu Cooke Kobrick & Wu LLP 177 Bovet Road, Suite 600 San Mateo, CA 94402 Phone: (650) 638-2370 Fax: (650) 341-1395 E-mail: ccooke@ckwlaw.com or swu@ckwlaw.com PATHMARK STORES: Amended Complaint Filed in Suit Over A&P Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed in a suit against Pathmark Stores, Inc. over a definitive merger agreement in which The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc. (A&P) will acquire the company. It was recently announced that The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., and Pathmark Stores, Inc., have reached a definitive merger agreement in which A&P will acquire Pathmark Stores, Inc., for $1.3 billion in cash, stock and debt assumption or retirement, creating a 550-store, $11 billion supermarket chain operating in the New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia metro areas, as well as in Baltimore/Washington DC, Michigan, and Louisiana. On March 6, 2007, Chris Larson, a stockholder in the company, filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, a purported class action complaint against the company and its directors. The complaint asserts on behalf of a purported class of the company's stockholders' claims against the defendants for alleged self-dealing and breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the merger. It seeks: -- an injunction of the merger unless and until the company adopts and implements certain procedures to obtain the highest possible price for its stockholders; -- imposition of a constructive trust, in favor of plaintiffs, upon any benefits received by defendants as a result of their alleged wrongful conduct; and -- recovery of attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements. Defendants have not filed answers, or otherwise responded, to the complaint. On March 12, 2007, Sarah Kleinmann, a stockholder in the Company, also filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County a purported class action complaint against the Defendants, as defined in the above paragraph, and A&P. The Kleinmann Complaint asserts similar claims and seeks the same relief as the Larson Complaint. The Court entered a Consolidation Order after those actions were transferred to the Chancery Division. On July 16, 2007, Chris Larson and Sarah Kleinmann filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint against the Defendants. The Amended Complaint asserts on behalf of a purported class of Company stockholders claims against the Individual Defendants for alleged self- dealing and breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, as well as claims against the Company and A&P for aiding and abetting the Individual Defendants. The Amended Complaint seeks: -- an injunction of the Merger unless and until the Company implements certain procedures to obtain the highest possible price for its stockholders; -- imposition of a constructive trust, in favor of the Plaintiffs and the Class, upon any benefits improperly received by the Defendants as a result of their alleged wrongful conduct; and -- recovery of attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements. The Defendants have not filed an answer, or otherwise responded, to the Amended Complaint as of the date of the company's Sept. 12, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007. Pathmark Stores, Inc. -- http://www.pathmark.com/-- is a supermarket chain in New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia metropolitan areas, operating as a single segment. PREMIUM STANDARD: Nuisance Suit by Mo. Residents Transferred ------------------------------------------------------------ The Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri granted a motion to transfer venue in a suit filed by Danniel Herrold et al. against ContiGroup Companies, Inc., Premium Standard Farms, Inc. (PSF), and PSF Group Holdings, Inc. This action originally sought to create a class of plaintiffs living within ten miles of PSF’s farms in northern Missouri, including contract grower farms, who were alleged to have suffered interference with their right to use and enjoy their respective properties. On January 22, 2007, plaintiffs in the Herrold case filed a Second Amended Petition in which they abandoned all class action allegations and efforts to certify the action as a class action and added an additional 193 named plaintiffs to join the seven prior class representatives to pursue a one count claim to recover monetary damages, both actual and punitive, for temporary nuisance. PSF filed motions arguing that the Second Amended Petition, which abandons the putative class action and adds 193 new plaintiffs, is void procedurally and that the case should either be dismissed or the plaintiffs’ claims severed and removed under Missouri’s venue statute to the northern Missouri counties in which the alleged injuries occurred. On June 28, 2007, the court entered an order denying the motion to dismiss but granting defendants’ motion to transfer venue. The court subsequently denied plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider that decision. As a result of those rulings, all but seven of the plaintiffs will be transferred to venues other than Jackson County. Plaintiffs have indicated that they will file writ papers with the Court of Appeals in Missouri seeking to overturn the lower court’s order granting transfer. Premium Standard is an acquisition of Smithfield Foods Inc. RECORDING INDUSTRY: Faces Ore. Lawsuit Over Anti-Piracy Tactics --------------------------------------------------------------- The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is facing a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon over its tactics to fight piracy. The case was filed by Tanya Andersen, a disabled single mother, who had been defending herself against copyright infringement allegations by RIAA for almost two years, until RIAA finally dropped its case against her “with prejudice.” The suit is for malicious prosecution. In it, Mrs. Andersen alleges that RIAA used illegal and flawed methods when investigating people for downloading or swapping copyrighted songs without paying. Furthermore, Mrs. Andersen claims that RIAA knew of the faulty methods but continued to pursue its lawsuits, even against innocent people such as herself. Aside from RIAA, other defendants in the suit include: -- MediaSentry and its owner, SafeNet; -- Settlement Support Center LLC, a Washington company operating as the debt collection arm for the defendants’ “coordinated enterprise to pursue a scheme of threatening and intimidating litigation;” -- Atlantic Recording Corp; -- Priority Records; -- Capitol Records; -- UMG Recordings; and -- BMG Music. In her request for class action status, the complaint goes on to state that: “RIAA is composed of 4 major multinational member companies each having many subsidiary member companies” and that it “publicly claims to exercise an actual monopoly and control over 90% of the sound recordings sold in the U.S.” “MediaSentry is in the business of conducting personally invasive private investigations of private citizens in many states in the U.S. for the RIAA and its controlled member companies. It advertises that its services include 'investigation' and 'litigation support.'” “Pursuant to a secret agreement, RIAA, its controlled member companies and MediaSentry conspired to develop a massive threat and litigation enterprise targeting private citizens across the U.S.” “The RIAA and its controlled member companies have for years aggressively acted to prevent disclosure of the secret agreement and their conspiratorial enterprise.” “MediaSentry and RIAA know that their investigations are illegal and flawed. MediaSentry is not licensed or registered to conduct private investigation of private U.S. citizens.” “Moreover, in a March 2004 sworn deposition MediaSentry’s then president admitted to various serious flaws in the investigative scheme which all Defendants know result in misidentification of individuals. “Despite this knowledge, Defendants have falsely represented to many tens of thousands of people that they have been definitively and personally identified as copyright infringers.” A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?23a9 The suit is “Tanya Andersen v. Atlantic Recording, Case No. 07-934BVR,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Representing the plaintiff is: Lory R. Lybeck, P.S. Lybeck Murphy, LLP 500 Island Corporate Ctr., 7525 Southeast 24th St. Mercer Island, Washington 98040 Phone: 206-230-4255 Fax: 206-230-7791 Web site: http://www.lybeckmurphy.com URETHANE ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Defendant Settles Suit for $55M --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas has approved a $55 million settlement entered by a defendant in the Urethane Antitrust Litigation, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC stated at its Web site. Shepherd, Finkelman filed a class action against Bayer AG, Bayer Corporation, Bayer MaterialScience LLC, BASF AG, BASF Corporation, Dow Chemical Company, Huntsman International LLC Lyondell Chemical Company in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The complaint alleges claims on behalf of direct purchasers of polyether polyol products (used in the manufacture of rigid and flexible foams) in the United States from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2004, and alleges violations of the antitrust laws. On April 14, 2006, the Court entered an order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss and granting Plaintiffs leave to file the First Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. Discovery is ongoing and the Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was filed in the summer of 2007. Defendants’ responses are due in late 2007. The Court has also approved a settlement with one of the defendants in the amount of $55 million. VITAMIN C ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Discovery Ongoing, Law Firm Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation filed as a class action, by among others, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC against: * Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., * Jiangsu Jiangshan Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., * Northeast Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd., * Shijiazhuang Pharmaceutical (USA) Inc., and * China Pharmaceutical Group, Ltd. The suit was filed in December 2005 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. This action is commenced on behalf of indirect purchasers of defendants’ Vitamin C products in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin, and alleges violations of the antitrust laws. In February 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered all related cases transferred to the Eastern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. On May 4, 2006, the Court entered Pretrial Order No. 1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act was argued on June 5, 2007, and discovery is ongoing. WEYERHAEUSER CO: Continues to Face Alder Antitrust Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Weyerhaeuser Co. continues to face lawsuits claiming it had monopoly power or attempted to gain monopoly power in the Pacific Northwest market for alder logs and finished alder lumber. Initial Alder Case In December 2000, a lawsuit was filed against the company in U.S. District Court in Oregon alleging from 1996 to 2001 the company had monopoly power or attempted to gain monopoly power in the Pacific Northwest market for alder logs and finished alder lumber. A jury verdict of trebled damages of $79 million was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where the decision was upheld. In February 2007, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the Initial Alder Case and remanded the matter to the Ninth Circuit for further action. The Supreme Court held that because the plaintiff had conceded it had not satisfied the test established by the Supreme Court, the claim on which the damage award was based could not be supported. Based on the Supreme Court ruling, the $79 million reserve that had previously been established for this matter was reversed in the fourth quarter of 2006, because the requirements for establishing a reserve under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5, Accounting for Contingencies, were no longer met. In April 2007, the Ninth Circuit issued an order vacating the judgment of the District Court and remanding the matter to the District Court for further proceedings. In January 2005, the company received a copy of a “complaint in equity” filed in U.S. District Court in Oregon to set aside the judgment in the Initial Alder Case on behalf of a plaintiff who did not prevail in the trial. It alleged a fraud was committed on the court and requested judgment against the plaintiff be vacated and a new trial set on plaintiff’s claim of monopolization of the alder sawlog market. Trebled damages of $20 million were alleged. The U.S. District Court stayed this matter pending final disposition by the U.S. Supreme Court of the Initial Alder Case. The company denied the allegations in the complaint and filed motions opposing a retrial. In August 2007, the company reached a settlement of the Initial Alder Case and the “complaint in equity” matter. The company recognized an after-tax charge in the amount of $11 million in the second quarter of 2007. Washington Alder In June 2003, Washington Alder filed an antitrust lawsuit against the company in U.S. District Court in Oregon alleging monopolization of the alder log and lumber markets and seeking trebled damages of $36 million and divestiture of the company’s Northwest Hardwoods Division and alder sawmills in Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. A jury verdict of trebled damages of $16 million was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The matter was stayed pending final disposition by the U.S. Supreme Court of the Initial Alder Case. Based on the February 2007 Supreme Court ruling in the Initial Alder Case, the $16 million reserve that had previously been established for this matter was reversed in the fourth quarter of 2006. In May 2007, the Ninth Circuit issued an order vacating the judgment and remanding to the District Court. In the previous litigation, the company prevailed in proving it did not attempt to nor did it gain monopoly power from 2002 to the present and that matter cannot be retried. The court previously applied issue preclusion between June 1999 and 2001 and is evaluating whether that time period should be subject to further retrial. Class Action In April 2004, a civil class action antitrust lawsuit was filed against the company in U.S. District Court in Oregon claiming that as a result of the company’s alleged monopolization of the alder sawlog market in the Pacific Northwest as determined in the Initial Alder Case, the company monopolized the market for finished alder and charged monopoly prices for finished alder lumber. In December 2004, the judge issued an order certifying the plaintiff as a class representative for all U.S. purchasers of finished alder lumber between April 28, 2000, and March 31, 2004, for purposes of awarding monetary damages. The claimed value of this matter, with trebling, is $59 million. In February 2005, class counsel notified the court that approximately 5 percent of the class members opted out of the class action lawsuit. The company has no litigation pending with any entity that has opted out of the class, but it is possible that entities who have opted out may file lawsuits against the company in the future. In April 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to file an amended complaint, extended the claims period to December 31, 2006, and scheduled trial on the matter for April 2008. New notices to the class members will be issued. In July 2007, the court denied the company’s motion to decertify the class. The Washington Alder and the civil class action litigation are still pending. The company is unable to estimate at this time the amount of charges, if any, that may be required for the remaining alder antitrust litigation in the future. WEYERHAEUSER CO: Classes Certified in OSB Antitrust Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania certified classes of persons and entities who purchased oriented strand board (OSB) from certain companies, including Weyerhaeuser Co. A consolidated lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania in 2006 seeking class-action status for persons and entities who purchased OSB, between June 2002 through the present, from: * Weyerhaeuser, * Louisiana-Pacific, * Georgia-Pacific, * Potlatch, Ainsworth Lumber, Norbord, * Tolko Industries, * Grant Forest Products, and * J.M. Huber Corp. The lawsuit alleges the defendants conspired to fix and raise OSB prices in the United States during the class period and as a result, class members paid artificially inflated prices for OSB during that period. Additional lawsuits have also been filed and have been consolidated in the same court for discovery purposes on behalf of “indirect purchasers” of OSB in different states that have laws permitting such actions on behalf of indirect purchasers. Plaintiffs’ experts in the direct and indirect cases have estimated total damages with trebling at $8.7 billion. The company has not established a reserve for this matter and is unable to estimate at this time the amount of charges, if any, that may be required in the future. In the third quarter 2006, the court dismissed with prejudice the claims filed by Pennsylvania indirect purchasers. In August 2007, the court certified a class of direct purchasers consisting of persons and entities who purchased OSB structural panel products directly from defendants from June 1, 2002 through the present. The court also certified as a class nationwide indirect purchasers end users who indirectly purchased for their own use and not for resale, new OSB manufactured or sold by one or more of the defendants between June 1, 2002, and the present. The class excludes persons who purchased OSB already incorporated into a house or other structure. The court also certified a multistate class of indirect purchasers from eight states, but declined to certify such a class for indirect purchasers from an additional 13 states. Money damages for indirect multistate claims can be recovered only as permitted by state law and plaintiffs are limited to injunctive relief in the nationwide indirect class. In May 2007, Huber reached a settlement with the direct purchasers which has been approved by the court. The suit is "Sawbell Lumber Co. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00826-PD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Paul S. Diamond. Representing the defendants are: William P. Butterfield, Esq. Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-408-4600 E-mail: wbutterfield@cmht.com - and – Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. Spector Roseman and Kodroff 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-496-0300 E-mail: jcorrigan@srk-law.com Representing the company are: Barack S. Echols, Esq. James Howard Mutchnik, Esq. James H. Schink, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 7500 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-861-3144 and 312-861-2350 E-mail: bechols@kirkland.com jmutchnik@kirkland.com - and - Sherry A. Swirsky, Esq. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP 1600 Market St., Ste. 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-751-2000 Fax: 215-972-7475 E-mail: sswirsky@schnader.com New Securities Fraud Cases LJ INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP commenced a class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all purchasers of securities of LJ International Inc. from February 15, 2007 through September 6, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges LJ International and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 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 had understated its 2005 and 2006 tax liability; (2) that the Company had overstated its 2005 and 2006 revenues and earnings; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading; (4) that revenues from the Company's core wholesale business were declining; (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (6) that the Company's statements about its financial well- being and future business prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis when made. On July 16, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it announced that it was delaying the filing of its 2006 Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006. The Company assured investors that the delay was "principally the result of the need for additional time by the Company's new independent registered accounting firm to complete its audit of the Company's 2006 financial statements." On this news, the Company's shares fell $1.84 per share, or 14.9 percent, to close on July 19, 2007 at $10.51 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. The Company's shares continued to decline following this announcement, and closed at $6.01 on August 7, 2007, a cumulative decline of over 51.3 percent. Then on September 6, 2007, the Company stated that its previously issued net income guidance of $3.0 million for the fourth quarter 2006 "will likely be adversely impacted primarily due to a potential tax provision." Additionally, the Company disclosed that it "expected to revise its earlier guidance for the fourth quarter of 2006 due to potential tax provisions that could have a material adverse impact on both its 2005 and 2006 revenues and earnings." On this news, the Company's shares declined an additional $1.46 per share, or over 18.3 percent, to close on September 6, 2007 at $6.49 per share, on unusually heavy volume. The Company's shares continued to decline following this announcement, and closed at $4.13 on September 21, 2007. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. LJ International designs, manufactures, markets and sells precious and semi- precious gemstones, as well as diamond jewelry. 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 ORBCOMM INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files N.J. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all purchasers of common stock of ORBCOMM Inc. pursuant or traceable to the Company's November 3, 2006 Initial Public Offering through August 14, 2007 inclusive. The Complaint charges ORBCOMM and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 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 demand for the Company's products was softening; (2) that certain end-users were delaying purchases; (3) that international sales were being negatively impacted due to delays in developing and modifying regional applications; and (4) that the Company's definition of billable subscriber communicators would have to be revised to reflect a more accurate gauge of when communicators were activated and billing. On November 3, 2006, the Company conducted its IPO. In connection with its IPO, the Company filed a Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively referred to herein as the "Registration Statement") with the SEC. The IPO was a financial success for the Company, as it sold 9.23 million shares of stock to investors at a price of $11.00 per share, for gross proceeds of $101.5 million. On August 14, 2007, ORBCOMM shocked investors when it announced its second quarter 2007 financial results. The Company reported a net loss $1.3 million for the quarter, and revealed that it was experiencing weakening demand for its products and services. The Company also revised its full-year 2007 guidance for new billable subscribers. On this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $3.32 per share, or 29.7 percent, to close on August 14, 2007 at $7.86 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. ORBCOMM is a satellite-based data communication company that operates a two- way wireless data messaging system for worldwide data communication. 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 * * *