/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/071011.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, October 11, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 201 Headlines AARON BROTHERS: Cal. Court Okays “Morris” Labor Suit Settlement AARON BROTHERS: Settlement Reached in Calif. Lead Framer's Suit ABC: Filipino-American Group Plans Suit Over “Racial Slur” APPLE INC: Sued Over “Illegal” iPhone Servicing Deal with AT&T AUSTRALIAN STOCK EXCHANGE: Faces AU$40M Suit for Trading Halt BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Litigation in N.Y. BEBE STORES: Agrees to Settle Calif. “Tarlecki” Labor Lawsuit BEBE STORES: June 2008 Hearing Set for Former Worker's Cal. Suit CANADIAN PACIFIC: $7M Minot Derailment Suit Settlement Okayed CINTAS CORP: Still Faces Race, Gender Discrimination Lawsuits COMPUTER SCIENCES: “Colossus” Certification Hearing Set Nov. 20 DEL MONTE: Suits Over Recalled Pet Food, Snacks Consolidated GREENPOINT MORTGAGE: Calif. Suit Claims Bogus Business Practices HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: High Court Allows “Compaq” Consumer Suit HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Subsidiary Seeks Dismissal of “Sewell” HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Seeks Dismissal of RESPA Lawsuit in Pa. INTERVOICE-BRITE: Seeks Dismissal of Tex. Securities Lawsuit KRATOS DEFENSE: Answers Complaint in Calif. Securities Lawsuit KRATOS DEFENSE: Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuits Consolidated MATTEL INC: Sued in Canada Over Recalled Chinese-Made Toys MICHAELS STORES: One Plaintiff Remains in Tex. Shareholder Suit NORTHERN MARIANAS: $130T Shelved for Garment Suit Tax Penalties PATHMARK STORES: Nov. 5 Hearing Set for $1.25M Suit Settlement VANGUARD HEALTH: Antitrust Suit Over Nurse Pay Continues in Tex. * Class Action Management Conference Set Nov. 9 in Calif. New Securities Fraud Cases CHILDREN'S PLACE: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit LDK SOLAR: Federman & Sherwood Files First N.Y. Securities Suit NUTRISYSTEM INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Pa. Securities Fraud Suit OPTEUM INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in Fla. TARRAGON CORP: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit ********* AARON BROTHERS: Cal. Court Okays “Morris” Labor Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of California, County of San Diego gave final approval to a settlement reached in a purported class action against Aaron Brothers, Inc., a subsidiary of Michaels Stores, Inc. On Nov. 16, 2005, Geoffrey Morris, a former company employee in San Diego, California, commenced the proposed class action proceeding on behalf of himself, and current and former company employees in California from Nov. 16, 2001 to the present. The suit is alleging that the Aaron Brothers failed to pay overtime wages, reimburse the plaintiff for necessary expenses (including the cost of gas used in driving his car for business purposes), and provide adequate meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof. Plaintiff seeks, injunctive relief, damages for unpaid overtime pay, meal break penalties, waiting time penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The suit alleges that this conduct was in breach of California's unfair competition law. With the exception of the meal and rest breaks claim, the claims are asserted on behalf of the putative class. Mr. Morris filed an amended complaint on June 8, 2006 and now seeks to represent a class of current and former assistant managers only. The parties participated in a voluntary mediation on Dec. 15, 2006 and have reached a tentative settlement of the case. On June 22, 2007, the court granted final approval of the settlement. On July 11, 2007, the Court entered the Final Settlement Judgment, according to Michaels Stores, Inc.'s Sept. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007. Michaels Stores, Inc. -- http://www.michaels.com/-- is an arts and crafts specialty retailer in North America providing materials, ideas and education for creative activities. AARON BROTHERS: Settlement Reached in Calif. Lead Framer's Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Brothers Inc., a subsidiary of Michaels Stores, Inc., reached a tentative agreement to settle a purported class action filed by on Jan. 26, 2007 by a former "lead framer" for Aaron Brothers in San Diego, California. Katherine Torgerson filed the suit in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. Ms. Torgerson filed the action against Aaron Brothers, Inc. on behalf of herself and all current and former California-based leads or keyholders. The Torgerson suit alleges that Aaron Brothers failed to provide its leads and keyholders with adequate meal and rest breaks (or compensation in lieu thereof) and accurate wage statements. It additionally alleges that the foregoing conduct was in breach of California's unfair competition law. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, meal and rest break penalties, waiting time penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 10, 2007, the parties participated in a voluntary mediation and have reached a tentative settlement which is contingent on court approval, according to Michaels Stores, Inc.'s Sept. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007. Michaels Stores, Inc. -- http://www.michaels.com/-- is an arts and crafts specialty retailer in North America providing materials, ideas and education for creative activities. ABC: Filipino-American Group Plans Suit Over “Racial Slur” ---------------------------------------------------------- ABC Television network could face a class action by a group of Filipino-American doctors offended by a perceived slur against Filipino doctors on one episode of the soap “Desperate Housewives.” The plan is being pushed even after the network issued an apology. “This is the only way I believe we can compel ABC to make a high-profile apology to the Filipino community,” said Dr. Eustaquio O. Abay, in an e-mail message to California-based Fil-Am lawyer Rodel Rodis, according to a report by Nimfa U. Rueda of The Inquirer (Philippines). “A multimillion-dollar lawsuit for public defamation and damages is in order,” Dr. Abay said. The uproar was raised over a remark made by a character played by Teri Hatcher: “Okay, before we go any further, can I check those diplomas? Because I would just like to make sure they are not from some med school in the Philippines.” The doctors and allied Filipino groups said they were not satisfied with a brief apology issued by ABC’s publicity department. According to Ms. Rueda’s report, the National Alliance for Filipino Concerns is demanding that: -- the program broadcast its apology during the show’s next episode, -- conduct cultural sensitivity training workshops for network staff, -- produce more shows depicting Filipinos and other minority groups in “prominent, positive roles,” and -- support Filipino-American projects that will strengthen diversity awareness. For more information, contact: Rodel E. Rodis Web site: http://rodelrodis.com/ E-mail: Rodel50@aol.com APPLE INC: Sued Over “Illegal” iPhone Servicing Deal with AT&T -------------------------------------------------------------- A California resident and Apple Inc. iPhone owner filed a class action against the company over an alleged illegal tying agreement with AT&T Inc. for the servicing of its iPhones. Timothy P. Smith filed the suit on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against Apple Inc. The purported class consists of all natural persons, sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited partnerships, corporations, and other entities who own an iPhone, intended for use by themselves, their families, or their members, participants, or employees during the period from June 29, 2007 through such time in the future as the effects of Apple's alleged illegal conduct have ceased. The class size is estimated to be 1.28 million iPhone owners with a projected increase of 25 to 37.6 million within the next 18 months, according to the lawsuit. The complaint filed on Oct. 4 in Superior Court of California states: Apple entered into an exclusive five-year agreement with AT&T Mobility LLC that establishes AT&T as the exclusive provider of cell phone service for the iPhone through 2012. As part of the agreement, Apple receives a portion of AT&T's profit. Apple's agreement is a per se unlawful "tying" agreement because Apple prohibits iPhone consumers from using or purchasing a cell phone carrier service other than AT&T. A tying agreement is a requirement that a buyer purchase one product or service as a condition of the purchase of another or that the sale of one product is linked to the other. Apple achieves its prohibition objectives by installing software locks on iPhones that prevent consumers from switching their cell phone service to a competitor's network. Apple's prohibition substantially lessens competition and tends to create a monopoly in the trade and commerce of the iPhone and AT&T's cell phone service. On Sept. 27, 2007, Apple punished consumers for exercising their rights to unlock their iPhones. Apple issued a software update that "bricked" or otherwise caused iPhone malfunctions for consumers who unlocked their phones and installed the update. Under an exemption to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, consumers can lawfully modify their phones for use on a cell phone network of their choice. Apple ignored the exemption in disregard of consumers' rights. When iPhone owners took their phones to Apple for repair, Apple refused to honor consumers' warranties.” The suit alleges violation of the California Business and Professions Code, common law, California antitrust law, and Cartwright Act. It seeks, among others, certification of the suit as a class action, threefold the damages determined to have been sustained by the plaintiff, permanent injunction precluding Apple from: (i) selling the iPhone with any software lock; (ii) denying warranty service to users of unlocked iPhones; (iii) requiring iPhone consumers to purchase their cell phone service through AT&T. The suit is "Smith v. Apple Inc., Case no. 1-07-cv-095781," filed in Superior Court of California Representing the plaintiffs are: M. Van Smith, Esq. Damian R. Fernandez, Esq. Law Offices of Damian R. Fernandez 14510 Big Basin Way, Suite A PMB 285 Saratoga, California 95070-6091 Phone: (408) 355-3021 Fax: (408) 904-7391 E-mail: mvsmith@sbcglobal.net damianfernandez@gmail.com AUSTRALIAN STOCK EXCHANGE: Faces AU$40M Suit for Trading Halt ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Pelly of the Australian Business reports that the Australian Securities Exchange is facing a AU$40 million class action over its subsidiary Sydney Futures Exchange's decision in July to shut down trading at a busy time. On July 25, SFE cancelled more than 300 futures trades on the grounds that pricing on the trades fell outside set safety thresholds. This was after stronger-than-expected June quarter consumer price index figures were released. Lawyers for Aminute, as Trustee of the Aminute Superannuation Fund, TransMarket Trading, Firehorse, Plutus Commodity Management, Kestrel Trading and Biskra Aotearoa launched their claim on Oct. 4 in federal court. They claim that the cancellation of futures transactions was due to trader’s error. They are claiming damages of AU$985,848, but the Asia-Pacific head of TransMarket, Mike Donohue, reportedly said he expected others to join the action and that the claim would then be worth AU$35 million to AU$40 million. The exchange denied that the cancellations were a result of a trade error. Rather, the trades were cancelled because they breached its market integrity range thresholds, according to Ross Kelly of the Herald Sun. That means the pricing on the trades fell outside the ASX's safety boundaries. Parties are set to appear in federal court on Oct. 26. BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Litigation in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bank of America Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries are seeking for the dismissal of the case, "In Re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries were named as defendants in actions filed on behalf of a putative class of retail merchants that accept Visa and MasterCard payment cards. The first of these actions was filed in June 2005. On April 24, 2006, putative class plaintiffs filed a first consolidated and amended class action complaint. Plaintiffs therein allege that the defendants conspired to fix the level of interchange and merchant discount fees and that certain other practices, including various Visa and MasterCard rules, violate federal and California antitrust laws. On May 22, 2006, the putative class plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint against many of the same defendants, including the Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries, alleging additional federal antitrust claims and a fraudulent conveyance claim under New York Debtor and Creditor Law, all arising out of MasterCard's 2006 initial public offering. The putative class plaintiffs seek unspecified treble damages and injunctive relief. Additional defendants in the putative class actions include Visa, MasterCard, and other financial institutions. The putative class actions are coordinated for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, together with additional, individual actions brought only against Visa and MasterCard, under the caption, "In Re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Anti-Trust Litigation." Motions to dismiss portions of the first consolidated and amended class action complaint and the supplemental complaint are pending. The company provided no development in the matter in its Sept. 19, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:05-md-01720-JG-CLP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge John Gleeson with referral to Judge James Orenstein. Representing the plaintiffs: Darla Jo Boggs, Esq. Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P., 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneappolis, MN 55401 Phone: 612-339-6900 Fax: 612-339-0981 E-mail: djboggs@locklaw.com Christopher M. Burke, Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 Fax: 619-231-7423 E-mail: chrisb@lerachlaw.com - and - Jason S. Cowart Esq. Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-661-1100 Fax: 212-661-8665 E-mail: jasoncowart@yahoo.com BEBE STORES: Agrees to Settle Calif. “Tarlecki” Labor Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement was reached in the labor class action, “Tarlecki v. bebe stores, inc., Case No. 3:05-cv-01777-MHP.” A former employee sued the company in a complaint filed on April 28, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit specifically that claimed that the company obligated plaintiff to buy and wear its brand clothing as a uniform, without reimbursement or credit, and the net effect of deducting the value of such required purchases from her wages would often result in her not being paid minimum wages. The plaintiff purports to bring the action also on behalf of a class of hourly, non-managerial employees who are similarly situated. The lawsuit seeks compensatory, statutory and injunctive relief. The company has negotiated a confidential settlement in this case which remains subject to court approval. One objection to the settlement has been filed, according to company's Sept. 14, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July 7, 2007. The suit is “Tarlecki v. bebe stores, inc., Case No. 3:05-cv-01777-MHP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Marilyn H. Patel Representing the plaintiffs are: Michelle M. Gomez-Novy, Esq. Bononi Law Group 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-553-9200 Fax: 213-553-9215 Representing the defendants are: Arthur M. Eidelhoch, Esq. Littler Mendelson, A Professional Corporation 650 California Street, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108-2693 Phone: (415) 433-1940 Fax: (415) 399-8490 E-mail: aeidelhoch@littler.com BEBE STORES: June 2008 Hearing Set for Former Worker's Cal. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A June 2008 hearing is set for a purported class action against bebe stores, inc. that was filed by a former employee on July 27, 2006 in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County. The suit (case No. CIV 456550) is alleging a failure to pay all wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, violation of Labor Code Section 450, violation of Labor Code Section 2802 and California Code of Regulations Section 11040(9)(A), statutory wage violations (late payment of wages), unlawful business practices under Business and Professions Code Section 16720 and Section 17200, conversion of wages and violation of Civil Code Section 52.1. The plaintiff purports to bring the action also on behalf of current and former California bebe employees who are similarly situated. The lawsuit seeks compensatory, statutory, punitive, restitution and injunctive relief. Due to certain similarities in claims between this action and the one previously mentioned (“Tarlecki v. bebe stores, inc., Case No. 3:05-cv-01777-MHP”), the parties and the Court have postponed active litigation and discovery until such time as the previously mentioned case resolves the claims in common. Notwithstanding, the Court in this case has set a hearing in June 2008 regarding whether class certification would be appropriate if, and to the extent, any claim(s) in this case remain(s) active at that time. bebe stores, inc. -- http://www.bebe.com/-- designs, develops and produces a line of contemporary women's apparel and accessories. The Company's target customer is a 21 to 35-year-old woman. Its product offering includes a range of separates, tops, sweaters, dresses, active wear and accessories in the lifestyle categories. CANADIAN PACIFIC: $7M Minot Derailment Suit Settlement Okayed ------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Dan Hovland approved a $7,054,000 million dollar settlement of a class action over a train derailment and chemical spill at Minot, North Dakota in 2002, reports say. Thirty-one cars on the 112-car Canadian Pacific Railway train derailed on the west edge of Minot and fire broke open early on the morning of that day. The case was dismissed by the court in March 2006. In that dismissal, the court found that people injured by a railroad’s negligence could not seek a legal remedy. Plaintiffs appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. While on appeal the parties agreed to the settlement. The class consists of all persons who were exposed to the anhydrous ammonia cloud in and around the city of Minot, North Dakota, and who were adversely affected by the release of the hazardous chemical on January 18, 2002, and who have sustained property damages, property value diminution, personal injuries, and economic or non-economic damages as a result of the derailment and hazardous chemical release. Under the settlement, plaintiffs' attorneys will get $2.9 million of the settlement to cover their fees and expenses. The three lead plaintiffs will each get $25,000, with the remainder shared equally by about 2,000 people. The final number will not be known until Nov. 8 -- the deadline to submit claims. Attorneys estimate the rest will be shared by about 2,000 or 3,000 people who were in Minot the day of the derailment on January 18, 2002. The settlement was granted preliminary approval in July (Class Action Reporter, July 12, 2007). The Settlement on the Net: http://www.minotsettlement.com The suit is "Mehl, et al. v. Canadian Pacific RR, et al., Case No. 4:02-cv-00009-DLH-KKK,"on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota under Judge Daniel L. Hovland with referral to Judge Karen K. Klein. Representing the company is attorney Tim Thornton (E-mail: thodgson@SHTB-law.com). Representing the plaintiffs is attorney: Gordon Rudd, Esq. 651 Nicollet Mall Suite 501 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612)341-0400 Fax: (612)341-0844 Website: http://www.zimmreed.com CINTAS CORP: Still Faces Race, Gender Discrimination Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- Cintas Corp. still faces several purported class actions in Michigan, Ohio and California, alleging either racial or sex discrimination towards employees, according to its Oct. 5, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 31, 2007. Serrano Litigation The company is a defendant in a purported class action, “Mirna E. Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corp.,” which was filed on May 10, 2004, and pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. “Serrano” alleges that Cintas discriminated against women in hiring into various service sales representative positions across all divisions of Cintas throughout the U.S. On Nov. 15, 2005, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission intervened in the Serrano lawsuit. The Serrano plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and other remedies. Avalos Litigation Cintas is a defendant in another purported class action, “Nelly Blanca Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation,” currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. “Avalos” alleges that Cintas discriminated against women, African-Americans and Hispanics in hiring into various service sales representative positions in Cintas’ Rental division only throughout the U.S. On April 27, 2005, the EEOC intervened in the claims asserted in Avalos. The Avalos plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and other remedies. Ramirez Litigation The claims in “Avalos” originally were brought in the previously disclosed lawsuit captioned, “Robert Ramirez, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Ramirez),” which was filed on Jan. 20, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 11, 2006, however, those claims were severed from Ramirez and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, where the case was re-named “Avalos.” Avalos, Serrano Consolidation On July 10, 2006, “Avalos” and “Serrano” were consolidated for all pretrial purposes, including proceedings on class certification. The consolidated case is known as “Mirna E. Serrano/Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano/Avalos),” and remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. No filings or determinations have been made in Serrano/Avalos as to class certification. Grindle Litigation On Feb. 20, 2007, a separate lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Wood County, Ohio, captioned, “Colleen Grindle, et al. v. Cintas Corporation.” It was brought on behalf of a class of female employees at Cintas’ Perrysburg, Ohio location who allegedly were denied hire, promotion or transfer to service sales representative positions on the basis of their gender. The Grindle plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and other remedies. No filings or determinations have been made in “Grindle” as to class certification. Houston Litigation A class action, captioned, “Larry Houston, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Houston),” was filed on Aug. 3, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of African-American managers alleging racial discrimination. On Nov. 22, 2005, the court entered an order requiring the named plaintiffs in the Houston lawsuit to arbitrate all of their claims for monetary damages. Cintas Corp. -- http://www.cintas.com/-- provides specialized products and services to businesses of all types throughout the U.S. and Canada. The products and services provided by Cintas include uniforms and apparel; mats, mops and towels; restroom and hygiene service; first aid and safety; fire protection; branded promotional products; document shredding and storage; cleanroom resources, and flame resistant clothing. COMPUTER SCIENCES: “Colossus” Certification Hearing Set Nov. 20 --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kirk Johnson of the Miller County Circuit Court (Arkansas) has set a Nov. 20 hearing to address pending motions in relation to the case, "Hensley, et al. v. Computer Sciences Corp., et al.," Michelle Massey of the Southeast Texas Record reports. The suit was filed as a putative nationwide class action on Feb. 7, 2005. It claimed that defendants conspired to wrongfully use the Colossus software products licensed by the company and the other software vendors to reduce the amount paid to the licensees' insureds for bodily injury claims. It was originally filed by plaintiff Georgia Hensley, individually and as a class representative. The suit faults the defendants for civil conspiracy, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and fraud. Plaintiffs sought injunctive and monetary relief of less than $75,000 for each class member, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. On July 11, Judge Johnson ordered State Automobile Insurance Co. to produce documents despite pleadings by company attorneys that State Automobile would not produce documents which contained confidential information. Judge Johnson found that a previous protective order was sufficient protection and that the defense may no longer withhold documents. He ordered that the documents should be designated "confidential" and shall be destroyed on expiration of all appeals (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7, 2007). In a recent hearing Judge Johnson heard defendants' attorneys request for a hearing for ruling on issues in the Colossus software case. He had asked the attorneys to prepare short statements on their motions and briefs, which will be heard in November after which, an amended scheduling order will be entered. According to the report, until Judge Johnson decides to rule on something besides discovery, defendants are without the ability to appeal. Without a ruling, insurance companies can either mediate or continue in the ongoing discovery battle. The suit is "Hensley, et al. v. Computer Sciences Corp., et al., Case No.: CV-2005-0059-3," filed in Miller County Circuit Court (Arkansas), under Judge Kirk Johnson. Representing the plaintiff is: John Goodson, Esq. Keil & Goodson, P.A. 611 Pecan Street Texarkana, AR 71854 Phone: (870)772-4113 Representing defendant State Automobile Insurance Company are: Mark Burgess, Esq. 2301 Moores Lane P.O. Box 6297 Texarkana, Texas 75505-6297 (Bowie Co.) Web site: http://www.cbplaw.com Jason Horton, Esq. Crisp, Boyd, Poff & Burgess, L.L.P. Moores Lane, P.O. Box 6297 Texarkana, Texas 75505-6297 Phone: 903-838-6123 Fax: 903-832-8489 2301 Web site: http://www.cbplaw.com DEL MONTE: Suits Over Recalled Pet Food, Snacks Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ Certain class actions over Del Monte Foods Co.’s recalled pet foods and snacks were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other pet food class actions. The cases in which the company is currently a defendant are: -- “Blaszkowski v. Del Monte,” filed on May 9, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida; -- “Carver v. Del Monte,” filed on April 4, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California; -- “Ford v. Del Monte,” filed on April 7, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California;” -- “Picus v. Del Monte,” filed on April 30, 2007 in state court in Las Vegas, Nevada; -- “Schwinger v. Del Monte,” filed on May 15, 2007 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri; -- “Wahl v. Del Monte,” filed on April 10, 2007 in state court in Los Angeles, California; and -- “Tompkins v. Del Monte,” filed on July 13, 2007 in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint filed on July 13, 2007 was an amended complaint that added the Company as a defendant to the case. The named plaintiffs allege that their pets suffered injury and/or death as a result of ingesting the Company’s and other defendants’ allegedly contaminated pet food and pet snack products. The Blaszkowski and Picus cases also contain allegations of false and misleading advertising by the Company. The plaintiffs are seeking certification of class actions in the respective jurisdictions as well as unspecified damages and injunctive relief against further distribution of the allegedly defective products. By order dated June 28, 2007, the Carver, Ford, Schwinger, Wahl and Tompkins cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other pet food class actions under the federal rules for multi-district litigation. The Blaszkowski and Picus cases were not consolidated. Del Monte Foods Co. -- http://www.delmonte.com/-- is a producer, distributor and marketer of branded food and pet products for the U.S. retail market. The segments in which the Company operates include The Consumer Products segment and The Pet Products segment. GREENPOINT MORTGAGE: Calif. Suit Claims Bogus Business Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. and Capital One Financial Corp. are facing a class-action complaint filed Oct. 6 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for failing to disclose important information in mortgage loan transactions in a clear and conspicuous manner. The action claims the company filed to comply with the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). This action also concerns defendants' alleged unlawful, fraudulent and unfair business acts or practices. Defendants allegedly engaged in a campaign of deceptive conduct and concealment aimed at maximizing the number of California consumers who would accept this type of loan in order to maximize defendants' profits, even as defendants knew their conduct would cause many of these consumers to lose their homes through foreclosure. This action also concerns defendants' breaches of contract. Defendants have failed to fulfill the obligations they expressly and impliedly assumed when they entered into loan agreements with plaintiff and the class. Named plaintiffs Steven and Laurie Garrison bring this lawsuit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 23, California Civil Code, Section 1781, et. seq., and California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 382 and the case law thereunder, on behalf of all individuals who received an Option ARM loan through defendants on their primary residence located within California between Oct. 5, 2003 and Oct. 5, 2007. They want the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants' acts and practices violate the Truth in Lending Act; (b) whether defendants' conduct violated 12 CFR Section 226.17; (c) whether defendants' conduct violated 12 CFR Section 226.19; (d) whether defendants engaged in unfair business practices aimed at deceiving class members before and during the loan application process; (e) whether defendants, by and through their officers, employees, and agents failed to disclose that the interest rate actually charged on these loans was higher than the rate represented and promised to class members; (f) whether defendants, by and through their officers, employees and agents concealed information they were mandated to disclose under TILA; (g) whether defendants failed to disclose the true variable nature of the interest rates applied to these loans; (h) whether defendants failed to properly disclose the process by which negative amortization occurs on these loans, ultimately resulting in the recasting of the payment structure over the remaining lifetime of the loans; (i) whether defendants' conduct in immediately raising the interest rate on consumers' loans above the promised "teaser" rate so that no payments were made to the principal balance constitutes a breach of contract, including a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (j) whether defendants' marketing plan and scheme misleadingly portrayed or implied that these loans were fixed rate loans, when defendants knew that only the periodic payments were fixed (for a time) but that interest rates were, in fact, never "fixed;" (k) whether the terms and conditions of defendants' Option ARM home loan are unconscionable; (l) whether all class members are entitled to punitive damages; (m) whether all class members are entitled to actual damages; (n) whether all class members are entitled to rescission; and (o) whether all class members are entitled to reformation. Plaintiff and all class members pray for judgment against each defendant, jointly and severally, as follows: -- for actual damages according to proof; -- for compensatory damages where appropriate; -- for actual damages where appropriate; -- for punitive damages where appropriate; -- for rescission; -- for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; -- for statutory damages; -- for an order certifying this case as a class action and appointing plaintiff and her counsel to represent the class; -- for an order requiring defendants to disgorge all profits obtained as a result of their unfair competition; -- for equitable relief, including restitution; and -- for such other relief as is just and proper. The suit is "Steven and Laurie Garrison et al. v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., et al., Case No. CV07-06490 GPS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing plaintiffs are: Eric M. George Michael A. Bowse Browne Woods & George LLP 450 North Roxbury Drive, Seventh Floor Beverly Hills, California 90210-4231 Phone: (310) 274-7100 Fax: (310) 275-5697 E-mail: egeorge@bwgfirm.com or mbowse@bwgfirm.com - and - Jeffery K. Berns, Esq. Law Offices of Jeffrey K. Berns 19510 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 200 Tarzana, California 91356 Phone: (818) 961-2000 Fax: (818) 867-4820 E-mail: jberns@jeffbernslaw.com HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: High Court Allows “Compaq” Consumer Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Supreme Court allowed to proceed the product liability suit "Grider v. Compaq," accusing Compaq Computer Corp., now a part of Hewlett-Packard Co., of selling defective computers that it then refused to repair, reports say. The suit was filed by Stephen and Beverly Grider in the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma in June 2003. The complaint seeks among other things, specific performance, declaratory relief, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. 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. Compaq argued in court papers filed with the Supreme Court that a virtually identical lawsuit was brought in Texas in 2000. “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. 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. Oklahoma's highest court not only certified the class in “Grider,” but said that Texas law should be applied in the case because, among other things, Compaq was headquartered in Texas. The case now goes back to an Oklahoma state court. The case is “Compaq Computer Corp. v. Grider, 07-95.” HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Subsidiary Seeks Dismissal of “Sewell” ------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of the matter, “Sewell et al. v. D'Alessandro & Woodyard, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00343-JES-SPC.” The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on May 30, 2007, alleging violations of the federal securities acts, among other allegations, in connection with the sale of some of the Company’s subsidiary’s homes in Fort Myers, Florida. Defendants in the suit include: * Frank D'Alessandro, * Gates, D'Allesandro & Woodyard LLC, * K.Hovnanian First Homes LLC, * First Home Builders of Florida, * First Home Builders of Florida I, LLC, * Samir Cabrera, and * Honora Kreitner. Defendants are accused of running a subprime mortgage scam. Named plaintiffs Randolph Sewell and Daphne Sewell sue for, inter alia, federal securities fraud, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1701 et seq., and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida Statutes, Section 501.201 et. seq., in connection with the offering and sale of real estate investment opportunities in Lee County, Florida. According to the complaint, defendants promised 14 percent annual returns through a “Lease To Own” program, in which would supply lessees with poor credit to “investors” who bought new homes; the lessees would get options to buy the homes within three years, at a “promised” annual appreciation of 14 percent. The D'Alessandro & Woodyard prospectus “explains that investors will realize their guaranteed 14 percent annual rate of return when the ‘ready-made’ tenant procured by D'Alessandro & Woodyard ‘buys’ the investor out of the deal. In the “Exit Strategy,” D'Alessandro & Woodyard explains that this ‘buyout’ is made possible through the tenant’s successful procurement of refinancing in the ‘sub-prime’ lending market, and that they will be ‘coached’ in this process by D'Alessandro & Woodyard and its affiliates.” According to plaintiffs, they “invested” $15,000 in three such homes, couldn’t get financing, and stand to lose everything. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons who received the "First Home Lease Purchase Investment Opportunity" prospectus and thereafter purchased properties from First Home Builders in Cape Coral and Lehigh Acres, Florida for investment purposes. Questions raise include: (a) whether defendants violated the federal securities laws by inducing purported class members to purchase investment properties from First Home Builders based upon false and misleading representations contained in the Prospectus and in oral communications with the Plaintiffs and class members; (b) whether defendants violated the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act by inducing purported class members to purchase investment properties from First Home Builders based upon false and misleading representations contained in the Prospectus and in oral communications; (c) whether defendants' actions also constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, in violation of Sections 501.201 to 501.213, Florida Statutes; (d) whether defendants D&W and First Home Builders breached their contractual obligations to purported class members failing to obtain tenants for the purchased properties. Plaintiffs demand the following relief: -- that the court certify the case as a class action and appoint the plaintiffs as class representatives and plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel; -- that judgment be entered against defendants in the amount of their damages incurred with interest thereon, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; -- that the court order such other relief as it deems just and proper, including, but not limited to, rescission of the subject purchase agreements and the return of each purchaser's down payment or contract deposit (as well as any other monies paid to defendants). The Company’s subsidiary has filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint, according to the company's 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 “Sewell et al. v. D'Alessandro & Woodyard, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00343-JES-SPC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge John E. Steele with referral to Judge Sheri Polster Chappell. Representing plaintiffs are: Gary C. Rosen, Esq. Daniel L. Wallach Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. Emerald Lake Corp Pk 3111 Stirling Rd. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312-9057 Phone: 954/987-7550 Fax: 954/985-4176 E-mail: bthomas@becker-poliakoff.com or dwallach@bellsouth.net -- and – Representing Mr. D’Alessandro are: Christopher T. Vernon, Esq. 3080 Tamiami Trl E Naples, FL 34112 Map Phone: (239) 649-4900 -- and -- Philip J. Snyderburn, Esq. Snyderburn, Rishoi & Swann 258 Southhall Lane, Suite 420 Maitland, Florida 32751 (Orange Co.) Phone: 407-647-2005 Fax: 407-647-1522 HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Seeks Dismissal of RESPA Lawsuit in Pa. -------------------------------------------------------------- Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. is seeking to dismiss the matter, “Mark W. Mellar et al. v. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. et al.,” which is alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 30, 2007. The complaint accuses Hovnanian of taking kickbacks and unearned fees by requiring homebuyers and sellers to use a specified title insurance company, in violation of RESPA (Class Action Reporter June 5, 2007). Named plaintiffs Mark W. Mellar and Margaret Ann Liguori bring this action on behalf of residential mortgage borrowers who: -- purchased a home from Hovnanian Enterprises Inc.; -- received a mortgage loan for such home purchase that was originated, processed and/or brokered by K. Hovnanian American Mortgage, LLC; and/or -- brought title insurance for such home purchase from a title company designated by and affiliated with Hovnanian, wherein the borrowers were required by the literal terms of their real estate purchase agreement with Hovnanian to finance their purchase through Hovnanian Mortgage and obtain title insurance through a Hovanian-affiliated title company, or else forfeit various discounts off of the purchase price and/or closing costs for their new home. By requiring home buyers to finance their purchase through Hovnanian Mortgage and to obtain title insurance through a Hovnanian-affiliated title company, under the direct threat of having to otherwise pay more money for their new home, defendants have allegedly failed to comply with the statutory prerequisites for exemption as an affiliated business arrangement and, consequently, have violated RESPA’s prohibition against kickbacks and unearned fees. Additionally, Hovnanian, as a seller of property, has allegedly violated Section 9 of RESPA by requiring the use of a particular title insurance company. Defendants are accused of engaging in a uniform, systematic pattern and practice of requiring the use of Hovnanian Mortgage for the financing of home purchases from Hovnanian and the use of a Hovnanian-affiliated title company for the provision of title insurance for such home purchases, in violation of Sections 8 and 9 of RESPA. Plaintiffs’ Transaction with Hovnanian On or about March 30, 2007, plaintiffs entered into a Terms and Conditions Purchase Agreement with Hovnanian, pursuant to which Plaintiffs agreed to purchase a new home from Hovnanian, located in its “Byers Station” community, in Chester Springs, Pennsylvania. Subsequently, plaintiffs entered into an Amendment to Purchase Agreement, dated April 5, 2007, which amended the purchase price to $427,366.44. This Amendment is valid only if K. Hovnanian Mortgage and Governor’s Abstract Co. are used. On or about April 7, 2007, plaintiffs entered into a Price Reduction Addendum, which purported to reduce the price of plaintiffs’ home in the amount of $14,041.78. This price reduction was, once again, conditioned upon Plaintiffs’ agreement to, inter alia, “use K. Hovnanian American Mortgage, LLC, an affiliate of Seller, to obtain a mortgage loan and purchase the home with a loan made by K. Hovnanian American Mortgage, LLC” and “use Governor’s Abstract Co., Inc., an affiliate of the Seller, to obtain title insurance to complete the purchase of the home.” On or about April 7, 2007, plaintiffs entered into a Decorator Selection Credit Addendum, which purported to issue plaintiffs a “Decorator Selection Credit” at closing in the amount of $55,958.22. This credit was, once again, conditioned upon Plaintiffs’ agreement to use Hovnanian Mortgage and Governor’s Abstract for the financing and title insurance of their new home. As a direct result of the requirement placed upon them by Hovnanian to either use Hovnanian Mortgage for financing and Governor’s Abstract for title insurance, or pay an additional $70,000.00 in order to purchase their home, Plaintiffs financed their purchase through Hovnanian Mortgage and obtained title insurance through Governor’s Abstract. Plaintiffs closed on their purchase on April 26, 2007. By “requiring” the use of Hovnanian Mortgage and the affiliated title company, under the threat of charging buyers thousands of dollars more for their homes, Defendants, however, fail to meet the prerequisites for the affiliated business arrangement exemption. 12 U.S.C. Section 2607(c). This is a class action filed on behalf of all residential mortgage borrowers, nationally, who, within one year of the filing of this Class Action Complaint: -- purchased a home from Hovnanian; -- received a mortgage loan for such purchase that was originated, processed and/or brokered by Hovnanian Mortgage; and/or -- bought title insurance for such home purchase that was provided, processed and/or brokered by a title company affiliated with and selected by Hovnanian, wherein the borrower(s) were required by the literal terms of their real estate purchase agreement with Hovnanian to finance their purchase through Hovnanian Mortgage and obtain title insurance through a title company affiliated with and selected by Hovnanian, or else forfeit various discounts off of the purchase price and/or closing costs for their new home. Plaintiffs and the class respectfully request judgment against Defendants as follows: -- for an Order certifying this action may be maintained as a class action, as defined, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3); -- for an Order appointing Plaintiffs as representatives of the class; -- for an Order appointing the undersigned counsel as class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; -- for an Order directing that reasonable notice of the class action be provided to all members of the class at the appropriate time after discovery and dispositive motions have been resolved; -- for violating RESPA, an Order and Judgment finding that the Defendants are liable as a matter of law to each member of the class for treble damages; -- for declaratory and injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity, including Enjoining Defendants from continuing the unlawful practices as set forth herein; -- for reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided by law and statute; -- for pre-and-post judgment interest as provided by law in an amount according to proof at trial; -- for an award of costs and expenses incurred in this action; and -- for such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The Company has filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint, according to its Sept. 10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?208f The suit is “Mellar et al. v. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:07-cv-02196-AB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under Judge Anita B. Brody. Representing plaintiffs is: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Carlson Lynch Ltd 36 N. Jefferson Street P.O. Box 7635 New Castle, PA 16107 Phone: 724-656-1555 Fax: 724-656-1556 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com INTERVOICE-BRITE: Seeks Dismissal of Tex. Securities Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------InterVoice-Brite, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of the second amended complaint in the class action, "David Barrie, et al. v. InterVoice-Brite, Inc., et al., Case No. 3-01CV1071-D." Initially, several related class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of common stock of InterVoice, Inc. during the period from Oct. 12, 1999 through June 6, 2000. Plaintiffs have filed claims, which were consolidated into one proceeding, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 against the company as well as certain named current and former officers and directors of Intervoice on behalf of the alleged class members. In the complaint, Plaintiffs claim that the company and the named current and former officers and directors issued false and misleading statements during the Class Period concerning the financial condition of Intervoice, the results of the merger with Brite Voice Systems, Inc. and the alleged future business projections of Intervoice. Plaintiffs have asserted that these alleged statements resulted in artificially inflated stock prices. The District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ complaint because it lacked the degree of specificity and factual support to meet the pleading standards applicable to federal securities litigation. The Plaintiffs’ appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal in part and reversed in part. The 5th Circuit remanded a limited number of issues for further proceedings in the District Court. On Sept. 26, 2006, the District Court granted the Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class of people who purchased Intervoice stock during the Class Period between Oct. 12, 1999 and June 6, 2000. On Nov. 14, 2006, the Fifth Circuit granted the company’s petition to appeal the District Court’s decision to grant Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class. The briefing on the merits of company’s appeal is now complete, and oral argument occurred on Oct. 1, 2007. The company filed a motion to stay further discovery pending the Fifth Circuit’s decision on the merits of the company's appeal, but the District Court denied the motion. The District Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended compliant. The company has moved to dismiss portions of that amended complaint, according to its Oct. 5, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 31, 2007. The suit is "Barrie, et al. v. Intervoice Brite Inc., et al., Case No. 3:01-cv-01071," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge Ed Kinkeade. Representing the plaintiffs are: Marc R. Stanley, Esq. Stanley Mandel & Iola 3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750 Dallas, TX 75205 Phone: 214/443-4301 Fax: 214/443-0358 E-mail: mstanley@smi-law.com - and - Lauren M. Winston, Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins 100 Pine St., Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415/288-4545. Representing the defendants is: Timothy R. McCormick, Esq. Thompson & Knight 1700 Pacific Ave, Suite 3300, Dallas, TX 75201-4693 Phone: 214/969-1103 Fax: 214/880-3253 E-mail: timothy.mccormick@tklaw.com KRATOS DEFENSE: Answers Complaint in Calif. Securities Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. f/k/a Wireless Facilities, Inc. filed its answer to plaintiffs’ complaint in the consolidated class action, "In re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 04CV1589-JAH," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. In August 2004, as a result of the Company's announcement on Aug. 4, 2004 that it intended to restate its financial statements for the fiscal years ended Dec. 31, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors were named as defendants in several securities class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. These actions were filed on behalf of those who purchased, or otherwise acquired, the Company's common stock between April 26, 2000 and Aug. 4, 2004. The suits generally allege that, during that time period, defendants made false and misleading statements to the investing public about the Company's business and financial results, causing its stock to trade at artificially inflated levels. Based on these allegations, the lawsuits allege that Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. These actions have been consolidated into a single action under the caption, "In re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 04CV1589-JAH." The plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint in January 2005 and did not name the Company a defendant in that complaint. After the individual defendants filed their motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs requested leave to amend their complaint to add the Company as a defendant. Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on April 1, 2005. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss this first amended complaint on April 14, 2005. The plaintiffs then requested leave to amend their first amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on June 9, 2005, this time on behalf of those who purchased, or otherwise acquired, the Company's common stock between May 5, 2003 and Aug. 4, 2004. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss this second amended complaint on July 14, 2005. The motion to dismiss was taken under submission on Oct. 20, 2005 and on March 8, 2006, the Court granted the Company's motion. However, plaintiffs were granted the right to amend their complaint within 45 days and subsequently filed their Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on April 24, 2006. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this complaint on June 8, 2006. On May 7, 2007, the court denied the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants’ filed their answer to the plaintiffs’ complaint on July 13, 2007, according to its Oct. 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "In re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 04CV1589-JAH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California under Judge John A. Houston. Representing the plaintiffs are: Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA, 92101 Phone: 619.231.1058 Fax: 619.231.7423 - and - Schiffrin & Barroway LLP 3 Bala Plaza E Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 Phone: 610.667.7706 Fax: 610.667.7056 E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com KRATOS DEFENSE: Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuits Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., f/k/a Wireless Facilities, Inc., faces a consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, captioned, “In re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Securities Litigation II, Master File No. 07-CV-0482-BTM-NLS.” In March and April 2007, there were three federal class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company and several of its current and former officers and directors. These class actions followed the Company’s March 12, 2007 public announcement that it was conducting a voluntary internal review of its stock option granting processes. These actions have been consolidated into a single action, “In re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Securities Litigation II, Master File No. 07-CV-0482-BTM-NLS,” according to its Oct. 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is “In re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Securities Litigation II, Master File No. 07-CV-0482-BTM-NLS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California under Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz. Representing the plaintiffs are: Johnson & Perkinson 1690 Williston Road South Burlington, VT, 05403 Phone: 802.862.0030 Fax: 802.862.0060 E-mail: JPLAW@adelphia.net Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti PC 19 Fulton Street, Suite 406 New York, NY, 10038 Phone: (212) 964-0046 Fax: (212) 267-8137 E-mail: shareholderrelations@spornlaw.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 MATTEL INC: Sued in Canada Over Recalled Chinese-Made Toys ---------------------------------------------------------- Sean Close of Winnipeg (Canada) filed a statement of claim against Mattel Inc., alleging Mattel sold toys with "dangerous defects and design flaws" such as lead paint and tiny magnets that could detach and be swallowed by kids, The Canadian Press reports. According to the report, Mattel had recalled more than 21 million Chinese-made toys this summer because of concerns over lead paint and detachable magnets. But last month, the company apologized to China, taking the blame for design flaws and saying more toys than necessary had been recalled, the report said. The suit was filed in Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench. MICHAELS STORES: One Plaintiff Remains in Tex. Shareholder Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Fathergill continues as the only remaining named plaintiff and proposed class representative in a consolidated action against Michaels Stores, Inc. with regards to a merger wherein the company was acquired by affiliates of two private investment firms, Bain Capital Partners, LLC and The Blackstone Group. Purported former shareholders Julie Fathergill, Feivel Gottlieb, and Roberta Schuman, who seek to represent a class of other former shareholders, filed the suit. The action is a consolidation of three previously filed lawsuits and is pending in the 192nd District Court for Dallas County, Texas. The plaintiffs' claims arise out of the merger and, in addition to Michaels, the plaintiffs name as defendants certain former and then-current officers and directors of Michaels and certain other entities involved in the merger or affiliated therewith. The plaintiffs allege that the merger was procedurally and financially unfair to Michaels' then-shareholders and assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual defendants and claims for aiding and abetting such breaches against the entities. Among other things, plaintiffs seek: -- a declaration that the merger is void and ordering it rescinded; -- an accounting for, disgorgement of, and the imposition of a constructive trust on, property and profits received by the defendants; and -- unspecified damages, including rescissory damages. On July 12, 2007, named plaintiffs and proposed class representatives Feivel Gottlieb and Roberta Schuman voluntarily dismissed their claims. Julie Fathergill continues as the remaining named plaintiff and proposed class representative, according to the company's Sept. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007. Michaels Stores, Inc. -- http://www.michaels.com/-- is an arts and crafts specialty retailer in North America providing materials, ideas and education for creative activities. NORTHERN MARIANAS: $130T Shelved for Garment Suit Tax Penalties --------------------------------------------------------------- Northern Marianas Island District Judge Alex R. Munson has approved a request by plaintiffs' lawyers in the class action against the garment industry to withhold $130,000 of the $286,000 balance in settlement funds to cover any future federal tax penalties, according to Ferdie de la Torre of Saipan Tribune. In 1999, New York law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP filed the suit in the U.S. District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands, on behalf of some garment workers who were allegedly made to work in sweatshop conditions. A settlement reached five years after, provided an award close to $20 million. A $280,000 tax-related reserve was then set up. The $130,000 tax reserve is allotted as: * $100,000 to cover any future federal tax penalties, * $25,000 to pay for efforts to secure abatements of all penalties (both CNMI and federal), and * $5,000 to pay for preparation of the settlement fund's 2007 and 2008 tax returns The $156,000 balance of the fund shall be remitted to the Government Oversight Board, which has offered to assume responsibility for obtaining refunds and penalty abatements from the CNMI tax authorities. Joyce C. H. Tang, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, submitted the proposal to withhold the amount for tax reserve and to remit the balance immediately to the GOB on the day of the status conference on Sept. 27, 2007. Judge Munson said the late filing violates both federal and local rules. He now said the plaintiff’s settlement fund report and proposal were already served on the GOB, and parties concerned are in further discussions regarding the tax reserve. Ms. Tang and another attorney, Pamela M. Parker, apologized to Judge Munson for the late filing of documents and for being absent at the Sept. 27 case status hearing. Ms. Parker said their non-appearance was entirely inadvertent. Judge Munson reset the status conference for Oct. 4, but after the lawyers’ apology and the submission of the proposed order, the court automatically took off the status conference schedule. Judge Munson said the court would reschedule the status conference when it receives the claims administrator's request for reimbursement of costs. For more details, contact: Pamela M. Parker Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 Steven P. Pixley 2nd Floor, CIC Centre Beach Rd., Garapan P.O. Box 7757 SVRB, Saipan, MP 96950 Phone: (670) 233-2898/5175 Fax: (670) 233-4716 E-mail: sppixley@aol.com - and - Joyce C. H. Tang Civille & Tang, PLLC 330 Hernan Cortez Avenue, Suite 200 Hagatna 96910, Guam Phone: 671-472-8868 Fax: 671-477-2511 PATHMARK STORES: Nov. 5 Hearing Set for $1.25M Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, will hold a fairness hearing on Nov. 5, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for a proposed $1,250,000 settlement in the matter, “In re Pathmark Shareholder Litigation, Docket No. MID-C-112-07.” The hearing will be held before Judge Alexander P. Waugh, Jr. P. Ch., in the Middlesex County Courthouse, 56 Paterson Street, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 08903. Any objections towards the settlement must be made on or before Oct. 26, 2007. Case Background The suit was filed against Pathmark Stores, Inc. over a definitive merger agreement in which The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc. (A&P) will acquire the company. 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. For more details, contact: Pathmark Stores, Inc. Shareholder Litigation Settlement c/o The Garden City Group, Inc. P.O. Box 9206 Dublin, OH 43017-4606 Phone: 1 (888) 404-8013 Web site: http://grocerymergersettlement.com/ VANGUARD HEALTH: Antitrust Suit Over Nurse Pay Continues in Tex. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The suit "Maderazo v. Hospital Corp. of America, Inc., et al.," continues in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The suit was filed on June 20, 2006 against Vanguard Health Systems, Inc.'s Baptist Health System subsidiary in San Antonio, Texas and two other large hospital systems in San Antonio. In the complaint, which was amended on Aug. 29, 2006, plaintiffs allege that the three hospital system defendants conspired with each other and with other unidentified San Antonio area hospitals to depress the compensation levels of registered nurses employed at the conspiring hospitals within the San Antonio area by engaging in certain activities that violated the federal antitrust laws. The complaint alleges two separate claims. The first count asserts that the defendant hospitals violated Section 1 of the federal Sherman Act, which prohibits agreements that unreasonably restrain competition, by conspiring to depress nurses' compensation. The second count alleges that the defendant hospital systems also violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by participating in wage, salary and benefits surveys for the purpose, and having the effect, of depressing registered nurses' compensation or limiting competition for nurses based on their compensation. The class on whose behalf the plaintiffs filed the complaint is alleged to comprise all registered nurses employed by the defendant hospitals since June 20, 2002. The suit seeks unspecified damages, trebling of this damage amount pursuant to federal law, interest, costs and attorneys fees. Currently, the parties are producing documents relating to the company's efforts to defeat class certification in this suit, according to the company's Sept. 19, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30 2007. The suit is "Maderazo v. Hospital Corp. of America, Inc., Case No. 5:06-cv-00535-OLG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas under Judge Orlando L. Garcia. Representing the plaintiffs are: Allyson B. Baker, Esq. Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 500, Wes Tower Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 408-4600 Fax: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: abaker@cmht.com - and - John H. Bright, Esq. Keller Rohrback, L.L.P 1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Phone: (206) 623-1900 Fax: (206) 623-3384 Representing the defendants are: Joseph Casseb, Esq. Goode Casseb Jones Riklin Choate & Watson, P.C. 2122 North Main Avenue, P.O. Box 120480 San Antonio, TX 78212 Phone: (210) 733-6030 Fax: 210/733-0330 E-mail: jcasseb@goodelaw.com - and - David Marx, Esq. McDermott Will & Emery, LLP 227 West Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 372-2000 Fax: (312) 984-7700 * Class Action Management Conference Set Nov. 9 in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------- The 2007 Class Action Litigation & Management Conference will be held in Westin South Coast Plaza Hotel, Costa Mesa, Calif. on November 9, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. This seminar is designed for transactional and litigation attorneys, in both private practice and corporate counsel. This program will cover the latest developments in the law of federal class actions, California class actions and class actions in hotbed states. The class action is a unique animal in the legal world that requires exceptional and specific skills in researching, writing, case management, and client contact. This workshop was designed to give the practicing attorney and in-house counsel a comprehensive overview of each step in the process, with an emphasis on the procedural rules. The program will also cover Prop. 64 and its effect on the UCL and class actions. This one-day program is designed for attorneys and corporate counsel as well as risk and claims managers. The Program includes breakfast and handouts. This unique, fast-paced program will incorporate both plaintiff and defense perspectives. Topics include: * CAFA Update * Class Actions Case Update * Preparing and Attacking the Complaint * Settlement or Trial * An Update on the Injunction Remedy * 17200, 17500 & CLRA * ediscrovery in Class Actions * Class-Wide Arbitration Agreements Faculty: Richard Grabowski of Jones Day, Sunny Huo of Severson & Werson, Ross Hyslop of McKenna Long and Aldridge, Ted Pintar of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, Peter B. Maretz of Shea Stokes, Harry Chamberlain of Buchalter Nemer, Robert “Bo” Phillips of Reed Smith, Stanley Gibson of Jeffer Mangels Butler & Marmaro and more. This course will qualify for 6 hours of CLE credits. Seminar Details: For additional seminar information http://pr4.netatlantic.com/t/111315/4312719/4884/0/?u=aHR0cDovL3JlY29uZmVyZW5jZXMuY29tL3VwY29taW5ncHJvZ3JhbXMxLmh0bWw%3d&x=476670ed>http://reconferences.com/upcomingprograms1.html New Securities Fraud Cases CHILDREN'S PLACE: 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 Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of securities of The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc. from August 3, 2006 through August 23, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges The Children's Place 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 was not in compliance with certain of its obligations under the license agreement with The Walt Disney Company ("Disney"), including its obligations with respect to store renovations and maintenance; (2) that the Company would spend approximately $175 million to renovate and/or upgrade a substantial number of Disney Stores as a result of its noncompliance with the license agreement; (3) that, as a result of the above, the Company would be forced to relinquish material contractual rights, including restrictions on Disney's ability to grant direct merchandising restrictions to other retailers; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well- being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. On June 8, 2007, the Company announced that it had reached an agreement with Disney to resolve assertions that the Company had committed numerous material breaches of its long-term license agreement under which the Company operates the Disney Store retail chain in North America. The letter agreement specifically obligated the Company to remodel 234 existing Disney Stores, and to complete a "maintenance refresh" program in approximately 165 Disney Stores. The Company's Chief Executive Officer stated that The Children's Place was "committed to executing on this important remodel program which will contribute to our goal of elevating the guest experience." Then on August 23, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it disclosed that it was unable to meet several of the deadlines set forth in the June agreement. The Company further revealed that it had identified various deadlines during the third and fourth quarters of fiscal 2007 that it would also likely miss. The Company's inability to meet such deadlines breached the June letter agreement, and entitled Disney to exercise remedies including the possible termination of the agreement. As a result of its breach, the Company was forced to amend its license agreement with Disney, and to relax restrictions on Disney's ability to grant direct licenses for the sale of Disney merchandise to other specialty retail stores. On this news, the Company's shares declined $5.59 per share, or almost 17 percent, to close on August 23, 2007 at $27.43 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. The Children's Place, through its subsidiaries, is a specialty retailer of apparel and accessories for children from newborn to 10 years of age. 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 LDK SOLAR: Federman & Sherwood Files First N.Y. Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood filed on Oct. 9, 2007 the first class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against LDK Solar Co. Ltd. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of false and material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's publicly-traded securities. The class period is from June 1, 2007 through October 2, 2007. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. Interested parties may move the court no later than December 10, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: K. Lynn Nunn Federman & Sherwood 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Email: kln@federmanlaw.com Website: http://www.federmanlaw.com NUTRISYSTEM INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Pa. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of a Class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased the common stock of NutriSystem, Inc. between February 14, 2007 and October 4, 2007, inclusive seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint charges NutriSystem and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Exchange Act. The Company provides weight management and fitness products and services in the United States. According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements that misrepresented and failed to disclose: (a) that the Company was signing up fewer new customers and was not performing according to internal expectations; (b) that the Company's costs of acquiring new customers were significantly increasing; (c) that the Company's performance was being negatively impacted by competition from other weight loss products on the market; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects. Then, on October 3, 2007, after the markets closed, the Company announced its preliminary third quarter 2007 results and revised earnings guidance for the full year of 2007. In response to this announcement, the price of NutriSystem common stock fell $15.98 per share, or approximately 34%, to close at $31.59 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of a Class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased the common stock of Nutrisystem between February 14, 2007 and October 4, 2007, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Exchange Act. For more information, contact: Samuel H. Rudman David A. Rosenfeld Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 E-mail: djr@csgrr.com OPTEUM INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP commenced a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Opteum Inc. pursuant or traceable to the Company's September 17, 2004 Initial Public Offering or the Company's December 16, 2004 Secondary Offering, and including those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between November 3, 2005 and May 10, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges Opteum and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that, in connection with the Company's IPO and Secondary Offering, defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1) that the Company's interest costs at the time of the IPO and Secondary Offering were substantially increasing; (2) that as a result, the Company's various approaches to risk management did not provide investors reasonable protections against losses; and (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls. Additionally, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose additional material adverse facts about the Company's financial well-being, business relationships, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1) that the Company's integration of Opteum Financial Services, LLC ("OFS") was not proceeding according to plan; (2) that the Company's risk management controls and procedures were incompatible with OFS' risk management controls and procedures; (3) that OFS' loans were designed to produce short-term financial results, which would subject the Company to unreasonable long-term risk and expenses; (4) that the Company had improperly valued and monitored collateral; (5) that the Company had underreported its loan loss reserves; (6) that the Company's book value and projected cash flows were materially overstated; (7) that the Company had failed to adequately hedge its exposure to losses; (8) that the Company and OFS lacked adequate internal and financial controls; (9) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (10) that, as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were false and misleading at all relevant times; and (11) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's guidance about its 2007 financial and operational results were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. On May 10, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it reported its first quarter 2007 financial and operational results. The Company reported $12.2 million in negative fair value adjustments to OFS' mortgage servicing rights, $1.3 million in negative fair value adjustments to OFS' residuals, and $8.8 million in asset write downs at OFS. Additionally, the Company revealed that nearly 50 percent of the Company's first quarter loss, or $37.4 million, was attributable to a valuation allowance on OFS' deferred tax assets, nearly 17.5 percent of the loss was attributable to negative fair value adjustments to OFS' mortgage servicing rights and retained interests in securitizations, and slightly more than 10 percent of the loss was attributable to asset write downs at OFS, due in part to the Company's decision to exit the mortgage origination business. Also, the Company revealed that its quarterly loss included $14.1 million in negative fair value adjustments to mortgage loans held for sale and interest rate lock commitments, and hedging losses of $4.6 million. On this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $1.37 per share, or over 25 percent, to close on May 11, 2007 at $4.08 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than November 19, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. 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 TARRAGON CORP: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers of Tarragon Corporation common stock during the period between January 5, 2005 and August 9, 2007. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public were that: (a) the Company failed to consolidate an unprofitable variable interest entity into its consolidated financial statements; (b) the Company failed to properly account for its statement of cash flows by failing to properly classify its cash inflows and cash outflows as operating, investing and financing activities; (c) the Company failed to timely take property impairment charges and other write downs; (d) the Company was experiencing liquidity issues due to its inability to obtain loan modifications and additional financing and there was serious doubt about Tarragon's ability to continue as a going concern; and (e) given the increased volatility in the homebuilding industry and the real estate credit markets, the Company lacked a reasonable basis to make projections about its 2007 results. The Complaint alleges that as a result of defendants' false statements, Tarragon stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $26.76 per share on July 22, 2005. The complaint asserts claims arising under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Interested parties may move the court no later than November 12, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Jeffrey S. Abraham Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, N.Y. 10119 Telephone: (212) 279-5050 E-mail: Jabraham@aftlaw.com ********* 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 * * *