/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/071018.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, October 18, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 206
Headlines
AGRIPROCESSORS INC: To Fight Employees’ Unpaid Overtime Lawsuit
AURORA DAIRY: Faces Lawsuits Over Sale of “Organic” Milk
CSX CORP: Faces Ohio Litigation Over Oct. 10 Train Derailment
DELPHI CORP: Asks Bankruptcy Court to Approve MDL Settlements
FEDEX GROUND/HOME: Ind. Court Certifies Lawsuit by Drivers
FISHER ISLAND: Workers Sue Over Segregation on Private Ferry
FOCCACHETTA: Settles Smoking Suit in Jerusalem for $619T
FORD MOTOR: Conn. Court Certifies Suit Over Service Terms
HONDA MOTOR: Michelin PAX Tire Suit Dismissal Under Appeal
LEHMAN BANK: Faces Lawsuit in N.Y. Over Lock Agreements Breach
LIBERTY ONE: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Alleging Mortgage Frauds
MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Suit Over Defibrillators with Lead Wire
MERCK PHARMACEUTICALS: Vioxx Certification Hearing Set Oct. 29
MINIBLINDS INDUSTRY: Ill. Suit Alleges Conspiracy to Defraud
MORTGAGE LENDERS: Laid-off Workers Amend WARN Act Violation Suit
NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Objects to Newsome Class' Claim No. 10326
OCCAM NETWORKS: Consolidated Securities Complaint Due Nov.
OFFICE DEPOT: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges Sale of Bogus Insurance
ONE COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in Conn. Over "Defective" Workmanship
POSSIS MEDICAL: Plaintiffs Still Appealing Minn. Suit's Nixing
PARMALAT SPA: Wants Foreign Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint Nixed
ROYAL GROUP: Jan. Hearing Set for $9M Securities Suit Settlement
ROYAL GROUP: Dec. Hearing Set for Pensioners’ Suit Settlement
SPRINT CORP: Dec. Hearing Set for $57 Securities Suit Agreement
TOWER AUTOMOTIVE: Dec. 10 Hearing Set for ERISA Suit Settlement
U.S. TOBACCO: Approval Sought for $96M Smokeless Tobacco Deal
VELOCITY EXPRESS: Faces Independent Contractors' Suits in Calif.
YUM! BRANDS: Still Faces Labor Law Violations Suit in Calif.
* Drinker Biddle Adds Three Partners to Chicago Office
New Securities Fraud Cases
BRAVO! BRANDS: Vianale & Vianale Files Securities Fraud Suit
*********
AGRIPROCESSORS INC: To Fight Employees’ Unpaid Overtime Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States' leading kosher meatpacking company is challenging in
court a class action filed against the company on behalf of its workers.
Filed on March 27, Agriprocessors Inc. is facing a federal lawsuit wherein
its former and current employees claim the company has not paid them for
preparation time for the last two years (Class Action Reporter, May 14,
2007).
The lawsuit now seeks a class-action status that could most likely include
1,500 Agriprocessors employees.
The suit alleges:
-- Agriprocessors did not pay for the time spent in
changing into safety gears or the time spent in cleaning
and sanitizing packing equipments, which is vital to the
plant's operations;
-- employees were required to continue working, even after
compensation stopped to finish daily production and
clean work areas; and
-- the company refused to compensate the workers at the
Postville, Iowa plant despite its knowledge that time
spent during the said activities were compensable under
state and federal law.
The lawsuit further says workers' preparation for work could take up to 35
minutes everyday and that the company adheres to a common policy where the
workers are only paid for hours spent in production.
The lawsuit alleges that Agriprocessors, a kosher slaughterhouse in
Postville, Iowa, has not compensated workers for the time they spend
preparing for work at the beginning of the day and cleaning up at the end of
it. Such compensation has recently been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Agriprocessors is trying to limit worker participation in its attempt to
avoid its obligations under Iowa state law which provides that all employees
are automatically plaintiffs in the lawsuit unless they sign a form
indicating otherwise. Agriprocessors is arguing that only federal law
applies, which requires employees to sign a form requesting participation in
the class action suit.
Working conditions and food safety at the Agriprocessors slaughterhouse have
been under scrutiny in the past year. In May of this year, over 200 workers
stood up for their rights and walked out of the plant in protest of the
company's misconduct.
Agriprocessors, one of the nation's largest kosher meat producers, runs a
beef, lamb and poultry processing plant in Postville, Iowa. Agriprocessors
produces products under the following brand names: Aaron's Best, Aaron's
Choice, European Glatt, Iowa Best Beef, Nevel, Shor Harbor, Rubashkin's,
Supreme Kosher, and David's.
"Essentially the company is trying to undercut the voices of hundreds of
workers by delaying the lawsuit and trying to limit their right to recover
unpaid wages through overwhelming them with more paperwork and red tape,"
says Attorney Brian McCafferty.
Mr. McCafferty will be representing the workers in Cedar Rapids, Iowa
federal court.
The case is "Salazar v. Agriprocessors Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-
01006-LRR," filed in Iowa Northern District Court under Judge
Linda R. Reade.
The employees listed in the suit are:
Eduardo Salazar,
Walter Ortiz,
Gregorio Lux,
Gustavo Cujluj,
Santos Sis Lopez,
Rubelino Hernandez,
William Sir,
Jeronimo Toj Granados,
Marvin Yovany Lopez,
Imelda Lozano,
Cesar Toj Micolax,
Claudio Ruiz,
Carlos Ixen Choc,
Cesar Morroquin,
Berulo Morillo Jimenez,
Bernardo Hernandez Lemus,
Antiono Chavez Figueroa,
Hugo Jovani Lopez,
Samuel Lopez Garcia,
Luis Lopez,
Jose Dany Lopez,
Sergio Gergara,
Jose Damasio Lopez
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Brian McCafferty
The Law Firm of Kenney, Egan, McCafferty & Young
3031 C Walton Road, Suite 202
Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, 19462 USA
Representing the defendants are:
Thomas M. Cunningham, Esq.
Nyemaster, Goode, Voigts, West, Hansell and
O'Brien, PC
700 Walnut Street Suite 1600
Des Moines, IA 50309-3899
Phone: 515 283 3100
Fax: 515 283 8045
E-mail: tmcunningham@nyemaster.com
- and -
Jeffery A. Meyer, Esq.
Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP
135 Crossways Park Drive Suite 201
Woodbury, NY 11797
Phone: 516 681 1100
Fax: 516 681 1101
E-mail: jmeyer@kdsbvlaw.com
AURORA DAIRY: Faces Lawsuits Over Sale of “Organic” Milk
--------------------------------------------------------
Aurora Dairy Corp., based in Boulder, Colorado is facing purported class
actions filed in U.S. federal courts, in St. Louis (Mo.) and Denver on
behalf of organic food consumers in 27 states. The suits allege consumer
fraud, negligence, and unjust enrichment concerning the sale of organic milk
by the company.
"This is the largest scandal in the history of the organic industry," said
Mark Kastel of The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based farm policy
research group. Cornucopia's 2005 formal legal complaint first alerted USDA
investigators to Aurora's improprieties. "Aurora was taking advantage of
the consumer's good will in the marketplace toward organics," Mr. Kastel
added.
Law firms based in Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri have filed one of the
lawsuits in Missouri, with another suit, covering dozens of additional
states where plaintiffs live, due to be filed in Denver tomorrow. The
attorneys are seeking damages from Aurora to reimburse consumers harmed by
the company's actions and are requesting an injunction be put in place to
halt the ongoing sale of Aurora's organic milk until it can be demonstrated
that the company is complying with federal regulations.
Aurora, with $100 million in annual sales, provides milk that is sold as
organic store-brand products for some of the nation's biggest chains,
including Wal-Mart, Target, Costco, Safeway, Wild Oats, and about 20 others.
Independent investigators at the USDA concluded earlier this year that
Aurora -- with five dairy facilities in Colorado and Texas, each milking
thousands of cows -- had 14 "willful" organic violations. One of the most
egregious findings was that from December 5, 2003, to April 16, 2007, the
Aurora "labeled and represented milk as organically produced, when such milk
was not produced and handled in accordance with the National Organic Program
regulations."
"We believe that there are tens of thousands of consumers across the United
States who have been directly impacted by Aurora's practices," said Ronnie
Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association. "We are pleased to see this
legal action. We will do what we can to ensure that organic continues to
mean organic," Mr. Cummins added.
"I feel cheated by Aurora's misrepresentations," said Sandie Regan, an
organic consumer from Crown Point, Indiana, and a party to the lawsuit.
For more information, visit:
The Cornucopia Institute
Website: http://www.cornucopia.org
CSX CORP: Faces Ohio Litigation Over Oct. 10 Train Derailment
-------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corp. faces a purported class action in Lake County Common Pleas Court
after 30 train cars derailed and some caught fire in Painesville, Ohio this
month, The Associated Press reports.
The suit was filed by Jonathan Hirsch on behalf of himself and other
persons, firms, and entities who owned or rented property within the
evacuation zone of the derailment.
Mr. Hirsch filed the suit on Oct. 11, 2007, the day after the train cars
jumped the tracks. His lawyer, Patrick Perotti of Dworken & Bernstein, says
that Mr. Hirsch was exposed to the smoke and fumes after being evacuated and
required medical attention.
According to the suit, other evacuees suffered physical and/or mental
damages, as well as various inconveniences to their lives due to CSX's
negligence.
The suit asks CSX Corp. to pay for home inspections, disruptions to
businesses and other expenses that arose for evacuated residents after the
derailment.
It specifically seeks to have a home inspector of the evacuees' choice
inspect the homes and soil to make sure the properties are safe to live in
again, and to accurately estimate the full amount of property damage to
their homes and other belongings.
In addition to a jury trial, Mr. Hirsch asked Judge Eugene A. Lucci for
immediate medical monitoring of residents, as well as full compensation of
property values, all out-of-pocket losses, personal injury, pain,
discomfort, inconvenience and the loss of any pets.
The suit also wants CSX Corp. to pay all of the evacuees' accountant,
auditor and attorney fees.
For more details, contact:
Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
Dworken & Bernstein Co. L.P.A.
Suite 200, 60 S Park Place
Painesville, OH 44077-3949
Phone: 440-946-7656, 440-352-3391 or (877) 299-7708
Fax: (440) 352-3469
Web site: http://www.dworken-bernstein.com
DELPHI CORP: Asks Bankruptcy Court to Approve MDL Settlements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Delphi Corp. and its debtor-affiliates ask the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York to approve their MDL
Settlements with:
* the Lead Plaintiffs -- class action lawsuit lead plaintiffs
who purchased or acquired publicly-traded Delphi securities
during the period March 7, 2000, through March 3, 2005;
* the ERISA Plaintiffs -- plaintiffs in class action lawsuits
brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
who participated in the Debtors' defined contribution
employee benefit pension plans and invested in Delphi common
stock; and
* certain insured officers and directors, and certain of the
Debtors' insurance carriers.
The Debtors further ask the Bankruptcy Court to:
(a) certify the Securities Class and the ERISA Class for
purposes of settlement, and grant the class
representatives certain allowed class claims and interests
under Rules 9014(c) and 7023 of the Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure;
(b) authorize and direct the Class Representatives to vote in
favor of the Joint Plan of Reorganization on behalf of
their class members;
(c) deem the insurance policies covered by the MDL Insurance
Settlement fully exhausted and forever discharged;
(d) lift the automatic stay with respect to certain documents
the Debtors provided to the Lead Plaintiffs; and
(e) subject to the U.S. Department of Labor's right to file an
objection, expunge DOL's claim concerning an investigation
of potential ERISA violations, and bar the DOL from
instituting or maintaining claims against any of the
Debtor's current and former officers and directors related
to the allegations in the ERISA Actions.
In connection with the MDL Settlements, the Debtors have decided to release
affirmative claims against their current and former officers, fellow
defendants in the Securities Actions, and General Motors Corporation, which
claims relate to alleged violations of the federal securities laws from
March 7, 2000, through March 3, 2005. The Debtors' release will facilitate
a final resolution of the Multidistrict Litigation and related derivative
actions in the state courts, particularly as it relates to the Insurers'
contribution of insurance proceeds as part of the Settlements, John Wm.
Butler, Jr., Esq., at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, in Chicago,
Illinois, relates.
The MDL Settlements contain these provisions:
-- The Lead Plaintiffs will be granted an allowed claim for
$204,000,000, without further provision for accrued
interest;
-- The ERISA Plaintiffs will be granted an allowed interest
aggregating $24,500,000, without further provision for
accrued interest; and
-- The Allowed Claims will be satisfied in the same form and
ratio as the consideration distributed to general unsecured
creditors under the any confirmed plan of reorganization,
and will be treated in the same manner as general unsecured
creditors under that plan.
The stipulations do not contain any deadlines or termination rights with
respect to the timing of the confirmation or consummation of a
reorganization plan, Mr. Butler notes.
The MDL Settlements also provide for the payment of additional consideration
to the Lead Plaintiffs, including a payment of $88,600,000 by the Insurers
on behalf of certain current and former insured Delphi officers and
directors, a payment of $1,500,000 by the Securities Defendants, and a
portion of the remainder of any insurance proceeds available under a certain
insurance policy after payment of certain defense costs.
In addition, the MDL Settlements provide for the payment of additional
consideration to the ERISA Plaintiffs, including a payment of $22,500,000 by
the Insurers on behalf of certain current and former insured Delphi officers
and directors and a portion of the remainder of any insurance proceeds
available under a certain insurance policy after payment of certain defense
costs.
In exchange for the consideration provided under the MDL
Settlements, the Lead Plaintiffs, the ERISA Plaintiffs, the Securities
Defendants, certain current and former officers and directors of Delphi, and
the Insurers agree to release their claims against Delphi related to the
allegations in the MDL.
Delphi will likewise release its MDL-related claims against those parties.
The MDL Settlements are the product of arm's-length bargaining among the
parties, Mr. Butler avers. He points out that the
Settlements will save the Debtors the costs of further litigation, as well
as prevent unduly delay to the resolution of the Chapter 11 cases.
About Delphi
Headquartered in Troy, Mich., Delphi Corporation (OTC: DPHIQ) --
http://www.delphi.com/-- is the single supplier of vehicle
electronics, transportation components, integrated systems and modules, and
other electronic technology. The company's technology and products are
present in more than 75 million vehicles on the road worldwide. Delphi has
regional headquarters in Japan, Brazil and France.
The company filed for chapter 11 protection on Oct. 8, 2005 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
Lead Case No. 05-44481). John Wm. Butler Jr., Esq., John K. Lyons, Esq.,
and Ron E. Meisler, Esq., at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP,
represent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. Robert J. Rosenberg,
Esq., Mitchell A. Seider, Esq., and Mark A. Broude, Esq., at Latham &
Watkins LLP, represents the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. As
of
Mar. 31, 2007, the Debtors' balance sheet showed $11,446,000,000 in total
assets and $23,851,000,000 in total debts.
The Debtors' exclusive plan-filing period expires on Dec. 31, 2007. On
Sept. 6, 2007, the Debtors filed their Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization and
a Disclosure Statement explaining that Plan.
The Court has set a hearing on October 3 to consider the adequacy of the
Disclosure Statement.
(Delphi Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 84 Bankruptcy Creditors' Service Inc.,
http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).
FEDEX GROUND/HOME: Ind. Court Certifies Lawsuit by Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert Miller of the U.S. District Court for Northern Indiana granted
class certification to a suit filed on behalf of approximately 14,000
current FedEx Ground/Home Delivery drivers -- as well as upwards of 10,000
former drivers -- across the nation who are challenging the company's
embattled independent contractor model.
All plaintiffs have moved to strike portions of expert reports the
defendants used in support of their opposition to class certification. The
court overrules the plaintiff's motions to strike, grants the Kansas and
ERISA plaintiffs' motions for class certification, and denies defendant's
request for oral argument on plaintiffs' motions for class certification.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created the docket to the
case and assigned it to Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr. in 2005. The docket now
includes 56 cases. The over-arching issue in this docket is the
classification of certain FedEx Ground pickup and delivery drivers as
independent contractors rather than employees. The named plaintiffs have
moved to certify 30 state class action complaints and a national ERISA
class. Most of the putative state class actions seek some combination of
monetary damages, rescission of the operating agreement, as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief under the stage wage statues.
The ruling issued on Oct. 15 ordered the parties to confer regarding the
preparation of a notice to the members of the classes and submit an agreed
proposed notice (or separate proposals if they cannot reach agreement,
supported by appropriate citations to case law) to the court by no later
than Oct. 31, 2007.
All parties that have filed briefs on class certification shall file, within
30 days of this order, a supplemental statement, not to exceed five pages,
stating how their position on class certification differs from the positions
addressed in this opinion. All class certification briefs yet to be filed
also shall contain such statement.
On the Net: http://www.fedexdriverslawsuit.com
The suit is "In re Fedex Ground Package System Inc., Employment Practices
Litigation, Cause No. 3:05-MD-527 RM (MDL-1700).
FISHER ISLAND: Workers Sue Over Segregation on Private Ferry
------------------------------------------------------------
Housekeeping and landscaping workers on Fisher Island, Miami’s wealthiest
zip code, is filing a class action complaint with the Miami-Dade Equal
Opportunity Board over discriminatory practices that segregate the mostly
Haitian, Hispanic and African-American workers from the other passengers on
the Fisher Island Ferry service.
"We work hard, but we are not treated like human beings," said Marie Fanfan,
one of the plaintiffs. Ms. Fanfan has worked as a housekeeper for six years
on Fisher Island. "Fisher Island employees are standing up [] for equal
treatment."
FOCCACHETTA: Settles Smoking Suit in Jerusalem for $619T
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Foccachetta restaurant in Jerusalem reached a NIS2.5 million
($619,771.24) settlement, plus expenses, in a class action over its allowing
of smoking in a public place, Judy Siegel-Itzkovich of The Jerusalem Post
reports.
The suit is the first-ever class action in Israel over smoking in public
places. It was filed against the restaurant by lawyer Amos Hausner, head of
the Israel Council for the Prevention of Smoking.
Mr. Hausner brought the class action on behalf of the restaurant’s 7,000
customers. He alleges that the restaurant’s owner Shmuel Shmueli failed to
observe no-smoking laws (Class Action Reporter, July 4, 2007).
Under the settlement, which was approved by District Court Judge Yitzhak
Inbar, a meal voucher of NIS600 will be awarded to each of the restaurant's
customers who declares in front of a lawyer that he patronized Foccachetta
in May and June of 2007 and was exposed involuntarily to tobacco smoke.
The expenses to be paid by Foccachetta will include the plaintiff's
newspaper advertisements and court administrator and legal fees.
Additionally, the settlement calls for the restaurant to observe the law
that bars smoking in all public places (except for in completely separate
and ventilated smoking rooms if the proprietor decides to set them up).
Foccachetta will also be required to publish an advertisement in a local and
a national newspaper declaring this commitment.
The district court's settlement is precedent setting, according to Mr.
Hausner, and should induce more and more public establishments to observe no-
smoking laws.
FORD MOTOR: Conn. Court Certifies Suit Over Service Terms
---------------------------------------------------------
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah LLC (SFMS) announced that on October 4,
2007, plaintiff’s motion for class certification was granted in the action
captioned, "Christopher Annelli v. Ford Motor Company (No. 4001345)."
The opinion granting the Motion for Class Certification was authored by the
Honorable Robert C. Leuba of the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial
District of New London. The certified class consists of all consumers (as
defined in C.G.S. SS 42-227 (a)(1)) residing in Connecticut who own or lease
1992-2003 model year:
* Ford Crown Victoria,
* Mercury Grand Marquis, or
* Lincoln Town Car automobiles
registered in Connecticut. Excluded from the class are Defendant, its
subsidiaries and affiliates, and any officers and directors thereof, as well
as any judge presiding over the action, the judge’s spouse and immediate
family.
The Court found that numerosity of the class was self-evident given the
widespread sale of the Panther vehicles at issue in the litigation. The
Court further concluded that Plaintiff met the commonality requirement for
class certification. The Court held that common questions included, inter
alia:
-- whether a technical service bulletin (TSB) Ford issued
with respect to the Vehicles constitutes an adjustment
program within the meaning of and pursuant to the Secret
Warranty Act;
-- whether Ford’s upgrade program offered to certain of the
Vehicles used for law enforcement and other purposes
constitutes an adjustment program within the meaning of
and pursuant to the Secret Warranty Act;
-- whether the Plaintiff and the class are entitled to the
benefits provided under the TSB and the upgrade program;
-- whether Ford failed to notify consumers about their
eligibility for the adjustment programs at issue and/or
failed to reimburse consumers who incurred the costs of
the repairs covered under the programs;
-- whether the Plaintiff and the class had a right to such
notification and/or reimbursement;
-- whether Ford violated the Secret Warranty Act and
consequently Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act
(CUTPA);
-- if it is found that Ford violated the Secret Warranty
Act, whether the Plaintiff and the class suffered an
ascertainable loss so as to permit recovery under CUTPA;
and
-- the damages suffered by the class.
The Court expressly rejected Ford’s argument that the commonality
requirement had not been met. The Court agreed with Plaintiff that
Plaintiff’s burden with respect to ascertainable loss is to establish that
the information wrongfully withheld from him and other members of the
proposed class had value, a showing of what the Plaintiff or any other
member of the class would have done with that information is not required.
With respect to the typicality requirement, the Court found that Plaintiff
and the proposed class’ allegations arise from the same factual contention–
that Ford failed to notify consumers about the repair programs and/or failed
to reimburse them for costs under the programs. The Court held, “[t]he
Plaintiff’s claims are more than just typical of the claims of other
proposed class members–they are identical.”
The Court held that Plaintiff and his counsel met the adequacy requirement.
The Court noted that based upon the SFMS’s experience with complex and class
action litigation, SFMS’ attorneys are experienced and well qualified to
represent Plaintiff and the Class.
The Court found that the predominance requirement was also satisfied.
Specifically, the Court held that the issue of whether the TSB and upgrade
program are adjustment programs and whether the Plaintiff and class are
entitled to the repairs under the adjustment program can be resolved with
generalized proof as opposed to individual proof. The Court also held that
the ascertainable loss element of the CUTPA claim may be proven using
generalized proof. Lastly, the Court held that the class action mechanism is
superior to other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this
matter.
Plaintiff, Christopher Annelli, was appointed as a representative Plaintiff
to represent the interests of the class. Plaintiff’s counsel, Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, was appointed Lead Counsel to represent
Plaintiff and the class.
Plaintiff is in the process of preparing a proposed notice to the class and
a proposed form of class notice, which will be submitted to the Court for
review and approval.
For more information, contact James E. Miller and Patrick A. Klingman of
SFMS. SFMS on the Net: http://www.sfmslaw.com/
HONDA MOTOR: Michelin PAX Tire Suit Dismissal Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC (SFMS), along with its co-counsel,
recently filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of
their clients, Jean Carper and Michael Muhlfelder, of an August 9, 2007
decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of
California granting the Motions to Dismiss by Defendants Honda Motor
Company, Inc. and Michelin North America, Inc.
The appeal addresses certain legal conclusions and factual findings made by
the District Court concerning Plaintiffs' claims. Specifically, the appeal
addresses legal conclusions made by the District Court concerning, inter
alia, whether or not Plaintiffs have to allege reliance in order to state
claims under the California statutory consumer protection laws; whether or
not Rule 9b of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies to the
Plaintiffs' California statutory consumer protection claims and whether
unfairness was adequately pled in the Plaintiffs' Complaint for a claim
under California's Unfair Competition Law.
The appeal also addresses whether Plaintiffs pled sufficient facts as to
Honda and Michelin to support the application of California law to their
claims.
Case Background
On March 6, 2007, Shepher, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC filed a class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against
* American Honda Motor Company, Inc., and
* Michelin North America, Inc.,
on behalf of Jean Carper, Michael Muhlfelder, and a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or leased, not for resale, an Acura or
Honda vehicle equipped with the Michelin PAX Tire and Wheel Assembly System.
The Complaint alleges that, among other things, Defendants intentionally
misrepresent the benefits of the PAX system, the availability of repair
facilities equipped to replace PAX system tires and the costs of replacing
PAX system tires.
The Complaint also alleges that Defendants fail to disclose to consumers the
markedly shorter tread life of the PAX system tires. This Class Action
Complaint was consolidated by the Court with a similar action instituted on
behalf of another consumer, Torrey Marius Olson, and the Plaintiffs in the
two cases have agreed to prosecute the actions jointly for the benefit of
the proposed class.
Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the first filed Complaint and Michelin
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to the claims of Ms. Carper
and Mr. Muhlfelder. A hearing and argument was held on Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss and Michelin's Motion for Summary Judgment on July 9, 2007.
On July 16, 2007, the Court issued a decision denying Michelin's Motion for
Summary Judgment but granting the Motions to Dismiss with leave to replead
the claims asserted.
Plaintiffs elected to appeal the California Federal Court's decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Plaintiff, Mr. Olson, elected to voluntarily dismiss the California Federal
Court action and has now filed a California State Court class action on
behalf of California residents along with another California class member.
For more information, contact:
James E. Miller, Esq.
E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
Phone: 1-866-540-5505
James C. Shah, Esq.
E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
Phone: 1-877-891-9880
LEHMAN BANK: Faces Lawsuit in N.Y. Over Lock Agreements Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm representing Stor-It, GP, a Tennessee storage business
that filed a class action on behalf of all persons and entities who have
applied for, and received, a commitment for a commercial mortgage loan
financing with a rate lock agreement from Lehman Bank, FSB during the period
from June 12, 2007 to present and had such loan commitment modified or
terminated.
Seth Kincaid, president of Stor-It, commented, "It is only reasonable to
expect a rate lock agreement to lock a rate. The idea that a 'locked rate'
is not a fixed rate and that it is only in place to protect Lehman Bank, the
issuer of the loan, is completely unreasonable."
According to the class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Lehman Bank violated various rate lock
agreements that called for Lehman Bank to provide commercial mortgage
financing at a fixed interest rate. The rate lock agreements also allowed
Lehman Bank to enter into hedging transactions in order to hedge its
exposure to interest rate movements.
Instead of abiding by the agreed upon rate lock contracts, the lawsuit
claims that Lehman Bank attempted to renegotiate such agreements by offering
loans with differing interest rates without any legitimate justification
whatsoever. The lawsuit also claims that Lehman Bank wrongfully retained
deposits made on the rate lock agreements and created an apparent fiction of
hedged losses in an attempt to have Plaintiff and the Class agree to new
contract terms that were contrary to the agreed upon rate lock agreements.
"We believe that Lehman Bank breached the borrowers' rate lock agreements.
If a lender agrees to 'lock' in an interest rate and accepts payments for
the rate 'lock' it should be required to make good on the rate. We think
a 'locked rate' means just that. Lehman Bank apparently doesn't," said lead
attorney Laurence M. Rosen, of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
For more information, contact:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
Phone: (212) 686-1060
Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425
Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Website: http://www.rosenlegal.com
LIBERTY ONE: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Alleging Mortgage Frauds
----------------------------------------------------------
Liberty One Lending and JTS Communities are facing a class-action complaint
filed Oct. 12 in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Sacramento alleging it falsely promises homebuyers financing, take
their nonrefundable deposits, falsely claim that their loan brokers are
licensed, and induce customers to commit loan fraud, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.
Plaintiffs claim Liberty and JTS lure customers with deceptive ads promising
they can “Own two homes for the payment of one!” and promise, “We do the
loans, find the homes, and our property management manages them for you.”
They claim Liberty showed them a fraudulent loan “guarantee” from its own
subsidiary, then the subsidiary denied issuing the letter. And they say
Liberty posted a false review of itself on the Internet, claiming to be its
own customer.
Named plaintiffs say their nonrefundable deposits were more than $15,000
apiece. They demand punitive damages and also sue:
-- Syndicate Real Estate,
-- Michael Pritchert,
-- Grace Fulgentes,
-- Jerry Castano,
-- Linda Farkas,
-- Cheri Regan,
-- The Advantage Group, and
-- New Home Marketing.
Plaintiffs demand:
-- for an order rescinding, canceling and/or voiding the
contracts;
-- for fraud damages against all defendants of at least
$50,000;
-- for negligence damages against all defendants of at
least $50,000;
-- for punitive damages against all defendants in the
maximum amount allowed by law;
-- pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 17203,
and pursuant to the equitable powers of the court,
plaintiffs prays for an order:
(a) for preliminary and/or permanent injunctions against
JTS Communities enjoining it from, inter alia,
failing to disclose that its purchase contract does
not have a financing contingency, or having any
buyer waive a financing contingency unless such
buyer has a written loan commitment from an
institutional lender;
(b) requiring JTS to disgorge all proceeds or otherwise
restore to their current and former customers all
deposits, charges, fees, funds acquired by means of
any act or practice declared under Business and
Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.;
(c) requiring JTS Communities, Liberty One to give
notice to all current and former clients to whom
restitution may be owing of the means by which to
file for restitution;
-- for reasonable attorneys' fees as allowed by law;
-- for interest at the maximum legal rate;
-- for all costs of suit; and
-- for such other and further relief as the court may deem
appropriate.
The suit is "Sophia Miguel et al. v. Libery One Lending, Inc. et al. Case
No. 07AS04682," filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Sacramento.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Mark F. Buckman
Law Offices of Mark F. Buckman
717 K Street, Suite 219
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 442-8300
Fax: (916) 442-8301
MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Suit Over Defibrillators with Lead Wire
------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, along with Smith & Nevares, Salas & Co. and
Becnel Law Firm, LLC, have filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico (Docket number: 07-1971) on behalf of
a man who had to have a Sprint Fidelis lead emergently replaced as a result
of a fracture.
The fracture of the Sprint Fidelis lead required that the man undergo a
surgical procedure known to have the potential for serious and life-
threatening complications. The victim is bringing this action on his own
behalf and as a representative of a class consisting of all persons who
reside in the United States and were implanted with a lead manufactured by
Medtronic, Inc., except those individuals whose Medtronic leads have
malfunctioned.
According to the lawsuit, the victim, a resident of Kentucky, received a
cardiac pacemaker/defibrillator combination (ICD). The ICD was attached to
his heart with a Sprint Fidelis lead wire system manufactured by Medtronic
on March 25, 2005. On June 22, 2006, the lead had to be surgically removed
in an emergency procedure after it was found to be "frayed" in the nature of
a fracture.
The Sprint Fidelis lead is a wire that is used to attach a Medtronic
implantable defibrillator to the heart. Most Medtronic defibrillators
implanted since 2004 use the Sprint Fidelis lead. This component is used in
cardiac defibrillators -- or complex devices with defibrillation capacity --
and not in conventional pacemakers. Some patients with congestive heart
failure use devices that include this defibrillation ability, and those are
among the machines that use the Sprint Fidelis lead.
Since the Sprint Fidelis lead was introduced to the market in 2004 it has
become evident that a significant portion of the leads have potentially
fatal defects. Such defects were discussed in an article written by doctors
at The Minneapolis Heart Institute, one of the premier heart institutes in
the world, based on a study of the incidence of lead failures in the Sprint
Fidelis models compared to the Sprint Quattro models.
Researchers at The Minneapolis Heart Institute found that, between September
2004 and February 2007, 583 patients were implanted with Sprint Fidelis
Model 6949 leads and nine patients received other Sprint Fidelis models.
During that time, six patients experienced Sprint Fidelis Model 6949 lead
failures.
The failed Sprint Fidelis Model 6949 leads had been implanted by various
electrophysiologists, cardiologists and thoracic surgeons. The average time
to failure was fourteen months (based on a range of four to twenty-three
months). Medtronic first notified physicians in March 2007 about the high
fracture rate of the Sprint Fidelis lead.
In October 2007, Medtronic suspended sales of the Sprint Fidelis lead used
in its implantable defibrillators after an analysis of the company's data
showed that the lead had a continuing fracture problem. This defect can
cause the defibrillators to deliver a massive and painful electrical shock,
or it can cause the device to fail to administer a lifesaving shock when
necessary.
According to Medtronic's own estimate, approximately 2.3%, or 4,000 to 5,000
people with a Sprint Fidelis lead will experience fracture within 30 months
of having a defibrillator implanted. Those patients whose Sprint Fidelis
lead fractures must undergo a dangerous surgical procedure to have the wire
replaced.
For more information, contact:
David Krangle, Esq.
Parker Waichman Alonso LLP
Phone: (800) LAW-INFO or (800) 529-4636
E-mail: info@yourlawyer.com
Website: http://www.yourlawyer.com
MERCK PHARMACEUTICALS: Vioxx Certification Hearing Set Oct. 29
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on a motion to certify a Vioxx suit against Merck Pharmaceuticals
in Canada is set Oct. 29 to 31, 2007, according to the Web site of Sutts,
Strosberg LLP.
On September 30, 2004, Merck Pharmaceuticals issued a voluntary worldwide
withdrawal of its popular drug, Vioxx. The company's decision was reported
to be based on data from a new three-year prospective, randomized placebo-
controlled clinical trial. The trial was halted when results showed an
increased relative risk for confirmed cardiovascular events, such as heart
attack and stroke, beginning after eighteen months of treatment.
Reports of the link between Vioxx and increased risks of cardiovascular side-
effects, however, date back several years. Merck dismissed these reports and
continued to market its bestselling drug heavily.
This proposed class action was commenced on behalf of all persons in Canada,
including their estates, other than residents of Quebec, who were prescribed
and who ingested Vioxx. The family members of those who ingested Vioxx are
also potential class members.
This proposed class action was also commenced on behalf of third party
payors, which are defined as either a government drug plan, insurance
company, self insured corporation, union or health benefit trust responsible
for paying for the cost of Vioxx once the prescription has been placed on
the Formulary.
Sutts, Strosberg LLP has teamed up with 19 law firms across Canada to
prosecute this proposed class action (the Vioxx National Team).
On February 2, 2006, Mr. Justice Winkler of the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice awarded carriage of the Vioxx class action to the Vioxx National
Team.
The certification motion will be heard October 29 to 31, 2007.
The Vioxx National Team pm the Net:
http://www.vioxxnationalclassaction.com.
For more information, contact:
Sutts, Strosberg LLP
Toll Free Line: 800.229.5323
MINIBLINDS INDUSTRY: Ill. Suit Alleges Conspiracy to Defraud
------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Jeffrey Lowe, of Clayton, Missouri, filed a class-action complaint
in Madison County Court against the miniblind industry claiming that
everyone associated with miniblinds -- manufacturers, distributors and
retailers -- put the public at risk of strangulation, Joe Harris of the
Courthouse News Service reports.
Mr. Lowe alleges 339 people have been strangled on miniblind cords in the
past 30 years. His original suit was filed in 2005 before Congress passed
class action reform. He amended the complaint on Oct. 3, with Judge Daniel
Stack’s permission.
Mr. Lowe accuses the miniblind industry of a conspiracy to cover up the
dangers. He claims the defendants met in Chicago in 1994 and "agreed to
engage in a conscious course of conduct to lie, conceal and misrepresent by
omission the hazards associated with miniblind cords."
He estimates that more than 1 billion defective miniblinds are in use in the
U.S.
The lawsuit demands removal and replacement of all miniblinds because of its
strangulation risk. It does not seek damages from those deaths but damages
for the living.
To contact Mr. Lowe:
Jeffrey J. Lowe
8235 Forsyth Blvd, Suite 1100
St. Louis, Missouri 63105
Toll Free: 877.678.3400
Phone: 314.678.3400 Ext: 103
Fax: 314.678.3401
E-mail: jeff@jefflowepc.com
MORTGAGE LENDERS: Laid-off Workers Amend WARN Act Violation Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit filed against Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc.
(Debtor) over alleged violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act have filed an amended complaint.
The plaintiffs filed a complaint before the Court on behalf of themselves
and of a class composed of employees of Mortgage Lenders, who asserts that
they were terminated without cause as a result of plant shutdowns and mass
layoffs, which took place concurrently with the shutdown of several of the
Debtor's facilities nationwide (Class Action Reporter, June 29, 2007).
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
Richard M. Beck, Esq., at Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers, LLP,
in Wilmington, Delaware, notes that Section 503(b)(I)(A)(ii) of the
Bankruptcy Code defines administrative expense as the actual, necessary
costs and expenses of preserving the bankruptcy estate, including wages and
benefits awarded pursuant to a judicial proceeding, as back pay attributable
to any period of time occurring after commencement of the bankruptcy case,
as a result of a violation of federal or state law by a debtor, without
regard to the time of the occurrence of unlawful conduct.
Mr. Beck contends that the Debtor's failure to provide the plaintiffs
Guiseppe Caccamo and Robie-Lyn Harnois and other former employees with at
least 60 days' prior written notice of their employments' termination was a
violation of federal law -- the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act, which provides that employers that violate the WARN Act
are liable for back pay for each day of violation.
Thus, he says, the Plaintiffs are entitled to payment from the bankruptcy
estate of an administrative expense for their respective wages, salary,
commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay and accrued vacation for the
period for the violation, up to a maximum of 60 days from the Petition Date,
and up to and including the date that is 60 days after the violation as
determined by the Court.
Mr. Beck notes that payment of wages and benefits will not substantially
increase the probability of layoff or termination of current employees or of
non-payment of domestic support obligations during the pendency of the
bankruptcy case.
Alternatively, Mr. Beck says, pursuant to Sections 507(a)(4) and
507(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Plaintiffs are entitled to a priority
unsecured claim against the Debtor as to the first $10,000 of their WARN Act
claims, or any higher priority amount as may be allowed. The balance of the
WARN Act claims are entitled to treatment as a general unsecured claim, he
continues.
(Mortgage Lenders Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 17; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or
215/945-7000).
NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Objects to Newsome Class' Claim No. 10326
-------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Airlines Corp. (in bankruptcy; together with its bankrupt
affiliates, the Debtors) ask the Court to:
(i) disallow class action allegations of Claim No. 10326
filed by Greg Newsome and all other similarly situated
class action members; and
(ii) reduce the Newsome Class Claim, subject to further
objection on the merits of the remaining aspects of the
Claim.
The Newsome Class filed a class action in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, against Northwest
Airlines, Inc. and NWA Corp., alleging breach of the applicable collective
bargaining agreements negotiated between the International Association of
Machinists & Aerospace Workers or the Aircraft Mechanics
Fraternal Association and the Debtors.
Several months after filing the lawsuit, the Newsome Class sought class
certification in the District Court pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Certification was denied, as well as a request for
reconsideration of the order denying certification.
Undeterred by these rulings, the representative of the Newsome
Class filed a class proof of claim for $300,000,000 in the
Debtors' Chapter 11 cases, based on damages that purportedly arose from a
breach of the CBAs, Gregory M. Petrick, Esq., at Cadwalader, Wickersham &
Taft LLP, in New York, relates.
"The prior denial of certification by the District Court is a final
determination of the issue of whether the Class should be certified," Mr.
Petrick asserts. "Accordingly, the Newsome Class Claim is barred by the
doctrine of collateral estoppel."
According to Mr. Petrick, even if the issue had not been previously
determined conclusively, in order to proceed with a class proof of claim in
a bankruptcy case, the putative class representative must have timely moved
to have the class certified by the Bankruptcy Court.
To date -- when the Debtors' Plan of Reorganization is substantially
consummated -- the putative class representative has failed to file any
motion seeking certification of the
Newsome Class in the Bankruptcy Court, Mr. Petrick notes.
Nevertheless, Mr. Petrick adds, certification should be denied for the
independent reason that the benefits of a class action in a civil case do
not apply to bankruptcy proceedings.
"The Newsome Class has failed to comply with Rule 2019 of the Federal Rule
of Bankruptcy Procedure in filing a representative claim," Mr. Petrick
contends. "Members of the purported Newsome Class can therefore only
pursue the individual proofs of claim they have filed in the Debtors'
Bankruptcy cases."
Newsome Class Responds
Counsel for the Newsome Class, Ralph T. Gibson, Esq., at Bateman
Gibson LLC, in Memphis, Tennessee, states that although the
District Court denied class certification initially, and subsequently denied
reconsideration of the Order denying class certification, the Debtors fail
to mention that the Newsome Class filed an appeal to the Sixth Circuit of
the U.S. Court of Appeals.
The Sixth Circuit held that the Order Denying Class Certification was not
final, and gave limited remand to the District Court to determine whether or
not the issue should be certified as a final ruling, relates Mr. Gibson.
Subsequently, as directed by the Sixth Circuit, the Newsome Class filed the
request for certification in the District Court on July 21, 2005.
The Debtors responded by claiming that the District Court's rulings with
regard to IAM and the Debtors were not final rulings that could be appealed.
The District Court's consideration of the Certification Request was pending
when the Debtors filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 15,
2005.
Consequently, the District Court administratively dismissed the Debtors from
the case, and never ruled on the Newsome Class Certification.
Based on the facts presented, the District Court's denial of class
certification was not final, Mr. Gibson asserts.
The Debtors also failed to inform the Court of a letter agreement between
their counsel and the attorney for the Newsome Class and another class of
plaintiffs -- the Swanking Class -- dated March 30, 2007, pursuant to which
the Newsome and Swanigan Classes agreed to forego their requests to estimate
claims for rights offering purposes "in light of the continuing negotiations
with respect to the potential amicable resolution of any and all of the
Proofs of Claim filed by the Plaintiff Employees."
The Debtors retained the right to file objections to the claims, but it was
understood that the parties were not waiving any of their rights pending the
ongoing negotiations to try to settle the claims.
Subsequently, the Swanigan Class was able to settle with the
Debtors, and their claims have now been finalized and paid.
It is, therefore, disingenuous that the Debtors now claim that the Newsome
Class is late in asserting its rights to class certification given that the
letter agreement was entered just five months ago, and negotiations with the
Swanigan Class has been successful, Mr. Gibson says.
The Newsome Class asks the Court to overrule the Debtors'
Objection, and transfer the Newsome Class Complaint back to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, or in the
alternative, grant the Newsome Class Claim.
The company and 12 affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on
Sept. 14, 2005 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 05-17930). On May 21, 2007,
the Court confirmed the Debtors' Plan. The Plan took effect May 31, 2007.
(Northwest Airlines Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 79; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).
OCCAM NETWORKS: Consolidated Securities Complaint Due Nov.
----------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit filed against
Occam Networks, Inc. in California faces a Nov. 16, 2007 deadline to file a
consolidated complaint.
On April 26, 2007 and May 16, 2007, two putative class action complaints
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the company and certain of its officers.
The complaints allege that the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, and SEC
Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and omissions relating
to the Company's financial statements and internal controls with respect
revenue recognition.
The complaints seek, on behalf of persons who purchased our common stock
during the period from May 2, 2006 and April 17, 2007, damages of an
unspecified amount.
On July 30, 2007, Judge Christina A. Snyder consolidated these actions into
a single action, appointed NECA-IBEW Pension Fund (The Decatur Plan) as lead
plaintiff, and approved its selection of lead counsel. The lead plaintiff
must file a consolidated complaint no later than Nov. 16, 2007.
The suit is “Lauri S. Batwin, et al. v. Occam Networks, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-CV-02750,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California under Judge Christina A. Snyder.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY, 10022
Phone: 212.687.1980
Fax: 212.687.7714
E-mail: info@kaplanfox.com
OFFICE DEPOT: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges Sale of Bogus Insurance
------------------------------------------------------------
Office Depot, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed Oct. 12 in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara
claiming it sells a sham “performance protection plan” for computers and
components it sells, the CourtHouse News Service reports.
The plan is allegedly a sham service agreement that provides no coverage for
consumer products sold by Office Depot during the time the manufacturers'
warranties are still in effect, despite Office Depot's advertising of the
plan as providing "100% parts and labor coverage from day one," among other
deceptions, the complaint states.
Lead plaintiff Mary Sanbrook brings the suit on behalf of a purported class
of consumers in California who purchased the Plan, and in part based upon
the authority granted by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5.
They want the court to rule on:
(a) whether defendant's advertisements of the plan were
deceptive;
(b) whether the defendant marketed the plan;
(c) whether the defendant sold the plan;
(d) whether the defendant knew or should have known that
its advertisements of the plan were deceptive;
(e) whether the plan's deficiencies and defendant's
behavior amount to a breach of contract on the part of
defendant vis-a-vis the putative class members who
purchased the plans;
(f) whether defendant was unjustly enriched by its profits
in selling the plan; and
(g) whether defendant refused to change the false
advertising.
Plaintiff pray for judgment against Office Depot as follows:
-- for an order certifying the proposed class under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) and appointing
plaintiff and her counsel of record to represent said
class;
-- for an order that Office Depot permanently enjoined from
engaging in the unlawful activities and practices
complained of;
-- for an order awarding restitution and disgorgement of
all charges paid by plaintiff and the class and/or ill-
gotten gains realized by Office Depot as a direct result
of Office Depot's unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent
business practices complained of;
-- for an order awarding as damages all monies paid by
plaintiff and the class members for any repairs that had
to be made by third party companies because Office Depot
refused to perform under the Plan;
-- for an order imposing a constructive trust for the
benefit of plaintiff and the class members upon all
charges paid by plaintiff and the class members;
-- for declaratory relief as the court deems appropriate;
-- for attorneys' fees and costs of suit;
-- for an order awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest as prescribed by law;
-- for actual and punitive damages plus interest thereon;
and
-- for such other further relief as the court may deem just
and proper.
The suit is "Mary Sanbrook et al. v. Office Depot, Inc., Case No,
107CV096374," filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Santa Clara.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Scott R. Kaufman
1400 Coleman Ave., Suite C-14
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Phone: (408) 727-8882
Fax: (408) 727-8883
ONE COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in Conn. Over "Defective" Workmanship
--------------------------------------------------------------
One Communications Corp. is facing a class action filed by Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut on September 7, 2007.
The suit was filed on behalf of One Communications’ client, Granite
Communications, Inc., and a proposed class consisting of all persons or
entities residing or located in the State of Connecticut, including service
providers and customers, that have contracted with or otherwise relied upon
OCC to perform services that have suffered damages as a result of:
-- technical problems with or defects in OCC’s workmanship
or equipment and/or
-- OCC’s persistent failure to provide timely, attentive
and responsible customer service and technical
assistance, including, but not limited to,
class members that have been deliberately placed “on hold” by OCC as part of
a policy and practice by OCC to discourage these parties from raising
legitimate grievances with OCC and insisting upon customer service from OCC.
The Complaint alleges that OCC has repeatedly failed to comply with its
obligations under Connecticut law by, inter alia, deliberately refusing to
conform its conduct to established trade practice in its industry in order
to maximize its profits at the expense of its customers and third parties.
Specifically, OCC has allegedly pursued a policy and practice of selling and
distributing defective and inadequately tested equipment and products,
deliberately denying and attempting to avoid responsibility for its own
misconduct and failing to adequately or timely remedy its defective products
and/or workmanship, even when it is aware of such defects in its products
and work. Upon information and belief, OCC has allegedly pursued these
policies and practices in order to boost short-term revenues and profits at
the expense of its customers and business associates that rely upon services
sold to them by OCC.
Through the Complaint, Plaintiff brings claims against OCC for violation of
the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, for unjust enrichment and for
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
For more information, contact:
James E. Miller, Esq.
E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
Phone: 1-866-540-5505
James C. Shah, Esq.
E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
Phone: 1-877-891-9880
POSSIS MEDICAL: Plaintiffs Still Appealing Minn. Suit's Nixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action against Possis Medical, Inc.,
and two of its executive officers continue to appeal the dismissal of the
matter.
The company was served with a shareholder lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota on June 3, 2005, alleging that Possis
Medical, Inc. and named individual officers violated federal securities
laws.
The suit seeks class-action status and unspecified damages. It was
dismissed with prejudice by order of the Court on Feb. 1, 2007. Plaintiffs
have filed an appeal from the Court's order and the appeal is still pending.
The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 15, 2007 Form
10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended July 31, 2007.
The suit is "In re Possis Medical, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No.
0:05-cv-01084-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota under Judge James M. Rosenbaum with referral to Judge Franklin L.
Noel.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.
Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield
332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250
St. Paul, MN 55101
Phone: 651-287-2100
E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
Schatz & Nobel, PC
20 Church St., Ste. 1700
Hartford, CT 06103
Phone: 860-241-6116
E-mail: nkulesa@snlaw.net
- and -
Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
New York, NY 10119-0165
Phone: 212-946-4474
E-mail: arado@milbergweiss.com
Representing the defendants are:
Michelle S. Grant, Esq.
Bryan C. Keane, Esq.
James K. Langdon, Esq.
Roger J. Magnuson, Esq.
Dorsey & Whitney, LLP
50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
Phone: 612-340-5671 and 612-340-2600
Fax: 612-340-2807 and 612-340-8800
E-mail: grant.michelle@dorsey.com
keane.bryan@dorsey.com
langdon.jim@dorsey.com
magnuson.roger@dorsey.com
PARMALAT SPA: Wants Foreign Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parmalat S.p.A. asks Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the United States
District for the Southern District of New York to dismiss, with prejudice,
the claims asserted by the Foreign Plaintiffs in the
Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, pursuant to
Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Peter E. Calamari, Esq., at Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver &
Hedges, LLP, in New York, tells Judge Kaplan that the Foreign
Plaintiffs' claims against Reorganized Parmalat pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act can only be maintained if they can overcome the
general presumption that federal statutes do not apply "extra-
territorially."
To overcome that presumption, Mr. Calamari asserts, the Foreign Plaintiffs
must show that the wrongful conduct either occurred in the United States, or
had a substantial effect in the United States or upon its citizens.
Mr. Calamari notes that the District Court had already dismissed the claims
asserted by the Foreign Plaintiff purchasers against Grant Thornton,
Deloitte & Touche, Bank of America, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, and BNL. In
doing so, the District Court ruled that the transactions forming the basis
of the Foreign
Plaintiffs' allegations were overwhelmingly foreign.
Mr. Calamari says the District Court's ruling applies to the claims asserted
by the Foreign Plaintiffs against Reorganized Parmalat. Unlike the U.S.-
based banks and auditors, the Old Parmalat was an Italian company, and by
definition, could not have committed acts essential to the alleged fraud
against foreign purchasers outside of Italy.
Mr. Calamari contends that the Complaint asserts no domestic conduct of Old
Parmalat that relates to foreign purchasers. Any alleged conduct in the
Unites States was incidental, and therefore did not directly cause the
losses of the Foreign
Plaintiffs, he maintains.
Smith and Pappas Want to File 3rd Amended Complaint
Gerald K. Smith and G. Peter Pappas had asked the District Court to
reconsider its August 8 Order dismissing their Second Amended Complaints to
allow them to amend their pleadings and correct the deficiencies described
in the Order.
Messrs. Smith and Pappas asserted that the District Court had overlooked
facts alleged in the Second Amended Complaints, as well as controlling law
relevant to issues addressed in the Order. The plaintiffs added that the
Order was the District Court's first ruling on the sufficiency of their
allegations, hence, they should be granted leave to add the lacking
information.
However, Judge Kaplan dismissed the Reconsideration Motion as without merit,
and denied Messrs. Smith and Pappas leave to amend their motion, stating
that they had "more than sufficient opportunity file sufficient complaints."
Judge Kaplan pointed out that the problems resulting in the dismissal of the
Second Amended Complaints should have been apparent to the plaintiffs before
they had filed their original complaints. They had not even indicated how
they will cure the deficiencies, Judge Kaplan noted.
Consequently, Messrs. Smith and Pappas ask the District Court to alter its
judgment and grant them leave to file Third Amended Complaints, for
basically the same relief as sought in their
Reconsideration Motion.
On the plaintiffs' behalf, Leo R. Beus, Esq., at Beus Gilbert PLLC in
Scottsdale, Arizona, asserts that the District Court made errors of fact and
of law in its analyses of the Plaintiffs' claims with respect to issues of
loss causation and damages, and abused its discretion by dismissing the
claims without leave to amend.
Messrs. Smith and Pappas also seek to file certain documents under seal,
pursuant to an August 2005 Stipulated Protective Order. The documents
include:
(a) motion to alter or amend the judgment and other relief
pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure;
(b) declaration of Robert T. Mills, consisting of products
of discovery, occurring since the filing of the Second
Amended Complaints;
(c) proposed Third Amended Complaint in Smith v. Bank of
America, et al.; and
(d) proposed Third Amended Complaint in Pappas v. Bank of
America, et al.
Messrs. Smith and Pappas intend to submit those exhibits, representing
substantial discovery supporting their Complaints, for the consideration of
their Motion to Alter the District Court's judgment.
Parmalat Sees Citigroup Trial Starting in March 2008
The trial against Citigroup for its involvement in Parmalat S.p.A.'s
bankruptcy proceedings should start around March 2008, unless the U.S.
group's time extension request is granted, Parmalat attorney Nicola Palmieri
said during the presentation of the group's litigation timetable to
analysts, AFX News reported.
The presentation also revealed that the trial against Bank of
America and Grant Thornton should commence by the second or third quarter of
2008.
The U.S. class action procedure should currently maintain the same schedule
as the one set out in the multidistrict litigations against BofA and Grant
Thornton, Mr. Palmieri told AFX News.
"The class must first meet a set of criteria to get certified ... and there
is a good chance they may not get this certification," Mr. Palmieri told
analysts, according to AFX News.
Mr. Palmieri said he expects a decline on the legal expenses, which in the
first half totaled EUR31,900,000, starting from
2008, AFX News reported.
"In 2009 there should be a completely different picture because only Italian
cases will be involved and that (the costs) are nothing like they are in the
U.S.," Mr. Palmieri further told AFX
News.
(Parmalat Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 91; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service
Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).
ROYAL GROUP: Jan. Hearing Set for $9M Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a
fairness hearing on Jan. 11, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. for the proposed
$9,182,764.18 (CA$9,000,000) settlement in the matter, “In re Royal Group
Technologies Ltd. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 06 Civ. 0822.”
The hearing will be held in Courtroom 17B of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, before Judge
Richard J. Holwell.
Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be made on or
before Dec. 3, 2007. Deadline for the submission of proof of claims is on
Jan. 31, 2008.
The settlement involves all persons who purchased or acquired Royal Group
Technologies Limited shares between Feb. 28, 1998 and Oct. 18, 2004.
Case Background
Royal Group is a Canadian company with its head office located in Vaughan,
Ontario and is a global building-products manufacturer with operations in
Canada, the U.S. and elsewhere.
During the Class Period, Royal Group's subordinate voting shares traded on
the Toronto Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange. During part of
the Class Period, Royal Group's subordinate voting shares also traded on the
Montreal Stock Exchange.
The U.S. Action alleges, among other things, that Royal Group, Vic De Zen,
Douglas Dunsmuir, Gary Brown, and Ron Goegan violated Sections 10(b) and 20
(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), by issuing
public false and misleading statements, including omission of the existence
and extent of certain related-party transactions and investigations by
securities and law enforcement agencies.
Moreover, it also alleges that the related-party transactions were not
disclosed to the public on a timely basis, in contravention of SEC
regulations and generally accepted accounting principles.
Settlement
Under the settlement, defendants have agreed to pay CAD $9,000,000.00 in
cash, plus interest earned on that sum while held in escrow by the Class
Counsel since March 19, 2007.
For more details, contact:
Royal Group Securities Class Action
c/o Crawford Class Action Services,
Claims Administrator
2813 Wehrle Drive
Williamsville, New York 14221
Phone: 1-866-640-9997
Fax: (519) 578-4016
E-mail: rgtadmin@crawco.ca
Web site: http://www.rgtsettlement.ca/
Rick Nelson, Esq.,
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900,
San Diego, California 92101
Phone: 1-800–449-4900
Web site: http://www.csgrr.com
- and -
David J. Goldsmith, Esq.
Labaton Sucharow LLP
140 Broadway
New York, New York 10005
Phone: 1-800-321-0476
Web site: http://www.Labaton.com
ROYAL GROUP: Dec. Hearing Set for Pensioners’ Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice will hold a fairness hearing on Dec.
17, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. for the proposed CA$9,000,000 settlement in the
matter, “Canadian Commercial Workers Industry Pension Plan v. Royal Group
Technologies, et al., Court File No. 965/06.”
The court will hold a hearing in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 491
Steeles Avenue East, Milton, Ontario L9T 1Y7.
Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be made on or
before Dec. 3, 2007. Deadline for the submission of proof of claims is on
Jan. 31, 2008.
The settlement involves all persons who purchased or acquired Royal Group
Technologies Limited shares between Feb. 28, 1998 and Oct. 18, 2004.
Case Background
Royal Group is a Canadian company with its head office located in Vaughan,
Ontario and is a global building-products manufacturer with operations in
Canada, the U.S. and elsewhere.
During the Class Period, Royal Group's subordinate voting shares traded on
the Toronto Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange. During part of
the Class Period, Royal Group's subordinate voting shares also traded on the
Montreal Stock Exchange.
The suit against Royal Group, Vic De Zen, Douglas Dunsmuir, Gary Brown, and
Ron Goegan, Dominic D'Amico, Gregory Sorbara, Ronald Slaght, and Ralph Breh
alleges, among other things:
-- that Royal Group failed to meet its disclosure
obligations in respect of related-party transactions and
investigations undertaken by securities, tax and law
enforcement agencies;
-- that Royal Group's financial statements were not
presented in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles in Canada and misrepresented Royal
Group's participation in related-party transactions; and
-- that Royal Group's corporate governance structures and
the oversight of its Audit Committee of the Board of
Directors were inadequate.
In addition, the suit also makes allegations relating to monthly and
quarterly accounting and reporting issues of Royal Group. It also pleads
oppression under the Canada Business Corporation Act and common law
negligent misrepresentation and negligence.
Settlement
Under the settlement, defendants have agreed to pay CAD $9,000,000.00 in
cash, plus interest earned on that sum while held in escrow by the Class
Counsel since March 19, 2007.
For more details, contact:
Royal Group Securities Class Action
c/o Crawford Class Action Services
Claims Administrator
Suite 3-505 133 Weber Street North
Waterloo, ON N2J 3G9 or,
Phone: 1-866-640-9997
E-mail: rgtadmin@crawco.ca
Web site: http://www.rgtsettlement.ca/
- and -
Michael G. Robb
Siskinds LLP,
680 Waterloo Street, P.O. Box 2520,
London, Ontario N6A 3V8,
Phone: 1-800-461-6166, ext. 7872
Web site: http://www.classaction.ca
SPRINT CORP: Dec. Hearing Set for $57 Securities Suit Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court for Johnson County, Kansas will hold a fairness hearing
on Dec. 12, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for the proposed $57,500,000 settlement in
the matter, “In Re Sprint Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 04 CV
01714.”
The haring will be held before Judge Kevin P. Moriarty in the District Court
for Johnson County, Kansas, Johnson County Courthouse, 100 North Kansas,
Olathe, KS.
The settlement covers all persons who held shares of PCS Group Series 1 or
Series 2 common stock that were converted into shares of FON Group at a
ratio of 1 to .50 on April 23, 2004; or were sold prior to April 23, 2004.
Case Background
In March 2004, eight purported class actions were filed in
Johnson County District Court in Kansas over the recombination of Sprint's
FON and PCS tracking stocks (Class Action Reporter, July 25, 2006).
Sprint split its common stock into the two tracking stocks in November 1998
when FON Group was designed to track its wireline business, and PCS Group
was designed to track its wireless business. Later, Sprint recombined them
saying it was changing its focus to sell all of its services on a bundled
basis.
Seven of the lawsuits were consolidated in the District Court of
Johnson County, Kansas. The eighth, pending in New York, was voluntarily
stayed (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 12, 2005).
The consolidated lawsuit alleges breach of fiduciary duty and breach of
fiduciary duty in the recombination. The lawsuit seeks to rescind the
recombination and is asking for monetary damages.
For more details, contact:
Ralph N. Sianni, Esq.
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
Chase Manhattan Centre, 1201 North Market Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Phone: 302-622-7000
Fax: 302-622-7100
Web site: http://www.gelaw.com/
Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
New York, New York 10022
Phone: 1 877 935 7400 or 212 935 7400
Web site: http://www.hfesq.com/
- and -
Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
29 Broadway, Suite 2400
New York, New York 10006
Phone: (212) 952-0602 or (877)495-1187
Fax: (212) 952-0608
Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com/
TOWER AUTOMOTIVE: Dec. 10 Hearing Set for ERISA Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a
fairness hearing on Dec. 10, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. for the proposed $5.7 million
settlement in the matter, “In re Tower Automotive ERISA Litigation, C.A. No.
05-2184 (RWS).”
The hearing will be held before Judge Robert W. Sweet at the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New
York, in Courtroom 18C.
Any objections to the settlement must be made on or before Nov. 29, 2007.
Case Background
Initially, six lawsuits alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act were filed (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 12, 2006).
They are:
-- “Kowalewski, et al. v. The Administrative Committee of
the Tower Automotive Retirement Plan, et al., Case No.
05-CV-2215,” filed on Feb. 17, 2005;
-- “Hill v. S.A. Johnson, et al., Case No. 05-CV-2184,”
filed on Feb. 17, 2005;
-- “McMillion, et al. v. S.A. Johnson, et al., Case No.
05-CV-2762,” filed on May 10, 2005;
-- “Vanderhoof, et al. v. S.A. Johnson, et al., Case No.
05-CV-3637,” filed on April 8, 2005;
-- “Argove, et al., v. S.A. Johnson et al., Case No. 05-
CV-3641,” filed on April 8, 2005; and
-- “Gryzelak, et al., v. S.A. Johnson, et al., Case No.
05-CV-3496,” filed on April 8, 2005.
The six Actions have been consolidated under the caption, “In re
Tower Automotive ERISA Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-2184 (RWS).”
The action asserted claims for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, with respect to the Tower Automotive Retirement
Plan, Tower Automotive Union 401(k) Plan, Tower Automotive Products Savings
Investment Plan, and Tower Automotive Products Employee 401(k) Savings Plan
(together with any predecessor plans and any plans merged into it).
Settlement Terms
The Class Settlement Amount consists of two parts. The first part, called
the “Part A Amount,” is a payment of $2,000,000 in cash by the Company.
The second part, called the “Part B Amount,” is an additional payment of
$3,700,000.
Plaintiffs have agreed that the Part A Amount will be paid in full by the
Company. Plaintiffs also have agreed that the Part B Amount will be paid
solely by Federal Insurance Co. out of the proceeds of an Insurance Policy
issued by Federal.
The Class Settlement Amount, including interest, and after payment of, and
establishment of reserves for, any taxes and Court-approved costs,
attorney's fees, and expenses, including any Court-approved compensation to
be paid to the Plaintiffs, will be paid to the Remaining Plans.
For more details, contact:
Mark Rifkin, Esq.
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
270 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10016
Phone: 212-545-4600
Fax: 212-545-4653
E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com
Web site: http://www.whafh.com
U.S. TOBACCO: Approval Sought for $96M Smokeless Tobacco Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys in the matter, “Smokeless Tobacco Cases, 02-004250,” which is
pending before San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer, are
seeking approval for a $96 million settlement, which will resolve claims
that U.S. Tobacco (UST) engaged in "extensive restrictive and exclusionary
acts" to eliminate competition for smokeless tobacco products.
Matthew Hirsch of The Recorder reports that the California class action,
certified by Judge Kramer in 2004, was less than three months from trial
when the parties reached an agreement to settle the matter.
Allegations of monopolistic business practices by UST started in a federal
Sherman Act lawsuit filed in Kentucky. A competitor in the smokeless
tobacco market, Conwood Sales Co., accused UST in that case of a raft of
underhanded business practices, including the use of exclusive vending
agreements with retailers and the destruction of competitors' point-of-sale
displays.
In March 2000, a federal jury in Kentucky ordered UST to pay Conwood treble
damages totaling $1.05 billion. That verdict was upheld on appeal, and it
opened the floodgates for the consumer litigation that followed.
The plaintiff's firm in the Conwood case, Washington, D.C.-based Kellogg,
Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, teamed up with plaintiffs firms around
the country to file consumer suits claiming they overpaid for smokeless
tobacco because of UST's allegedly anti-competitive practices.
According to court documents obtained by The Recorder, the proposed
settlement would apply to class members who were over the age of 18 at the
time they purchased smokeless tobacco, and who purchased at least 30 cans of
certain brands, including Copenhagen and Skoal. Each qualifying consumer
would get $195 to $585.
The total settlement is nearly 100 percent of one damage calculation
submitted by the plaintiffs' experts, according to court records. The
proposed deal doesn't include details about attorneys fees.
Richard Saveri, a San Francisco plaintiffs attorney who worked on the case,
estimated that "probably well over 100,000 people" would be eligible to
submit claims for the settlement, which applies to California consumers who
have purchased smokeless tobacco since 1990.
Mr. Saveri pointed out that consumers would demonstrate that they are
eligible to participate in the settlement if they submit a sworn statement.
For more details, contact:
R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
Saveri & Saveri, Inc.
111 Pine Street, Suite 1700
San Francisco, California 94111
Phone: 415-217-6810
Fax: 415-217-6813
VELOCITY EXPRESS: Faces Independent Contractors' Suits in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Velocity Express Corp. and its subsidiary, CD&L, Inc. face a purported class
actions that were filed by independent contractors, according to the
company's Oct. 15, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007.
First Litigation
One of the class actions was filed on December 2003 in Los Angeles Superior
Court. It is seeking to certify a class of California based independent
contractors from December 1999 to the present.
Plaintiffs seeks unspecified damages for various employment related claims,
including, but not limited to overtime, minimum wage claims, and claims for
unreimbursed business expenses.
CD&L filed an Answer to the Complaint on or about Jan. 2, 2004 denying all
allegations.
Plaintiff’s motion for Class Certification was granted in part and denied in
part on Jan. 28, 2007. Discovery on this matter is ongoing.
Second Litigation
In January 2007, the Company was served another summons and complaint which
was pled as a wage and hour class action.
The suit covers California drivers who had been engaged by Clayton/National
Courier Systems, Inc. between 2001 and the present.
The Company believes that this second suit will be consolidated with the
first suit because it covers the same group of independent contractor
drivers over the same period of time.
Velocity Express Corp. -- http://www.velocityexp.com/-- together with its
subsidiaries, is engaged in the business of providing time definite ground
package delivery services.
YUM! BRANDS: Still Faces Labor Law Violations Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, Inc., and its Taco Bell Corp. unit continue to face a putative
class-action by some hourly workers in California, alleging violations of
labor laws, Gee L. Lee of MarketWatch reports.
The alleged violations include unpaid overtime, failure to pay wages on job
termination, and denial of meal and rest breaks, according to The
Louisville, Ky.-based operator of Pizza Hut Inc., Taco Bell Corp., and KFC
Corp. restaurants.
In its quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
the company pointed out that other alleged violations by Taco Bell include
improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses and unfair or unlawful
business practices.
* Drinker Biddle Adds Three Partners to Chicago Office
------------------------------------------------------
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP is adding strength and depth to its national
securities and accounting litigation practice with new partners Bradley J.
Andreozzi, Daniel J. Delaney and Bennett W. Lasko, who will practice in the
firm's Chicago office. The three accomplished litigators, partners at Mayer
Brown LLP, move to Drinker Biddle on October 22.
"This is the next phase of our plan to strengthen and expand our 300-lawyer
litigation practice," said Alfred W. Putnam, Jr., chairman of Drinker
Biddle. "These partners come to us at a time when we are steadily adding top-
flight securities litigators and white collar criminal defense lawyers in
our offices across the country."
Drinker Biddle announced last month that former federal prosecutor and
securities litigator Gregory P. Miller will be leading a dozen lawyers to
the firm's Philadelphia office on January 1, 2008. In the past year, former
New Jersey Supreme Court Chief Justice and Attorney General Deborah T.
Poritz joined the firm's Princeton office and former federal prosecutor
Barry Gross moved to the firm's Philadelphia office. In 2006, white-collar
defense lawyer Charles S. Leeper joined the firm's Washington, D.C., office.
"We are very excited that Brad, Dan and Bennett have decided to join us,"
said Edwin A. Getz, regional-partner-in-charge of Drinker Biddle's Chicago
office. "One of our objectives -- in Chicago and nationally -- is to expand
what is already one of the country's finest litigation practices. Brad, Dan
and Bennett add strength to one of the fastest-growing segments of that
practice."
Andreozzi, Delaney and Lasko have more than 50 years combined experience in
complex commercial litigation and securities litigation, class actions and
other shareholder disputes, with an emphasis on litigation involving
accounting firms and accounting issues.
Mr. Lasko said that the three lawyers were particularly attracted to Drinker
Biddle by the sophistication and extent of its securities class action and
accountants' liability practices. "A law firm needs significant breadth and
depth in these areas to be credible and best serve its clients' interests,"
he said.
Messrs. Andreozzi and Delaney agreed. "There's no question that Drinker
Biddle has the knowledge and skill to deliver top-quality service to its
clients on a national level," said Delaney. "The firm's strengths in hedge
funds, investment companies and corporate transactions were additional
benefits."
"Drinker Biddle's values and culture were as important to us as the
sophistication of its practices," added Andreozzi. "With their commitment to
high-quality work and their genuine collegiality, we felt at home with the
people at Drinker Biddle."
In addition to their work in the areas of securities and financial services
class actions, both Lasko and Delaney have experience defending clients in
matters involving products liability, mass torts and multidistrict complex
litigation.
Mr. Andreozzi is an accomplished appellate litigator with a successful track
record of defeating the certification of high-stakes class action suits. An
internationally recognized sports lawyer, Andreozzi also has represented
professional athletes and sports governing bodies in litigation and
international arbitration, including before the International Court of
Arbitration for Sport and at the Olympic Games.
Mr. Andreozzi earned his law degree from the University of Chicago in 1983
after graduating magna cum laude from Yale University. He has worked at
Mayer Brown since 1991. Andreozzi was selected for inclusion in the Chambers
USA directory of leading lawyers for business for the past three years and
was also included in Lawdragon magazine's listing of "500 New Stars" for
2006.
Mr. Delaney also earned his law degree, with honors, from the University of
Chicago in 1989. He received his bachelor's degree from the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, magna cum laude with highest distinction with
election to Phi Beta Kappa. He has worked at Mayer Brown since 1989.
Mr. Lasko received his J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law School in 1987
after graduation from Grinnell College, with honors and election to Phi Beta
Kappa. He has worked at Mayer Brown since 1991.
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, a national law firm with more than 650 lawyers
in 12 offices, concentrates on providing clients with the best possible
service in areas such as corporate and securities, commercial litigation,
communications litigation, products liability and mass tort litigation,
intellectual property, health care, HR law, real estate, corporate
restructuring, government and regulatory affairs, environmental, insurance,
investment management and private client services.
For more information, visit http://www.drinkerbiddle.com.
BRAVO! BRANDS: Vianale & Vianale Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Vianale & Vianale LLP announces that it filed a class action
on October 16, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Bravo! Brands, Inc.
(OTC: "BRVO.PK") between November 20, 2005 and May 15, 2007.
The complaint alleges that Bravo CEO Roy G. Warren and Chief Accounting
Officer Tommy E. Kee violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. During
the Class Period, Bravo concealed that its sole distributor, Coca Cola
Enterprises, Inc. (CCE), had drastically cut its demand for Bravo's milk
drinks. (Bravo sold its products under the brand names Slammers and Bravo.)
Bravo also failed to timely disclose that it had defaulted on interest
payments to senior note holders.
Bravo falsely told investors on April 3, 2007 that it had expanded its drink
products by introducing the first milk-based sports drink. Only one month
later, Bravo announced that it would substantially reduce its workforce,
that it would not roll out brands into new channels of distribution, and
that its sales with CCE had declined substantially in April and May 2007. On
May 15, 2007, the last day of the Class Period, Bravo announced that it had
recognized a $17.6 million non-cash impairment charge during the quarter
ended March 31, 2007. On September 21, 2007, Bravo filed for bankruptcy.
Interested parties may move the court no later than December 17, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq.
Julie Prag Vianale, Esq.
Vianale & Vianale LLP
2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: 888-657-9960 (Toll Free) or (561-392-4750)
*********
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 * * *