/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/071008.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, October 8, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 198 Headlines ANTIOCH PUBLISHING: Recalls Bookmarks on Clip’s High Lead Level ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Sydney Federal Court Hears Investors Suit BACK YARD: Settles “Plank” Lawsuit Over BBAC Acquisition BANK OF AMERICA: CD Holders Sue Over Low Automatic Renewal Rates BIG LOTS: La. Court Denies Decertification Motion in FLSA Suit BIG LOTS: Seeks to Consolidate Suits Over Client Info. Request BIG LOTS: Class Members Challenge Approval of Calif. Suit Deal BRICKSTREET MUTUAL: Policyholder Sues Over “Agent Commission” DIEDRICH COFFEE: Still Faces Labor-Related Litigation in Calif. DOLLAR GENERAL: Recalls Key Chains Containing High Lead Levels DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Named in FLSA Violations Suit Against Apex GILMAN & CIOCIA: Parties Seek to Settle “Kosseff” Litigation HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Faces Suits Over Floppy Disk Controllers HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Intel P4 Processor HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Faces “Smart Chips” Suits in Cal., Canada HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Face Ill. lawsuit Over EEPROM Chip HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Cal. “Baggett” Suit Over Laserjet Printer HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Faces “Rich” Suit Over Inkjet Printer HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Survivors Testify for Insurance Bill JONES FINANCIAL: Settles Two Wage, Hour Lawsuits for $40M MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Discovery Continues in Md. Securities Suit MERCURY INTERACTIVE: Cal. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit MORGAN STANLEY: African-American Workers File Suit in Ill. PURDUE PHARMA: Ken. Counties File Suit Over Oxycontin Abuse QUICKSILVER INC: Continues to Face Calif. FACTA Violations Suit SHUFFLE MASTER: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Nev. UNITED STATES: Towns Mull Suit Against FAA Over Flight Rerouting New Securities Fraud Cases BIGBAND NETWORKS: KGS Commences Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit SONIC SOLUTIONS: Coughlin Stoia Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit ********* ANTIOCH PUBLISHING: Recalls Bookmarks on Clip’s High Lead Level --------------------------------------------------------------- Antioch Publishing, of Yellow Springs, Ohio, in cooperation with U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 150,000 bookmarks and journals. The company said paint on the spiral metal bindings of the journals, clip of the bookmarks and the clear coating on the marquis bookmarks and bracelets contain excessive levels of lead, which violates the federal lead paint ban. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves various designs of bookmarks and journals from Antioch Publishing’s Signature Collection. The character-themed bookmarks and journals include the following designs: Clip Bookmarks Winnie the Pooh (Disney) Star Coffee Lady Bug & Flower Sun & Rainbow Follow Him & Cross Hope & Courage Sun & Moon Monkey & Bananas Marquis Bookmarks Dragon Hugging Cat Bookmarks Sold with Bracelets Mother’s Touch Breast Cancer Journals Cherry Blossoms Sweetheart Sassy These recalled bookmarks and journals were manufactured in China and are being sold at book, card and gift stores nationwide from March 2005 through October 2007 for between $4 and $14. Pictures of the recalled bookmarks and journals: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08010a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08010b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08010c.jpg Consumers should immediately take the bookmarks and journals away from children and contact Antioch Publishing for a refund. For additional information, contact Antioch Publishing at (800) 543-1515 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.antioch.com ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Sydney Federal Court Hears Investors Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action brought by shareholders against Australian poker machine company Aristocrat Leisure has begun in Sydney federal court, reports say. A hearing started on Oct. 4 and is expected to finish by the end of the month, according to ABC News. In 2003, Maurice Blackburn Cashman Lawyers and litigation company IMF Australia filed a class action writ against Aristocrat Leisure alleging that the company's market forecasts were false and misleading and that it failed to disclose all material information in a timely manner. The lawsuit alleges that the company misled shareholders by not keeping them fully informed before announcing earnings downgrades that wiped $1.5 billion (AU$2 billion) from the company's value in 2003. The lawsuit claims the non-disclosure caused them losses. The case was transferred to the Federal Court in Sydney. Later, the applicant applied to amend the class definition to delete the requirement that a group member must retain Maurice Blackburn Cashman to be a part of the class. This application was successful and the class definition was amended so that the case now applies to any person who acquired shares in Aristocrat during the period Sept. 20, 2002 to May 26, 2003 and who suffered loss as a consequence of Aristocrat alleged conduct. The Statement of Claim has been amended to claim losses incurred by shareholders who purchased shares between Feb. 18, 2002 (previously Sept. 20, 2002) and 26 May 2003. The case is before Justice Margaret Stone. The hearing will deal with some issues common to class members' potential claims, but it will not finally determine their claims. Aristocrat Leisure said the lawsuit could cost the company AU$10 million to AU$20 million in damages -- not the AU$190 million to AU$396 million reported by the media. Dorajay Pty Limited is representing shareholders. Only the Dorajay claim will be determined finally at the hearing, according to The Age. Other class members will need to prove their claims separately, the report said. Aristocrat said only Dorajay and four other shareholders had filed details of their claims. A ruling in the case could set a precedent for other class actions over failure to disclose material information. Representing shareholders is: Stephen Gageler, S.C. Phone: + 612 9233 1209 Fax: + 612 9232 7626 E-mail: stephengageler@wentworthchambers.com.au BACK YARD: Settles “Plank” Lawsuit Over BBAC Acquisition -------------------------------------------------------- BBAC LLC settled a putative class action complaint captioned “Plank v. Back Yard Burgers, Inc., et. al., Case No. CA-07-2499,” filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Memphis Business Journal reports. Back Yard Burgers, Inc. (NASDAQ:BYBI - News) had previously reported that it expected its proposed merger transaction with BBAC, LLC to close in August. Back Yard Burgers first announced in June its merger agreement with BBAC LLC and its subsidiary BBAC Merger Sub Inc. Under the deal, holders of Back Yard Burgers common stock and preferred stock would get $6.50 a share in cash -- a 29 percent premium above the closing price of $5.05 a share on June 8. The deal is expected to close in the third quarter. Since that time, a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee was served on the Company and unnamed other defendants that alleges violations of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, or FACTA, and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA. The complaint, a putative class action was filed in late July, but not served on the company until late in the day on August 3, 2007. It alleged violations of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. It further alleged that contrary to FACTA and TCPA, Back Yard Burgers and other unnamed defendants willfully failed to properly truncate, or shorten, and mask certain personal account information on plaintiff's credit or debit card receipt provided to her (and, in the case of the TCPA, the receipt retained by the restaurant) at the point of sale by one of the company's restaurants. There was no claim that the plaintiff had suffered any actual damages or that she was the victim of identity theft related to the incident alleged in the lawsuit. In an Oct. 2 filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission, BBAC reported that the lawsuit was settled by the Issuer with the plaintiff on an individual basis and dismissed on September 14, 2007. The parties did not request nor did the court make any ruling with respect to the certification of any putative class as alleged in the complaint. As a result, a new closing date for the company's acquisition is extended to Oct. 31. BBAC is an investment partnership managed by Atlanta-based Cherokee Advisors LLC. Its principal investors include Reid M. Zeising of Cherokee Advisors and C. Stephen Lynn, former chairman and CEO of Shoney's Inc. and Sonic Corp. Back Yard Burgers operates and franchises 181 restaurants in 20 states, primarily in the Southeast. The company had profit of $900,000 on $44.7 million in revenue in 2006. BANK OF AMERICA: CD Holders Sue Over Low Automatic Renewal Rates ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bank of America Corp. is facing a purported class action filed by two Massachusetts customers claiming the bank deceived depositors into renewing certificates of deposits at below-market rates, Reuters reports. Sheldon and Ruth Kriegel filed the suit in U.S. district court in Manhattan on Sept. 24. They seek class-action status for the suit. The suit claims Bank of America misled Premier" and "Plus" clients into letting the bank automatically renew maturing CDs at rates well below what competitors offered, or what it offered even to its own customers. The Kriegels have "Premier" status. Specifically, they claim that the bank rolled their $338,925 CD when it matured on May 1, but cutting the annual percentage yield to 2.62 percent from 4.5 percent. Had they inquired about it, rather than rely on automatic renewal, they could have a higher rate, the bank allegedly told them. Other customers at the time could have received a 3.40 percent rate, it said. The Kriegels' lawsuit alleges fraud, breach of contract, negligence and other wrongdoing, and seeks compensatory and punitive damages, among other remedies. Plaintiffs want compensation, costs, and punitive damages. The suit is “Kriegel et al. v. Bank of America Corp. et al., Case No. 1:2007cv08299,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Richard J. Sullivan. Representing the plaintiffs is: Joel Laitman, Esq. Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C. Cannon's Walk, 19 Fulton Street, Suite 406 New York, New York 10038 (New York Co.) Phone: 212-964-0046 Telecopier: 212-267-8137 BIG LOTS: La. Court Denies Decertification Motion in FLSA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied a motion that sought for the decertification of the class in a lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by Big Lots, Inc. The civil putative collective action complaint was filed on November 2004 against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. It alleges that the company violated FLSA by misclassifying assistant managers as exempt. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and all other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On July 5, 2005, the court issued an order conditionally certifying a class of all current and former assistant store managers who have worked for the company since Nov. 23, 2001. As a result of that order, notice of the lawsuit was sent to approximately 5,500 individuals who had the right to opt-in to the Louisiana matter. As of Aug. 4, 2007, approximately 1,100 individuals had joined the Louisiana matter. The company has filed a motion to decertify the class and the motion was denied on Aug. 24, 2007, according to the company's Sept. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007. The suit is "Johnson, et al. v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:04-cv-03201-SSV-SS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Sarah S. Vance with referral to Judge Sally Shushan. Representing the plaintiffs is: Philip Bohrer, Esq. Bohrer Law Firm 8712 Jefferson Hwy, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Phone: 225-925-5297 E-mail: phil@bohrerlaw.com Representing the defendant is: Dominic J. Ovella, Esq. Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale One Galleria Blvd., P.O. Box 8288, Suite 1400 Metairie, LA 70011-8288 Phone: 504-836-6500 E-mail: novella@hmhlp.com BIG LOTS: Seeks to Consolidate Suits Over Client Info. Request -------------------------------------------------------------- Big Lots, Inc. is seeking for the consolidation of two purported class actions filed in California alleging that the company violated California law by requesting certain customer information in connection with the return of merchandise for which the customer sought to receive a refund to a credit card. In May 2007, two-class action complaints were filed against the company, one in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, and one in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other individuals who are similarly situated, statutory penalties, costs and attorneys' fees and seek injunctive relief. The company believes that substantially all of the purported class members of the San Diego County lawsuit are within the purported class of the Orange County lawsuit. Thus, it is currently seeking to have a single court coordinate these two lawsuits, according to the company's Sept. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007. Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com-- is a national broadline closeout retailer. As of Feb. 3, 2007, the Company operated a total of 1,375 stores in 47 states. Big Lots, Inc.’s merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and Other. BIG LOTS: Class Members Challenge Approval of Calif. Suit Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Two members in a California labor class action against Big Lots, Inc. appealed a final order approving a settlement reached in the matter. In October 2005, a class action complaint was served upon the company for adjudication in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Ventura. The suit alleged that the company had violated certain California wage and hour laws. The plaintiff seeks to recover, on her own behalf and on behalf of all other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid wages and rest and meal period compensation, as well as penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. In the third quarter of fiscal year 2006, the company and the plaintiff reached a tentative settlement of the California matter. On Nov. 6, 2006, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the tentative settlement. On April 30, 2007, the court entered the final order approving the class action settlement and judgment of dismissal with prejudice. Two class members whose objections to the settlement were overruled by the court have appealed the final order to the California Court of Appeal, challenging the settlement, according to the company's Sept. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007. Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com-- is a national broadline closeout retailer. As of Feb. 3, 2007, the Company operated a total of 1,375 stores in 47 states. Big Lots, Inc.’s merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and Other. BRICKSTREET MUTUAL: Policyholder Sues Over “Agent Commission” ------------------------------------------------------------- Aero-Fab Inc. of Cabell County, W.Va. is suing to seek refund from BrickStreet Mutual Insurance Co. for alleged insurance overcharge, the State Journal reports. The sheet metal fabricator in Huntington's east end filed the suit in Cabell County Circuit Court on Sept. 26. It alleges that the compensation insurance provider overcharge companies that had coverage through it by overcharging an “agent commission.” The commission is non-existent, as a result, BrickStreet is unjustly enriched, the lawsuit states. With the approval of the West Virginia Legislature, BrickStreet is the sole provider of workers' compensation insurance from the time it started writing policies in January 2006 until July 1, 2008. It was created as part of reforms in how the state’s workers compensation system is managed. Aero-Fab enrolled with BrickStreet on Jan. 1, 2006. Its policy covered six months. Aero-Fab is suing after being refused of a refund by BrickStreet, according to the suit. The lawsuit said BrickStreet representatives told the company that the premium costs are the same whether a policyholder works with an agent or not, and agent compensation is built into the workers' comp rates as part of "administrative costs." The suit seeks to represent 38,000 workers who have compensation policies as of Aug. 22, 2006, and who were charged an agent commission even though no agents were retained. According to the report, as part of the discovery, Aero-Fab is requesting: -- documents that might outline why and how BrickStreet decided to charge an agent commission; -- disclosure of the number of companies and people it insured during each effective policy period from Jan. 1, 2006, to the present; -- disclosure of the total amount of agent commissions charged to all policyholders since January 2006, as well as the total compensation paid to BrickStreet agents; and -- documentation showing the "total amount of agent commissions charged to those BrickStreet insureds without a registered agent during each effective policy period from Jan. 1, 2006, to the present. ..." Andy Wessels, a spokesman for BrickStreet, refused to comment on the pending litigation, according to the report. Representing Aero-Fab are: Paul T. Farrell Jr., Esq. Farrell, Farrell & Farrell, PLLC The Farrell Building, 914 Fifth Avenue P.O. Box 6457 Huntington, West Virginia 25772-6457 (Cabell & Wayne Cos.) Phone: 304-522-9100 Fax: 304-522-9162 Alex J. Shook, Esq. Hamstead, Williams & Shook PLLC 315 High Street Morgantown, WV 26505 Phone: (304) 296-3636 (888) 298-2529 Fax: (304) 291-5364 DIEDRICH COFFEE: Still Faces Labor-Related Litigation in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Diedrich Coffee, Inc. continues to face two class actions in California over allegations that it violated labor laws. On Sept. 21, 2006, a purported class action complaint entitled, "Jason Reid, Kimberly Cornia, et al. v. Diedrich Coffee, et al.," was filed against the company in U.S. District Court Central District of California by two former employees, who worked in the positions of team member and shift manager. A second similar purported class action complaint entitled, "Deborah Willems, et al. v. Diedrich Coffee, et al.," was filed in Orange County, California Superior Court on Feb. 2, 2007, on behalf of another former employee who worked in the position of general manager. These cases currently involve the issue of whether employees and former employees who worked in California stores during specified time periods were deprived of overtime pay, missed meal and rest breaks. In addition to unpaid overtime, these cases seek to recover waiting time penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and other types of relief on behalf of the current and former employees in the purported class. The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept. 25, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 27, 2007. Diedrich Coffee, Inc. -- http://www.diedrich.com/-- is a specialty coffee roaster, wholesaler and retailer. The Company sells brewed, espresso-based and various blended beverages primarily made from its own fresh roasted premium coffee beans, as well as light food items, whole bean coffee and accessories, through Company operated and franchised retail locations. DOLLAR GENERAL: Recalls Key Chains Containing High Lead Levels -------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar General Merchandising Inc., of Goodlettsville, Tennessee, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 192,000 key chains. The company said the key chains contain high levels of lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves key chains with a coiled cord and a metal charm with one of the following engraved words: “wisdom”, “truth”, “believe”, “love”, “hope”, or “dream”. The key chains were sold on a cardboard tab with floral designs and the words “Metal Keyring” and “$1” on the front. These recalled key chains were manufactured in China and are being sold at Dollar General stores nationwide from June 2005 through August 2007 for about $1. Pictures of recalled key chains: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08009a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08009b.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately take these key chains away from young children and return them to the store where purchased for a refund or replacement product. For additional information, contact Dollar General at (800) 678-9258 between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.dollargeneral.com DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Named in FLSA Violations Suit Against Apex ------------------------------------------------------------ Dycom Industries, Inc. was named as a defendant in a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In December 2006, two former employees of Apex Digital LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Dycom Industries, Inc., that was discontinued during the quarter ended Jan. 27, 2007, commenced a lawsuit against the subsidiary in Illinois State Court. The lawsuit alleges that Apex violated certain minimum wage laws under the FLSA and related state laws by failing to comply with applicable minimum wage and overtime pay requirements. Plaintiffs seek damages and costs. They also seek to certify, and eventually notify, a class consisting of former employees who, since December 2004, have worked for Apex. On Jan. 30, 2007 the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In July 2007, plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Dycom as a defendant, according to the company's Sept. 6, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July 28, 2007. The suit is "Radinski et al. v. Apex Digital, LLC et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00571," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before David H. Coar. Representing the plaintiffs are: Ruth Irene Major, Esq. Penny Nathan & Kahan & Associates 208 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1660 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 855-1660 E-mail: rmajor@pnkahan.com - and - James J. Oh, Esq. Littler Mendelson, P.C. 200 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2900 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 372-5520 E-mail: joh@littler.com GILMAN & CIOCIA: Parties Seek to Settle “Kosseff” Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ Parties in a purported stockholder class action pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County against Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. are negotiating a settlement. On Feb. 4, 2004, the company was served with a summons and a shareholder's class action and derivative complaint filed by Gary Kosseff against James Ciocia, Thomas Povinelli, Michael P. Ryan, Kathryn Travis, Seth A. Akabas, Louis P. Karol, Edward H. Cohen, Steven Gilbert and Doreen Biebusch, and Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. (Civil Action No. 188-N). The action accuses the company, its board of directors and its management of breaching their fiduciary duty of loyalty in connection with the sale of offices to Pinnacle Taxx Advisors, LLC in 2002. The action alleges that the sale to Pinnacle was for inadequate consideration and without a fairness opinion by independent financial advisors, without independent legal advice and without a thorough evaluation and vote by an independent committee of the board of directors. The action seeks: -- a declaration that the company, its board of directors and management breached their fiduciary duty and other duties to the plaintiff and to the other members of the purported class; -- a rescission of the Asset Purchase Agreement; -- unspecified monetary damages; and -- an award to the plaintiff of costs and disbursements, including reasonable legal, expert and accountants fees. On March 15, 2004, counsel for the company and for all defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On June 19, 2004, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On July 12, 2004, counsel for the company and for all defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 8, 2005, oral argument was heard on the motion to dismiss, and on July 29, 2005 the case Master delivered his draft report denying the motion. The parties filed exceptions to the report and on Aug. 3, 2006, the Master delivered his final report denying the motion to dismiss. The parties are proceeding with discovery and a June 4, 2007 trial was scheduled for the case. The trial was postponed without a new date pending settlement negotiations, according to the company's Sept. 28, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007. Gilman & Ciocia, Inc. -- http://www.gilcio.com/-- provides federal, state and local tax preparation services to individuals, predominantly in the middle and upper income tax brackets, and financial planning services, including securities brokerage, insurance and mortgage agency services. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Faces Suits Over Floppy Disk Controllers --------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Co. (HP) continues to face purported class actions in Texas, Oklahoma and California over faulty floppy disk controllers. Texas Cases One of the suits is “Alvis v. HP,” which is a defective product consumer class action filed in the District Court of Jefferson County, Texas in April 2001. In February 2000, a similar suit captioned, “LaPray v. Compaq,” was filed in the District Court of Jefferson County, Texas. The basic allegation is that HP and Compaq sold computers containing floppy disk controllers that fail to alert the user to certain floppy disk controller errors. That failure is alleged to result in data loss or data corruption. The complaints in “Alvis” and “LaPray” seek injunctive relief, declaratory relief, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. In July 2001, a nationwide class was certified in the LaPray case, which the Beaumont Court of Appeals affirmed in June 2002. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the certification and remanded to the trial court in May 2004. On March 29, 2005, the Alvis trial court certified a Texas-wide class action for injunctive relief only, which HP appealed on April 15, 2005. HP's appeal in the Alvis case is still pending. Oklahoma Cases On June 4, 2003, each of “Barrett v. HP,” and “Grider v. Compaq,” was filed in the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma, with factual allegations similar to those in Alvis and LaPray. The complaints in “Barrett” and “Grider” seek, among other things, specific performance, declaratory relief, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. On Dec. 22, 2003, the District Court entered an order staying the Barrett case until the conclusion of “Alvis.” On Sept. 23, 2005, the District Court granted the “Grider” plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class action, which the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed on Oct. 13, 2006. On Nov. 5, 2006, HP filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Oklahoma Supreme Court seeking reversal of the lower courts' decisions. That petition was denied on March 26, 2007. The Grider case is scheduled for trial in January 2008. California Cases On Nov. 5, 2004, “Batiste v. HP (formerly Scott v. HP),” and on Jan. 27, 2005, “Schultz v. HP (formerly Jurado v. HP),” were filed in state court in San Joaquin County, California, with factual allegations similar to those in “LaPray” and “Alvis,” seeking certification of a California-only class, injunctive relief, unspecified damages (including punitive damages), restitution, costs, and attorneys' fees. On Nov. 27, 2006, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification and certified the Schultz case as a California-only class. On March 26, 2007, HP filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with the California Supreme Court. That petition was summarily denied on May 9, 2007. The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007. Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com-- is a provider of products, technologies, solutions and services to individual consumers, small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises. Its offerings span personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing-related products and services, enterprise information technology infrastructure and multi-vendor customer services. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Intel P4 Processor ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to face a purported class action in California with regards to the performance of Intel Corp.'s Pentium 4 processor. The suit, "Skold, et al. v. Intel Corp. and Hewlett Packard Co.," generally alleges that the company along with Intel, misled the public by suppressing and concealing the alleged material fact that systems that use the Pentium 4 processor are less powerful and slower than systems using the Pentium III processor and processors made by a competitor of Intel. The company was joined to the lawsuit on June 14, 2004. It was initially filed in state court in Alameda County, California, based upon factual allegations similar to those in the Illinois cases. The plaintiffs in the Skold matter seek unspecified damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and certification of a nationwide class. The Skold case has since been transferred to state court in Santa Clara County, California. The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007. Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com-- is a provider of products, technologies, solutions and services to individual consumers, small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises. Its offerings span personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing-related products and services, enterprise information technology infrastructure and multi-vendor customer services. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Faces “Smart Chips” Suits in Cal., Canada ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to face several lawsuits over its use of "smart chips" in its inkjet printer cartridges, according to the company's Sept. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007. The suits clam that the “smart chips” erroneously signal to the customer that certain inkjet printer cartridges need to be replaced before they are really empty, and include an expiration date that is allegedly not documented in marketing materials provided to consumers. Some of these lawsuits have been dismissed by without prejudice by the plaintiffs. Feder Litigation The suit, “Feder v. HP (formerly Tyler v. HP),” was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 16, 2005 asserting breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and deceptive advertising and unfair business practices in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. Among other things, plaintiffs alleged that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to register ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both. Plaintiffs also contend that consumers received false ink depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose competitive products. Ciolino Litigation On Sept. 6, 2005, a lawsuit captioned, “Ciolino v. HP,” was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The allegations in the Ciolino case are substantively identical to those in “Feder,” and the two cases have been formally consolidated in a single proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under the caption, “In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation.” Blennis Litigation In addition, on Jan. 17, 2007, an additional lawsuit captioned, “Blennis v. HP,” was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California with allegations substantially the same as those consolidated in “In re Inkjet Printer Litigation.” The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, damages (including enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. Canadian Litigation Substantially similar allegations have been made against HP and its subsidiary, Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co., in four Canadian class actions, one commenced in British Columbia in February 2006, two commenced in Quebec in April 2006 and May 2006, respectively, and one commenced in Ontario in June 2006, all seeking class certification, restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and unspecified statutory, compensatory and punitive damages. Dismissed Litigations Three related lawsuits filed in California state court have been dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiffs. The suits are: -- “Tyler v. HP” (filed in Santa Clara County on Feb. 17, 2005), -- “Obi v. HP” (filed in Los Angeles County on Feb. 17, 2005), and -- “Weingart v. HP” (filed in Los Angeles County on March 18, 2005) In addition, two related lawsuits filed in federal court have been dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiffs. The suits are: -- “Grabell v. HP” (filed in the District of New Jersey on March 18, 2005), and -- “Just v. HP” (filed in the Eastern District of New York on April 20, 2005). The consolidated federal suit is "In re: HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, Case No. 5:05-cv-03580-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull. Representing the plaintiffs is: Bruce Lee Simon, Esq. Cotchett Pitre & Simon S.F. Airport Office Center, 840 Malcolm Road, Ste. 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: 650.697.6000 Fax: 650.692.3606 E-mail: bsimon@cpsmlaw.com Representing the defendants is: Sally J. Berens, Esq. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP 1881 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: 650-849-5300 Fax: 650-849-5333 E-mail: sberens@gibsondunn.com HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Face Ill. lawsuit Over EEPROM Chip ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to face a purported class action alleging violations of Illinois state law in its inclusion of an electrically erasable programmable read only memory (EEPROM) chip in certain of its LaserJet printers that prematurely advises the user that the drum kit needs replacing. The suit, “Schorsch v. HP,” was filed against HP on Oct. 28, 2003 in Illinois state court. The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint seeking to expand the class from purchasers of drum kits to purchasers of all HP printer consumables that contain EEPROM chips. The most current amended complaint seeks certification of an Illinois-only class and seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs, according to the company's Sept. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007. Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com-- is a provider of products, technologies, solutions and services to individual consumers, small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises. Its offerings span personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing-related products and services, enterprise information technology infrastructure and multi-vendor customer services. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Cal. “Baggett” Suit Over Laserjet Printer ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Co. faces a purported consumer fraud class action containing allegations that it employs a technology in its LaserJet color printers whereby the printing process shuts down prematurely, preventing customers from using the toner that is stranded in the cartridge. The suit, “Baggett v. HP,” was filed on June 6, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs allege that HP fails to disclose to consumers that they will be unable to utilize the toner remaining in the cartridge after the printer shuts down. The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of purchasers of all HP LaserJet color printers and seeks unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, according to the company's Sept. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007. The suit is “Kelsea Baggett v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-00667-AG-RNB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Andrew J. Guilford with referral to Judge Robert N. Block. Representing the plaintiffs are: Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. Kabateck Brown Kellner 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-217-5000 E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com - and - Darren T. Kaplan Chitwood Harley Harnes 1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2300 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-873-3900 E-mail: dkaplan@chitwoodlaw.com Representing the defendants are: Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. Gibson Dunn & Crutcher 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Phone: 213-229-7000 - and - Robert A. Particelli, Esq. Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-963-5000 Fax: 215-963-5001 HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Faces “Rich” Suit Over Inkjet Printer ------------------------------------------------------------ Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to face a purported consumer fraud class action alleging that HP designed its color inkjet printers to unnecessarily use color ink in addition to black ink when printing black and white images and text. The suit, “Rich v. HP,” was filed against the company on May 22, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of a nationwide class. The Court has granted HP's motion to dismiss several of the plaintiffs' claims, and HP answered the remaining claims in February 2007, according to the company's Sept. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007. The suit is “Rich v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. 5:06-cv-03361-JF,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to Judge Howard R. Lloyd. Representing the plaintiffs are: Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. Kabateck Brown Kellner 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-217-5000 E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com Representing the defendants are: Christopher Chorba, Esq. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-229-7000 Fax: 213-229-7520 E-mail: cchorba@gibsondunn.com HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Survivors Testify for Insurance Bill ---------------------------------------------------------- Holocaust survivors testified before the U.S. House of Representatives in support of a bill that would track remaining Holocaust-era policies, The Associated Press reports. The witnesses are urging that settlement process in a suit against foreign banks and insurance companies remain open. During the hearing of the testimonies, U.S. ambassador Christian Kennedy revealed that cash payments to survivors and descendants of Holocaust victims have reached about $8 billion. He said it is “imperfect justice” but, nonetheless, the U.S. had helped a lot in seeking justice for victims and their families by intervening in class actions in the 1990s. He said the $8 billion came from funds established in Germany, Austria, France and Switzerland in a $1.25 billion settlement of class actions. In addition, he said the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims paid out $300 million, according to the report. According to the report, the bill quoted unidentified experts as estimating the value in 2006 of unpaid life, annuity, endowment and dowry insurance theft from European Jewry from the Holocaust and its aftermath ranges between $17 billion and $200 billion. JONES FINANCIAL: Settles Two Wage, Hour Lawsuits for $40M --------------------------------------------------------- Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. agreed to pay up to $40 million to settle two class actions filed against the firm claiming the company failed to pay overtime, improperly made wage deductions, failed to properly reimburse business-related expenses and failed to provide meal and rest breaks to investment advisers, the St. Louis Business Journal reports. Edward Jones denied these allegations, but agreed to pay $21 million in the first case and up to a maximum of $19 million in the second. Case Background Jones Financial has been sued in five putative class actions that allege it has misclassified its financial advisors as exempt from overtime pay, improperly deducted certain business expenses and otherwise failed to comply with certain state and federal wage and hour laws. Those actions were: -- "Booher, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., (National class under federal statutes);" -- "Ellis, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. (Pennsylvania only class);" -- "Weaver, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. (Ohio only class);" and -- "O'Brien, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. (New York only class)." -- "Thill, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P." in the United District Court in California St. Louis-based Edward Jones, an investment brokerage company, is one of the largest privately held companies in St. Louis. MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Discovery Continues in Md. Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is proceeding in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Martek Biosciences Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Since May 4, 2005, several other putative class actions making similar allegations were filed against the company and certain of its officers. The court entered orders consolidating these cases, appointing lead plaintiffs and approving lead plaintiffs' counsel and liaison counsel. On Nov. 18, 2005, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in "In re Martek Biosciences Corp. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. MJG 05-1224." While the court has not made a determination of whether a putative class can be certified, the consolidated complaint claims to be filed on behalf of the purchasers of the company's common stock during a purported class period beginning Dec. 9, 2004 and ending April 28, 2005. At this time, plaintiffs have not specified the amount of damages they are seeking in the actions. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b- 5, promulgated thereunder, and violations of Section 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The consolidated complaint alleges generally that the company and the individual defendants made false or misleading public statements and failed to disclose material facts regarding its business and prospects in public statements the company made or failed to make during the period and, in the case of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 claims, in the company's January 2005 prospectus. The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on Feb. 3, 2006, and a hearing before the court on this motion was held on May 22, 2006. On June 14, 2006, the court denied our motion to dismiss and on July 25, 2006, the court entered a scheduling order for further proceedings in the case. Subsequently, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the claims arising under the Securities Act of 1933, leaving only the alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the action. On Sept. 20, 2006, the court approved the dismissal of the 1933 Act claims. Additionally, on Sept. 21, 2006, the court approved the parties' stipulation certifying a class to prosecute claims under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Subject to certain exceptions, the stipulated class generally consists of all persons who either purchased Martek common stock during the class period of Dec. 9, 2004 through April 28, 2005, inclusive or otherwise acquired, without purchasing, Martek common stock during the class period from a person or entity who purchased those particular shares of Martek stock during the class period. Discovery is proceeding and is not expected to be complete until 2008. The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept. 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007. The suit is "Black v. Martek Biosciences Corp. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01224-MJG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland under Judge Marvin J. Garbis. Representing the plaintiffs are: Christopher L. Nelson, Esq. Schiffrin and Barroway, LLP 280 King of Prussia Rd. Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 16108220262 Fax: 16106677056 E-mail: cnelson@sbclasslaw.com - and - Charles J. Piven, Esq. Charles J. Piven, PA The World Trade Center, 401 E. Pratt St., Ste. 2525 Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: 14103320030 Fax: 14106851300 E-mail: piven@pivenlaw.com Representing the defendants is: Steven F. Barley, Esq. Hogan and Hartson, LLP 111 S. Calvert St., Ste. 1600 Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: 14106592700 Fax: 14105396981 E-mail: sfbarley@hhlaw.com MERCURY INTERACTIVE: Cal. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss the consolidated securities fraud class action, "In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. C05-3395," In November 2006, Hewlett-Packard Co. completed its acquisition of Mercury Interactive Corp. Upon completion of the acquisition, Hewlett Packard assumed oversight for all litigation and regulatory matters pending or subsequently commenced against Mercury. Prior to the announcement of the acquisition, and beginning on or about Aug. 19, 2005, four securities class actions were filed against Mercury Interactive and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of Mercury's stock from October 2003 to November 2005: The original actions were: -- "Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. v. Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. C05-3395"; -- "Johnson v. Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05- 3864"; -- "Munao v. Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05- 4031"; and -- "Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Mercury Interactive, et al., Case No. 05-5157." These class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as, "In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation." The consolidated complaint filed on Sept. 8, 2006 alleges that the defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding Mercury's business and operations in violation of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On July 30, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint with leave to amend, according to the company's Sept. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007. The suit is "In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. C05-3395," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull. Representing the plaintiffs is: Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq. Scott + Scott, LLC, 600 B. Street, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-233-4565 Fax: 619-233-0508 E-mail: ashingler@scott-scott.com Representing the defendants are: Nicole Acton Jones, Esq. Heller Ehrman, LLP 333 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-772-6032 Fax: 415-772-6268 E-mail: nicole.jones@hellerehrman.com Kirk Andrew Dublin, Esq. Jones Day 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104-1500 Phone: 415-626-3939 Fax: 415-875-5700 E-mail: kdublin@jonesday.com - and - Jeffrey S. Facter, Esq. Shearman & Sterling, LLP 525 Market Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-616-1100 Fax: 415-616-1199 E-mail: jfacter@shearman.com MORGAN STANLEY: African-American Workers File Suit in Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------- Former and current financial advisors of African-American Morgan Stanley (MS) filed a lawsuit over alleged discrimination in hiring, compensation and promotion because of their race, Dow Jones reports. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Oct. 3. Plaintiffs claim they were denied employment opportunities at the firm on the basis of color. They alleged "dramatic underrepresentation" of African-Americans as brokers and in executive and management positions at the firm. They also claimed higher attrition and lower compensation. "Plaintiffs have filed this lawsuit to hold Morgan Stanley accountable for its unlawful treatment of African-Americans and to achieve meaningful reform," says a court document filed by Chicago-based law firm Stowell & Friedman. The lawsuit against Morgan Stanley is yet to seek class-action status and is estimated to have 200 potential class members, the report said. The suit is “Moore et al v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., Case No: 1:2007cv05606,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under the Honorable Suzanne B. Conlon. Plaintiffs’ counsel: Stowell & Friedman , Ltd. Suite 1400, 321 South Plymouth Court Chicago, IL 60604-3912 Phone: (312) 431-0888 Fax: (312) 431-0228 PURDUE PHARMA: Ken. Counties File Suit Over Oxycontin Abuse --------------------------------------------------------------- Kentucky Attorney General Greg Stumbo filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status against OxyContin manufacturer Purdue Pharma to claim reimbursement for money spent countering widespread abuse of the drug in Appalachia, the AP WorldStream reports. The suit was filed in Pike County Circuit Court. OxyContin is sold under the brand name for oxycodone. It has been blamed for hundreds of deaths across the U.S. in recent years. Its intended slow-release effect can be easily circumvented, and abuse has been especially high in Appalachian states such as Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia. The lawsuit seeks reimbursement for costs incurred in drug abuse programs, law enforcement and prescription payments through Medicaid and the Kentucky Pharmaceutical Assistance program. It seeks unspecified punitive damages and the creation of a court-monitored fund, financed by Purdue Pharma, that would pay for a program that would notify users of the potential harms of the drug and spur research on the effects of the drug, among other initiatives. The company’s current or former executives have pleaded guilty this year to misleading the public about the drug's risk of addiction. At least six eastern Kentucky counties have agreed to participate in the suit, with more expected to join, said Gary C. Johnson, the county's outside counsel who is handling the case. To contact Mr. Johnson: Gary C. Johnson, P.S.C. 110 Caroline Avenue P.O. Box 231 Pikeville, Ky 41502-0231 Phone: (606) 437-4002 Fax: (606) 437-0021 QUICKSILVER INC: Continues to Face Calif. FACTA Violations Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Quicksilver Inc. still faces a purported federal class action alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act. The suit, "Burnis L. Simon, Jr. v. Quicksilver, Inc. (sic), Case No. CV07-01326," was filed on Feb. 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The company has yet to be served with the complaint. The suit specifically alleges willful violation of FACTA based upon certain of the company's retail stores' alleged electronic printing of receipts on which appeared more than the last five digits of customers' credit or debit card number and/or the expiration of such customers' credit or debit card. The complaint seeks statutory damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 for each violation, as well as unspecified punitive damages, attorneys' fees and a permanent injunction from further engaging in violations of FACTA. It does not allege that any class member has suffered actual damages. The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept. 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007. The suit is "Burnis L. Simon, Jr. v. Quicksilver, Inc. (sic), Case No. CV07-01326," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Margaret M. Morrow with referral to Judge Jeffrey W. Johnson. Representing the plaintiffs is: Herbert Hafif Law Offices 269 W. Bonita Ave. Claremont, CA 91711-4784 Phone: 909-624-1671 Web site: http://www.hafif.com SHUFFLE MASTER: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Nev. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada ordered the consolidation of several securities fraud class actions filed against Shuffle Master, Inc. Initially, several complaints were filed against the company. They are as follows: Stocke Litigation On June 1, 2007, a putative class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws against the Company and the company's Chief Executive Officer, Mark L. Yoseloff, and Chief Financial Officer, Richard L. Baldwin, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of persons who purportedly purchased the company's stock between Dec. 22, 2006, and March 12, 2007. The case is entitled, “Joseph Stocke vs. Shuffle Master, Inc., Mark L. Yoseloff and Richard L. Baldwin.” The company, as well as, Dr. Yoseloff and Mr. Baldwin, were served with the complaint on June 6, 2007. The complaint asserts claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b 5 promulgated thereunder. These claims allegedly relate to the company's March 12, 2007, announcement that it would restate its Fiscal Fourth Quarter and full year financial results. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unstated amount. On or about Aug. 4, 2007, four plaintiffs moved the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff. No decision has yet been made. On or about Sept. 6, 2007, one of those plaintiffs withdrew its application for appointment. Armistead Litigation On June 12, 2007, a second putative class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws against the Company and Dr. Yoseloff and Mr. Baldwin was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The case is entitled, “Robert Armistead, Jr. vs. Shuffle Master, Inc., Mark L. Yoseloff and Richard L. Baldwin.” The Company, Dr. Yoseloff and Mr. Baldwin were served with the complaint on June 12, 2007. This lawsuit effectively mirrors the allegations in the Stocke lawsuit filed against these same defendants on June 1, 2007, except that the Armistead complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased our stock between March 20, 2006, and March 12, 2007. Tempel Litigation On June 25, 2007, a third putative class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws against the Company, Dr. Yoseloff and Mr. Baldwin was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The case is entitled, “Andrew J. Tempel vs. Shuffle Master, Inc., Mark L. Yoseloff and Richard L. Baldwin.” This lawsuit is a “copycat” lawsuit of the Stocke lawsuit filed against these same defendants on June 1, 2007. Consolidation On June 22, 2007, a Joint Stipulation was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada providing that all presently filed and any subsequently filed related class actions shall be consolidated and captioned, “In Re Shuffle Master, Inc. Securities Litigation.” The suit is “In Re Shuffle Master, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-00715,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under Judge Kent J. Dawson. Representing the plaintiffs are: Albright, Stoddard, Warnick & Albright 801 South Rancho Drive, Quail Park Suite D-4 Las Vegas, NV, 89106 Phone: 702.384.7111 Berger & Montague PC 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103 Phone: 800.424.6690 Fax: 215.875.4604 E-mail: investorprotect@bm.net Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP 1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA, 90067 Phone: (310) 201-915 Fax: (310) 201-916 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com - and - Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017-5516 Phone: 212.661.1100 Fax: 212.661.8665 E-mail: info@pomerantzlaw.com UNITED STATES: Towns Mull Suit Against FAA Over Flight Rerouting ---------------------------------------------------------------- Towns affected by the Federal Aviation Administration’s plan to reroute flights are contemplating about filing a class action to oppose the proposal, reports say. The towns of Wilton, Norwalk, Weston, Ridgefield, Redding, Darien, Greenwich, Stamford, New Canaan, and Pound Ridge, N.Y. are holding meetings regarding a possible lawsuit. The meetings follow the FAA’s Sept. 5 announcement of a proposal to shift high-altitude and low-altitude airspace over areas in Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware to make the flight system more efficient and reduce delays. The changes will be introduced gradually through 2011. Those who oppose the plan said the rerouting will negatively impact the area's quality of life while doing little to cut system delays. A lawsuit must be field within 60 days of the FAA's report. Bergen County, N.J., Rockland County, N.Y., Delaware County, Pa., and the city of Elizabeth, N.J. have already filed lawsuits opposing the FAA's decision. One of the considerations the towns are facing is the cost of a possible suit, and the time it would take to end it. New Securities Fraud Cases BIGBAND NETWORKS: KGS Commences Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC filed the first class action against BigBand Networks, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of BigBand in connection with the Company's Initial Public Offering on or about March 15, 2007, or who purchased shares thereafter in the open market. No class has yet been certified in this action. BigBand, certain of its officers and directors, and the Company's underwriters -- collectively, "defendants" -- are charged with including, or allowing the inclusion of, materially false and misleading statements in the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO, in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. The Complaint charges that BigBand raised over $159 million through the sale of 10.7 million shares, despite the Registration Statement's false and misleading statements issued in connection with the IPO. Specifically, the Complaint charges defendants with failing to adequately conduct a due diligence investigation into the Company prior to the IPO, and that they failed to reveal BigBand was not performing according to plan, lacked significant controls and procedures, and lacked any reasonable basis to forecast near-term foreseeable financial and operational results. The Complaint further alleges that defendants failed to reveal the Company's results were already underperforming expectations at the time of the IPO, and that they had boosted the financial results of the quarter immediately prior to the offering by loading customers with unnecessary inventory -- such that sales in future quarters would foreseeably be adversely impacted as customers "worked off" excess inventory prior to purchasing more of BigBand's products. Additionally, the Complaint asserts that defendants failed to disclose that the roll out of its new products was not proceeding according to its growth plan, and that this transition too was adversely impacting revenues in the near-term. On September 28, 2007, BigBand shares fell over 30% in a single trading day -- falling from over $9.00 per share to below $6.00 per share, before closing at $6.49 on exceptionally heavy trading volume of almost 7 million shares. This precipitous decline occurred after the truth was revealed to investors the previous evening that the problems existing at the time of the IPO, and detailed in the Complaint, would result in extremely disappointing results for the third quarter of 2007, including substantially reduced revenues. Interested parties may move the court no later than December 3, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Lewis Kahn Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100 Email: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com Website: http://www.kgscounsel.com. HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Roy Jacobs & Associates has filed a lawsuit in the United States District on behalf of a group consisting of all purchasers of Harman International Industries, Inc. securities between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007. The suit arises out of the failure of the buyout, which led to the revelation of previously concealed adverse facts concerning Harman's business. The Complaint charges Harman and several of its officers and directors with violating the Federal Securities Laws by concealing adverse information about the Company's financial condition, business prospects, and earnings expectations, which caused a premium bid for the Company to collapse, among claims by the Bidders that Harman breached the buyout agreement. As set forth in the Complaint, on April 26, 2007, the Company announced that it had agreed to a buyout by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. and GS Capital Partners VI Fund, L.P., (the "Bidders"), where the shareholders were to be paid $120 cash per Harman share. However, Harman had misrepresented its earnings prospects, and understated its research and development expenses, leading the Bidders to terminate the deal. This news caused the Company's share price to fall from a closing price of $112.25 on September 20, 2007, to $85.00 on September 21, 2007, a drop of 24%. On September 24, 2007, the Company admitted that it would fail to meet its financial guidance for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, and revised downward its earnings estimates for FY 2008 due, inter alia, to increased research and development costs. This news caused the Company's share price to further decline to $80.31. For more information, contact: Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. Roy Jacobs & Associates Toll Free: 1-800-347-1236 E-mail: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com Website: http://www.jacobsclasslaw.com SONIC SOLUTIONS: Coughlin Stoia Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Sonic Solutions (NASDAQ:SNIC) common stock during the period between October 4, 2002 and May 17, 2007. The complaint charges Sonic and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Sonic develops and markets computer software related to digital media, such as data, photographs, audio and video in digital formats. The complaint alleges that prior to the Class Period, Sonic had manipulated its stock option accounting which caused its SEC filings made during the Class Period to be false. Also during the Class Period, Sonic and its top officers made false and misleading statements about its business and prospects, all while concealing its false stock option grant practices, causing its stock to trade at artificially inflated levels. On February 1, 2007, Sonic announced that it had commenced a voluntary review of its historical and current stock option grant practices and related accounting. Then, on May 17, 2007, after the market closed, Sonic announced its preliminary unaudited financial results for the fourth quarter ended March 31, 2007, and stated that based on its previous review, Sonic lacked sufficient documentation for certain historical option grants and that the measurement dates associated with these option grants will need to be adjusted. The Company further stated that it will have to record additional cash and non-cash charges for stock-based compensation expense and restate previous financial statements, and that such charges will be material. On this news, Sonic's stock collapsed from $13.37 per share to as low as $11.76 per share on volume of 1.8 million shares. This drop continued a decline from $18 per share which began in February 2007, when Sonic first disclosed its stock option problems. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Sonic common stock during the Class Period. For more information, contact: Darren Robbins Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 E-mail: djr@csgrr.com Website: http://www.csgrr.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 * * *