/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/071025.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, October 25, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 212 Headlines AMERICAN HOME: Seeks to Employ, Retain Allen & Overy as Counsel ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Experts Testify in Investor Lawsuit BAUSCH & LOMB: S.C. Judge Dismisses Consolidated ReNu Litigation BEARINGPOINT INC: Nov. 16 Hearing Set for Appeal in Va. Lawsuit BLOOMBERG LP: Accused of Discriminating Against Pregnant Women C.B. FLEET: Siskinds Files Suit in Canada Over Oral Laxative CLEAR CHANNEL: Lawsuits Over Inflated Ticket Prices Certified CONNECTICUT: Court Certifies Class in Madison Permit Fees Case CONOCOPHILIPS LLC: Faces Suit in La. Over Unlawful Terminations DEERE & COMPANY: Recalls Utility Vehicles to Test Brake Calipers DITECH COMMUNICATIONS: Dismissal Motion in Cal. Lawsuit Granted ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Seeks Dismissal of Del. Derivative Suit GARUDA INDONESIA: Australian Families Plan Suit Over Plane Crash GERMANY FUND: Settlement of Suit Challenging Bylaws Approved HAMILTON HEALTH: Metroplasty Suit Class to Get up to CA$10M JC PENNEY: Recalls Ornaments for Lead Paint Standard Breach LEADING EDGE: $6.5M Settlement of VigRx Suit Gets Court Approval MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Settles N.J. Securities Suit for $2.5M MORGAN STANLEY: Reaches $16M Settlement in Calif. Bias Lawsuit NEW CENTURY: Asks Court to Establish NCWC Claims Bar Dates NORBORD INC: Named with Eight Others in Pa. OSB Antitrust Suit PROGRESSIVE GAMING: Securities Suit Settlement Approval Pending RAYMOND JAMES: Former Employees File Gender Discrimination Suit ROSS STORES: Recalls Turtle Sprinklers Due to Laceration Hazard ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Eleventh Circuit Denies Re-hearing Petitions SEATTLE SUPERSONICS: Faces Suit for “Misleading” Ticket Buyers TOP TANKERS: Moves to Junk Suit Over Alleged Accounting Fraud T ROWE PRICE: Investors Sue on Failure to Timely Adjust Prices VALENTINO USA: Card Holders Suit Settlement Hearing Set Today WORKING FOREX: Faces Penna. Lawsuit Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme New Securities Fraud Cases AETNA INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa. FIRST HOME: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filed in Fla. Court ********* AMERICAN HOME: Seeks to Employ, Retain Allen & Overy as Counsel --------------------------------------------------------------- American Home (together with other affiliates in bankruptcy, The Debtors) ask for authority to employ Allen & Overy LLP as their special counsel with respect to certain regulatory securities and class action, effective nunc pro tunc to September 7, 2007. James L. Patton, Jr., Esq., at Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware, relates that the Debtors seek to retain Allen & Overy as special counsel because of the firm's significant experience in handling the types of complex disputes to which the Debtors are currently a party. Allen & Overy's depth and breadth of litigation experience makes the firm ideally suited to effectively handle the many disputes that have arisen, and will likely continue to arise in the areas of regulatory, investigative, and securities class action litigation matters, Mr. Patton says. The Debtors seek to engage Allen & Overy to: -- serve as counsel with respect to the Securities and Exchange Commission's inquiries regarding the company's activities immediately prior to and following its entrance into bankruptcy; -- handle issues arising with respect to other regulatory authorities, which issues may include, but are not limited to, the production of documents, interviews of witnesses, and the submission of factual and legal analysis; and -- to engage Allen & Overy in a number of currently pending securities class action litigations. Compensation will be payable to Allen & Overy on an hourly basis plus reimbursement of actual, necessary expenses and other charges incurred by the firm. The current hourly rates are: * Partners $730 to $825 * Associates $340 to $650 * Paralegals $185 to $225 The Debtors tell the Court that they have not paid any amounts as a retainer. Pamela Rogers Chepiga, a member of Allen & Overy, assures the Court that her firm is a "disinterested person" and has no interests adverse to the Debtors. (American Home Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 11; Bankruptcy Creditors' Services Inc. http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/ or 215/945-7000) BLOOMBERG LP: Accused of Discriminating Against Pregnant Women -------------------------------------------------------------- Bloomberg L.P., the news and financial services company, is accused of violating federal law by discriminating against a class of female employees who became pregnant and took maternity leave, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charges in a lawsuit filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. In its suit, the EEOC asserts that Bloomberg engaged in a pattern or practice of demoting and reducing the pay of female employees after they announced their pregnancies and after they took maternity leave. Some women were replaced by more junior male employees, the EEOC says. The lawsuit also alleges that the same pregnant women and new mothers were excluded from management meetings and subjected to stereotyping about their abilities to do their jobs because of their family and caregiver responsibilities. Complaints made by the women to Bloomberg’s human resources department were dismissed. The EEOC filed its lawsuit (Civil Action No. 07- CIV 8383) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement. The suit seeks monetary relief; an order requiring the company to implement new policies and practices to prevent discrimination; training on anti-discrimination laws; posting of notices at the work site; and other injunctive relief. “Employers need to be aware that it is unlawful to discriminate against women based on their pregnancy or act on stereotypes concerning their roles as caregivers,” said EEOC’s New York District Director Spencer H. Lewis, Jr. “No working woman should be forced to choose between motherhood and her livelihood.” EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Raechel L. Adams added, “This case exemplifies an increasing trend where employers engage in stereotyping of female caregivers and act to limit their employment opportunities. Pregnant women and mothers who work hard and perform well should be valued for their work, not penalized for their gender.” According to its web site, http://www.bloomberg.com,“The New York-based company employs more than 9,000 people in more than 125 offices around the world.” Pregnancy discrimination charges filed with the EEOC and state/local agencies nationwide have risen from 3,385 in 1992 to a record high of 4,900 in 2006. The EEOC recently issued new enforcement guidance entitled Unlawful Disparate Treatment of Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities, which is available on its Web site at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/caregiving.html. The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC can be found on its web site at http://www.eeoc.gov. For more information, contact: Elizabeth Grossman, Esq. Phone: (212) 336-3696 Lisa Sirkin, Esq. Phone: (212) 336-3697 ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Experts Testify in Investor Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Expert witnesses examinations were conducted on Wednesday in a class action filed against gaming company Aristocrat Leisure before the Australian federal court. In 2003, Maurice Blackburn Cashman Lawyers and litigation company IMF Australia filed a class action writ against Aristocrat Leisure alleging that the company's market forecasts were false and misleading and that it failed to disclose all material information in a timely manner. The lawsuit alleges that the company misled shareholders by not keeping them fully informed before announcing earnings downgrades that wiped $1.5 billion (AU$2 billion) from the company's value in 2003. The lawsuit claims the non- disclosure caused them losses. The case was transferred to the Federal Court in Sydney. Later, the applicant applied to amend the class definition to delete the requirement that a group member must retain Maurice Blackburn Cashman to be a part of the class. The Statement of Claim has been amended to claim losses incurred by shareholders who purchased shares between Feb. 18, 2002 (previously Sept. 20, 2002) and 26 May 2003. The case is before Justice Margaret Stone. Dorajay Pty Limited is representing shareholders. Aristocrat said only Dorajay and four other shareholders had filed details of their claims. Proceedings began October 4. On Oct. 22, the proceedings were dominated by procedural issues. Maurice Blackburn submitted a supplementary two-page letter by forensic accountant Greg Meredith. Last week, three expert reports by Mr. Meredith, who is partner and head of forensic accounting at Ferrier Hodgson, were tendered as evidence on behalf of Dorajay. All four reports were uncontested by Aristocrat. On Wednesday, Brad Cornell, from the California Institute of Technology, testified for Aristocrat. The New York econometrician Fred Dunbar testified for shareholders. Mr. Cornell said that only part of a 57 per cent fall in Aristocrat Leisure's share price in February 2003 could be attributed to previously undisclosed bad news, according to a report by Elisabeth Sexton of the Sydney Morning Herald. Meanwhile, Mr. Dunbar argued that almost all the share price fall could be attributed to the effect on earnings of the new information, according to the report. Mr. Dunbar said the share price would have fallen by the same 57 per cent, albeit in stages, if Aristocrat had announced lower -- correct -- profits in February and August 2002 and if it had righted an inflated profit forecast in December 2002. Mr. Cornell countered that the delay contributed to the size of the fall. The case is expected to be finished by the end of the week. Aristocrat Leisure said the lawsuit could cost the company AU$10 million to AU$20 million in damages -- not the AU$190 million to AU$396 million reported by the media. A ruling in the case could set a precedent for other class actions over failure to disclose material information. Representing shareholders is: Stephen Gageler, S.C. Phone: + 612 9233 1209 Fax: + 612 9232 7626 E-mail: stephengageler@wentworthchambers.com.au BAUSCH & LOMB: S.C. Judge Dismisses Consolidated ReNu Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina dismissed a consolidated class action filed against Bausch & Lomb, Inc. in relation to its ReNu with MoistureLoc product, The Will Astor of The Rochester Business Journal reports. According to the report, the company had been targeted by 573 ReNu with MoistureLoc-related product liability lawsuits as of Oct. 16, 2007. The suits were either pending in federal or state courts. About 209 of the cases were consolidated in a single class action by a federal judicial panel back in August 2007, and then dismissed this month by Judge David C. Norton, the eye-care company stated in a pre-merger U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing obtained by The Rochester Business Journal. The company recalled ReNu with MoistureLoc from store shelves last year after the Centers for Disease Control warned wearers of soft contact lenses to beware of fusarium keratitis, a source of potential serious fungal eye infection. Asian health officials previously had linked ReNu with MoistureLoc to the fungal infection. Federal court records obtained by The Rochester Business Journal revealed Judge Norton cited discrepancies in how various state laws would deal with the product-liability claim as a basis for his dismissal of the case. However, his decision to dismiss the case without prejudice did not deal with the complaints’ merits, thus, giving plaintiffs a chance to continue to press claims. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. -- http://www.bausch.com/-- is a global eye health company that develops, manufactures and sells contact lenses and lens care products, ophthalmic pharmaceuticals and products used in ophthalmic surgery. BEARINGPOINT INC: Nov. 16 Hearing Set for Appeal in Va. Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- A Nov. 16, 2007 hearing is scheduled for plaintiff's motion appealing a dismissal of a securities fraud class action filed against Bearingpoint, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The suits filed after April 2005 claim that the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act by, among other things, making materially misleading statements between Aug. 14, 2003 and April 20, 2005 with respect to the company's financial results in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings and press releases. On Jan. 17, 2006, the court certified a class, appointed class counsel and appointed a class representative. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 10, 2006 and the defendants, including the company, subsequently filed a motion to dismiss that complaint, which was fully briefed and heard on May 5, 2006. The Company was awaiting a ruling when, on March 23, 2007, the court stayed the case, pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the case of “Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd v. Tellabs,” argued before the Supreme Court on March 28, 2007. On June 21, 2007, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the Tellabs case, holding that to plead a strong inference of a defendant’s fraudulent intent under the applicable federal securities laws, a plaintiff must demonstrate that such an inference is not merely reasonable, but cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference of non-fraudulent intent. On Sept. 12, 2007, the court dismissed with prejudice this complaint, granting motions to dismiss filed by the Company and the other named defendants. In granting the Company’s motion to dismiss, the court ruled that the plaintiff failed to meet the scienter pleading requirements set forth in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended. On Sept. 26, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion that seeks a reversal of the court’s order dismissing the case or an amendment to the court’s order that would allow the plaintiffs to replead. The Company filed its brief on Oct. 17, 2007 and a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion is scheduled for Nov. 16, 2007, according to the company’s Oct. 22, 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 BearingPoint, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05- cv-00454-TSE-TCB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under Judge T. S. Ellis, III with referral to Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan. Representing the plaintiffs is: Steven Jeffrey Toll, Esq. Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC 1100 New York Ave., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005-3965 Phone: (202) 408-4600 Representing the defendant is: Charles William McIntyre, Jr., Esq. McGuireWoods, LLP 1050 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20036-5317 Phone: (202) 857-1742 C.B. FLEET: Siskinds Files Suit in Canada Over Oral Laxative ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm Siskinds LLP launched a class action against C.B. Fleet Company, Inc. regarding its oral laxative, Fleet Phospho-soda. Fleet Phospho-soda has been marketed in Canada since 1987. Since then, the laxative has been commonly used as part of a bowel cleansing regimen in preparing for surgery, x-ray or endoscopic examination. Use of Fleet Phospho-soda has been linked to an increased risk of developing renal damage and/or renal failure. A public advisory released in December 2005 cited rare reports of patients who experienced a reduction in kidney function, both temporarily and permanently, due to formation of calcium deposits in their kidneys subsequent to their use of Fleet Phospho-soda for bowel cleansing. The Statement of Claim alleges that Fleet failed to adequately warn patients and physicians that Fleet Phospho-soda has been associated with an increased risk of developing renal damage and/or renal failure. Michael Eizenga, a partner with Siskinds LLP, says, "We believe that through this lawsuit Fleet will be required to explain to Canadian consumers what it knew about the risks associated with Fleet Phospho-soda and when it first became aware of those risks. In this case, as with all of these types of cases, we are concerned about whether Canadians were adequately warned of the risks associated with using the product in question." It is too early at this stage to quantify the claims of potential class members, but it is anticipated that the amount is significant. Canadians who have experienced adverse events from using Fleet Phospho-soda are encouraged to visit http://www.classaction.caor to call 1-800-461-6166. Quebec residents can contact Claude Desmeules at (418) 694-2009. For more information, contact: Michael Eizenga Phone: (519) 660-7820 - or - Matthew Baer Phone: (519) 660-7782 CLEAR CHANNEL: Lawsuits Over Inflated Ticket Prices Certified ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California gave the green light to a class action claiming Clear Channel Communications Inc. -- the nation's largest media and entertainment company - - used its market dominance to illegally inflate ticket prices to live rock concerts across the country. Initially, the company is defendant in putative class actions filed by several plaintiffs in the U.S. District Courts in Philadelphia, Miami, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New Jersey. The suits are: (1) "Cooperberg v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 2:05-cv-04492 (E.D. Pa.)"; (2) "Diaz v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 05-cv-22413 (S.D. Fla.)"; (3) "Thompson v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., Civ. No. 2:05-cv-6704 (C.D. Cal.)"; (4) "Bhatia v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 1:05-cv-05612 (N.D. Ill.)"; and (5) "Young v. Clear Channel Communications, et al., Civ. Action No. 06-277-WHW (D.N.J.)." The suits claim that Clear Channel used its market dominance in anticompetitive activities that unfairly increased ticket prices for consumers and coerced artists to use Clear Channel for concert promotion. The claims made in these actions are substantially similar to claims made in the "Heerwagen v. Clear Channel Comm., et al., case no. 2:02-cv-04503-JES," except that the geographic markets alleged are statewide or more local in nature, and the members of the putative classes are limited to individuals who purchased tickets to concerts in the relevant geographic markets alleged. On Dec. 5, 2005, the company filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the above-listed actions and any similar ones commenced in the future to a single federal district court for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. In June 2006, the company asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer to a single federal district court for coordinated pre-trial proceedings several purported class actions and any similar ones commenced in the future, which alleges that anti-competitive practices for concert promotion services by the company caused artificially high-ticket prices (Class Action Reporter, June 9, 2006). The judge’s recent opinion grants class-action status to five lawsuits on behalf of concert-goers in regions across the United States, who are being lead by the Seattle-based law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro (HBSS). "Clear Channel is a multi-billion dollar international media conglomerate and we intend to argue that it is leveraging its size and industry clout to exploit consumers and artists by eliminating the choices available to them and keeping ticket prices and concert promotion rates unreasonably high," said HBSS attorney Beth Fegan. Plaintiffs claim that Clear Channel uses predatory practices to keep potential competitors from entering regional markets. In some cases, the complaints state, Clear Channel bids up the fees paid to artists so it becomes impossible for other promoters to compete. Such was the case when Clear Channel purchased the entire Backstreet Boys 2001 national tour for $100 million, according to a 2002 New York Times article. The article explains that Clear Channel set extremely high ticket prices to recoup the promotion costs it spent in competing with other local promoters. As a result, those who attended the Backstreet Boys concert paid far more than those who attended concerts promoted by another company in the area, the article said. The complaints state that radio is by far the most effective marketing tool for music artists to promote concerts, and Clear Channel enjoys a near monopoly of the market. Artists often have no other choice but to use Clear Channel to promote live concerts, the complaint continues. According to the complaints, the company's unlawful leveraging of its economic strength in the FM radio business obligates artists who would otherwise turn to other concert promoters to use Clear Channel's promotion services. The suits allege that because of Clear Channel's abundantly monopolistic practices, the company controls the content of the radio airwaves and can prohibit an artist's music from being played on the air if they opt to use a promoter other than Clear Channel. "We intend to show that Clear Channel bullies groups into using Clear Channel's facilities for concerts through its market dominance of the airwaves," Fegan noted. "The upshot is that if bands don't use Clear Channel venues, they will be playing to empty houses." The complaints cite a study which indicates that the rate of inflation and Clear Channel's rise in ticket prices is disproportionate. During the time when Clear Channel's consolidation of the industry began and its anticompetitive practices were implemented, ticket prices ballooned by 61 percent while the Consumer Price Index only rose by 13 percent. In this multi-district litigation proceeding, plaintiffs from 23 different regions across the United States who purchased tickets to live rock concerts from Clear Channel or one of its subsidiaries filed class action suits. Plaintiffs attended live rock concerts promoted by Defendants such as Madonna, Bruce Springsteen, Eric Clapton, Billy Joel, Elvis Costello and The Who. The Court originally designated five "test" regions -- including the Chicago region, Denver region, New England region, New York/New Jersey region, and Southern California region -- for certification proceedings. The Court's decision unanimously found all five test regions suitable for class certification. Now, the certified classes include any person who purchased a live rock concert ticket in the Chicago, New England, New York/New Jersey, Colorado, and Southern California regions during the period of June 19, 1998 to present. Plaintiffs believe that that the remaining 18 regions should be similarly certified. The suit cites that Clear Channel violated the Sherman Act for attempting and achieving monopolization. The suit seeks relief for plaintiffs and members of the class for company's unjust enrichment as the result of unlawful conduct. For more information, contact: Beth Fegan (708) 776-5604 Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com Website: http://www.hbsslaw.com - and - Mark Firmani (206) 443-9357 Firmani + Associates Inc. E-mail: Mark@firmani.com CONNECTICUT: Court Certifies Class in Madison Permit Fees Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Connecticut Superior Court Judge William T. Cremins granted class-action status to a purported class action that claims that the Town of Madison’s building permit fees are excessively high. The judge made the ruling on Oct. 12, 2007 in the complex litigation division of the court. Defendants named in the matter have vowed to appeal the ruling, according to reports. Case Background Five local area builders filed the civil suit in Superior Court, alleging that Madison's building permit fee schedule is an unconstitutional “scheme” that specifically and illegally targets the building industry as a source of town revenue (Class Action Reporter, April 29, 2007). The five builders listed in the suit are: -- Dowler Group, -- Peter Smith Building Co., -- MJM Builders, Inc., -- Paul Coady Construction, and -- Neighborhood Builders, Inc. Seeking both monetary and punitive damages as well as an injunction prohibiting the town from continuing to charge its stated fees, the builders are also seeking to bring the case as a class action on behalf of all builders affected by the fee schedule and not just the five named plaintiffs. In 2002, the town revised its building permit fee schedule after Town Engineer Stew MacMillan surveyed fee schedules in a number of communities throughout the area and the state and found that the town has neither the lowest nor the highest fees. Following that survey he recommended a revised schedule for building fees. In their suit, the plaintiffs allege that the fees do not reflect the actual costs the town incurs in the administration and inspection of buildings under construction. Instead, plaintiffs say, the fee schedule is being used as a revenue producing measure “in part to fund social programs, and other initiatives that have no relationship to the offering and regulation of building activity in the town.” This allegedly constitutes an illegal tax, which violates the state's Unfair Trade Practices Act. For more details, contact: Drew Lichtenfels, Esq. 29 Water Street, Guilford, CT 06437 Phone: 203-458-7879 Fax: 203-458-0186 CONOCOPHILIPS LLC: Faces Suit in La. Over Unlawful Terminations --------------------------------------------------------------- ConocoPhilips LLC faces a purported class action in Louisiana that was filed by former employees who allege that they were terminated by the company because they participated in settlements of a pollution claim against the company, Lee Peck of KPLC-TV reports. The former employees, majority of them contractors or contracted employees, are represented by Chris Chesson, who told KPLC-TV that the case is “about retaliation against employees or employees of other companies who are working on your property. About retaliating against them for making lawful claims against your company.” Additionally, the suit claims that ConocoPhillips has compiled a list of individuals who are “blacklisted” because they've received monetary benefits from filing a claim over chemical releases against ConocoPhillips. Mr. Chesson also told KPLC-TV that witnesses have said that the so-called black list has even made its way into the hands of contractors. Plaintiffs are alleging that that several hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals have suffered the same retribution at the hands of the defendants. The company has yet to be officially served with the lawsuit, according to the report. For more details, contact: Chris Chesson, Esq. 1 Lakeshore Dr., Ste 1800 Lake Charles, LA 70629-0123 Phone: 1-877-808-3328, 504-598-3328 or 337-436-5297 Web site: http://www.lemonlawclinic.com DEERE & COMPANY: Recalls Utility Vehicles to Test Brake Calipers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Deere & Company, of Moline, Illinois, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 5,400 John Deere Gator Utility Vehicles. The company said the brake calipers in the front of the utility vehicles may have been installed incorrectly, causing the vehicle to pull to one side during braking. This poses an injury hazard to consumers. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves the XUV and HPX Gator utility vehicles made by John Deere with model and serial numbers included below. These are four-wheeled vehicles with a cargo box. “John Deere”, “Gator”, “HPX” and “XUV” are printed on the side of the cargo box. The following model and serial numbers can be found on the serial number plate on the frame of the vehicle. Model Serial Number XUV 620i Gas MOXUVGX013294-016669 XUV 620i Gas MOXUVGT011480-012186 XUV 850D Diesel MOXUVDX011917-013329 XUV 850D Diesel MOXUVDT010001-010449 HPX 4X4 Diesel MOHP4DX050877-051453 HPX 4X4 Gas MOHP4GX051221-052763 These recalled utility vehicles were being manufactured in the United States and are being sold by John Deere dealers nationwide from June 2007 through September 2007 for between $8,500 and $10,600. Pictures of the recalled utility vehicles: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08509a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08509b.jpg Consumers should stop operating the recalled utility vehicles immediately and contact an authorized John Deere dealer in their area to schedule a free inspection. The company will provide free repair, if needed. Registered owners were sent direct mail notification of this recall. For additional information, contact John Deere at (800) 537-8233 between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. CT. Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.johndeere.com DITECH COMMUNICATIONS: Dismissal Motion in Cal. Lawsuit Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jeffrey S. White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in a securities fraud class action filed against Ditech Communications Corp, Erin Coe of the Securities Law360 reports. Beginning on June 14, 2005, several purported class actions were filed purportedly on behalf of a class of investors, who purchased the company's stock between Aug. 25, 2004 and May 26, 2005. The complaints allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Ditech and its chief executive officer and chief financial officer in connection with alleged misrepresentations concerning Voice Quality Assurance orders and the potential effect on the company of the merger between Sprint and Nextel. All of the lawsuits were consolidated into a single action, "In re Ditech Communications Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. C05-02406-JSW." A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Feb. 2, 2006. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and the motion was granted on Aug. 10, 2006, with leave to amend. A second consolidated amended complaint was filed on Sept. 11, 2006. Defendants again moved to dismiss, and by order dated March 22, 2007, the court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint on April 23, 2007. On May 14, 2007, Defendant again moved to dismiss. This latest motion was set for a hearing on Aug. 19, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, July 20, 2007). At that hearing, Judge White dismissed the third amended complaint without leave to amend, finding that the purported class was unable to meet the heightened pleading standards of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. In the latest amended complaint, the purported class alleged that Ditech and its officers misrepresented the company by saying it had received two orders worth more than $5 million from two new customers in Asia and deceived investors by saying that the proposed merger between Sprint and Nextel would benefit the company, but the judge concluded that these two allegations failed to show falsity. The investors claimed that Ditech’s two new orders in 2004 had never been “secured,” either because the company lacked the shipping requirements necessary for shipments to China or because one of the Asian customers was bought out by another company, which led to the cancellation of the international order with Ditech. Judge White said the plaintiffs did not close the gaps in their amended complaint and did not allege additional information over whether managers knew the orders were not going to ship. “Such allegation fails to provide any information indicating that Ditech knew about obstacles to shipping, let alone knowledge that such alleged obstacles were insurmountable, before the alleged misrepresentations were made,” Judge White wrote in his order. The suit is “In re Ditech Communications Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-02406-JSW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Jeffrey S. White. Representing the plaintiffs is: Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Esq. Berman DeValerio Pease & Tabacco, P.C. 425 California Street, Suite 2025 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415/433-3200 Fax: 415-433-6382 E-mail: cheffelfinger@bermanesq.com Representing the defendants is: William S. Freeman, Esq. Cooley Godward, LLP Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 9406-2155 Phone: 650 843-5000 Fax: 650 857-0663 E-mail: freemanws@cooley.com ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Seeks Dismissal of Del. Derivative Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Electronics For Imaging, Inc. is seeking for a dismissal of a consolidated derivative lawsuit filed in Delaware on behalf of a class claiming breach of fiduciary duty of disclosure. Ann Arbor Litigation On Nov. 22, 2006, a purported derivative shareholder complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo captioned, “City of Ann Arbor Employees’ Retirement Association v. Gecht et al., No. CIV 459145.” The complaint asserted derivative claims against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and/or directors, alleging that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duty by improperly manipulating certain stock option grants between 1996 and 2003, thereby violating the terms of the Company’s stock option plan, causing the Company to issue false and misleading financial statements and proxy statements, and unjustly enriching the executives who received the subject option grants. The complaint also purported to be brought on behalf of a class consisting of all others similarly situated and alleges a class claim for breach of the fiduciary duty of disclosure. On Dec. 5, 2006 the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and, on March 9, 2007, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand the case back to state court. On April 3, 2007 the court granted plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss its complaint. Plaintiff re-filed its complaint in Delaware Chancery Court on April 9, 2007. Denver Litigation On March 15, 2007 a complaint was filed in Delaware Chancery Court captioned, “Denver Employees Retirement Plan v. Gecht et al., No. 2797.” The complaint asserts derivative claims against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and/or directors, alleging that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duty by improperly manipulating certain stock option grants between 1996 and 2003, thereby violating the terms of the Company’s stock option plan, causing the Company to issue false and misleading financial statements and proxy statements, and unjustly enriching the executives who received the subject option grants. The complaint also purported to be brought on behalf of a class consisting of all others similarly situated and alleges a class claim for breach of the fiduciary duty of disclosure. Consolidation On May 9, 2007, the court granted the parties’ proposed order consolidating the Denver and Ann Arbor cases, designating the Denver complaint as the operative complaint, and appointing the named plaintiffs lead plaintiffs and their counsel lead counsel. Defendants have moved to dismiss the action, according to the company’s Oct. 22, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. -- http://www.efi.com-- is a provider of digital controllers, superwide format printers and inks, and print management solutions. GARUDA INDONESIA: Australian Families Plan Suit Over Plane Crash ---------------------------------------------------------------- Relatives of Australians killed in the Garuda Indonesia Airline plane crash back in March 2007 are preparing a class action against the company, Radio New Zealand reports. Five Australians were among the 21 people who died when a Garuda Boeing 737 overran the runway in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, and burst into flames. The final report on the PT Garuda Indonesia's crash landing in March at Yogyakarta airport that killed 21 people showed pilot error as the cause of the disaster, various reports say (Troubled Company Reporter-Asia Pacific, Oct. 24, 2007). Caroline Mellish, the sister of a man who died in the crash, says her family is pursuing legal action, along with the families of other victims. The Troubled Company Reporter-Asia Pacific reported on March 8, 2007, that Garuda Indonesia Airline Boeing 737-400 plane carrying 140 people burst into flames on landing at Yogyakarta airport. The flight was carrying some Australian diplomats, officials and journalists who had been accompanying Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. The final report reportedly determined that Captain Marwoto Komar did not follow company procedures that required him to fly a stabilized approach, and he did not abort the landing and go around when the approach was not stabilized. United Press International states that the findings said Captain Komar, despite the 15 warnings from the Ground Proximity Warning System, landed the plane even though the jet was traveling at an excessive airspeed and steep flight path angle. Captain Komar and his co-pilot, Gagam Rohman, initially claimed that a sudden gust of wind downed their craft, but the black boxes recovered from the gutted 737 revealed no adverse weather conditions, Deutsche Presse- Agentur relates. The transport safety committee, however, refused to attribute the crash to pilot error despite the findings, Reuters says. Tatang Kurniadi, head of National Transport Safety Committee, told Reuters that the pilot was not 100% at fault; there were flaws in the system that has led to the accident as well. The airport's rescue and firefighting service vehicles were incapable of reaching the accident site and did not have appropriate fire suppressants, Deutsche Presse-Agentur says, citing a transport safety committee statement. About Garuda Indonesia Headquartered in Jakarta, Indonesia, government-owned airline PT Garuda Indonesia -- http://www.garuda-indonesia.com/-- currently has a fleet of about 77 aircraft offering service to some 27 domestic and 33 international destinations. Under its Citilink brand, it serves 10 other domestic routes. Garuda also ships about 200,000 tons of cargo a month and operates a computerized tracking system. The Troubled Company Reporter-Asia Pacific reported on Sep. 6, 2007, that Garuda, saddled with a debt of around US$750 million including some US$475 million owed to the European Credit Agency, is in negotiations with creditors to restructure some of its debt. The carrier's debt needs to be restructured, otherwise Garuda will not be able to fly anymore as its debt is too big, the report added. The airline was affected by plunging arrivals on the resort island of Bali, where tourists have been killed in bomb attacks in 2002 and 2005. It has also suffered from soaring global oil prices, a weakening of the Indonesian rupiah and rising interest rates. Garuda is concentrating its efforts on repaying its debt with foreign creditors under the European Credit Agency, which was due on Dec. 31, 2005. The company, until November 2006, suffered an unaudited loss of IDR390 billion, which was lower than the IDR672 billion, recorded in the same period the year before. Garuda is currently undergoing debt restructuring. The Troubled Company Reporter-Asia Pacific reported on December 20, 2006, that in line with the airline's debt restructuring, it continues to consistently pay debt interest. GERMANY FUND: Settlement of Suit Challenging Bylaws Approved ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has approved the previously announced settlement of the civil class action “Daniels vs. The New Germany Fund, Inc. et al.” Accordingly, under the terms of the settlement and in the absence of any appeal, the Fund intends to conduct an in-kind tender offer for 20% of its outstanding shares at 96% of net asset value per share. The Fund will announce the commencement of the tender offer in a future press release. The tender offer will remain open for at least 20 business days after commencement. Filed in 2005, the suit challenged the validity of the Fund's director qualification bylaw, which includes a requirement of relevant experience and country knowledge consistent with the Fund's strategy of investment in German companies. Pursuant to the settlement and an agreement with the shareholder group that sought to nominate competing directors in 2005 and subsequent years, the Fund would conduct an in-kind tender offer for 20% of the Fund's outstanding shares of common stock at 96% of net asset value per share (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2007). Payment for shares would be in the form of a pro rata portion of the Fund's cash and portfolio securities. The New Germany Fund, Inc. is a non-diversified, closed-end investment company seeking capital appreciation primarily through investment in the Mittelstand -- an important group of small and mid-cap German companies. The suit is “Daniels v. The New Germany Fund, Inc. et al. Case No. 1:05-cv- 01890-MJG,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland under Judge Marvin J. Garbis. Representing defendants are: Jeremy C. Bates Marc De Leeuw Justin J. DeCamp Lauren F. Gershell Sullivan and Cromwell LLP 125 Broad St New York, NY 10004 Phone: 12125584822 or 12125584219 or 12125581688 Fax: 12125583358 E-mail: batesj@sullcrom.com or deleeuwm@sullcrom.com or decampj@sullcrom.com or gershell@sullcrom.com Michael James DeVinne Venable LLP Two Hopkins Plz Ste 1800 Baltimore, MD 21201 Phone: 14102447518 Fax: 14102447742 E-mail: mjdevinne@venable.com Amy S. Dolgin Peter Glatz Rush Bell Boyd and Lloyd LLC 70 W Madison St Ste 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 13128074245 or 13128074352 Fax: 13128278155 or 13128278005 E-mail: adolgin@bellboyd.com or prush@bellboyd.com - and - Mark D. Gately Scott R. Haiber Hogan and Hartson LLP 111 S Calvert St Ste 1600 Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: 14106592700 Fax: 14105396981 E-mail: mdgately@hhlaw.com Representing plaintiffs are: Meryl W. Edelstein Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP 1230 Peachtree St NW Ste 2300 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 14048733900 Fax: 14048764476 E-mail: medelstein@chitwoodlaw.com Gregory Edward Keller Chitwood Harley and Harnes LLP 11 Grace Ave Ste 306 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: 15167736090 Fax: 14048764476 E-mail: gkeller@chitwoodlaw.com - and - John Bucher Isbister Toyja E. Kelley Tydings and Rosenberg LLP 100 E Pratt St 26th Fl Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: 14107529714 or 14107529700 Fax: 14107275460 E-mail: jisbister@tydingslaw.com or tkelley@tydingslaw.com HAMILTON HEALTH: Metroplasty Suit Class to Get up to CA$10M ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action against Dr. Salim Daya and and Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation has been settled, AM900 CHML reports. The lawsuit claims both were negligent in their care and treatment of women who underwent a surgical procedure known as a Tompkins metroplasty between January 1, 1990 and March 31, 2004. The suit claims that women who underwent the outdated Tompkins metroplasty procedure in that time frame are entitled to damages. It covers 189 women who underwent an "obsolete" and "unnecessary" surgical procedure, between 1990 and 2004. The parties to the action participated in a mediation in Toronto on three occasions in an attempt to resolve the action. As a result of the mediation, the parties have entered into a proposed settlement which will only take effect if it receives court approval. Under the proposed settlement, each of the women will receive a minimum of CA$35,000. The bulk of the settlement, about 95%, will be paid by Dr. Daya. The hospital covers the other 5%, the report said. The court will consider whether to approve the settlement at a hearing to be held on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 at the Courthouse, 361 University Avenue, Toronto, ON (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 19, 2007). If approved by the courts, the settlement will result in the defendants paying the female victims a total of CA$10 million. In turn, the defendants do not admit to any wrongdoing or liability. The plaintiffs and their counsel believe that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and will ask the court to approve it. If the proposed settlement is not approved, the class action will continue. For more information, contact: Harvey T. Strosberg , Q.C. Sutts, Strosberg LLP Phone: 519.561.6231 800.229.5323 ext. 231 Fax: 519.561.6203 866.316.5308 E-mail: dayaclassaction@strosbergco.com JC PENNEY: Recalls Ornaments for Lead Paint Standard Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- J.C. Penney, of Plano, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 2,400 Breyer 2006 stirrup ornaments. The company said the surface paints on the ornaments contain excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves a stirrup-shaped ornament with a white prancing horse and blue ribbons. 2006 is stamped on the rim of the ornament. These recalled stirrup ornaments were manufactured in China and are being sold through the J.C. Penney catalog and Web site from August 2006 through August 2007 for about $18. Picture of recalled stirrup ornaments: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08024.jpg Consumers are advised to keep the ornament away from young children and return it to any J.C. Penney store for a full refund. For further information, contact J.C. Penney toll-free at (888) 333-6063 anytime, or visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.jcp.com LEADING EDGE: $6.5M Settlement of VigRx Suit Gets Court Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted on Aug. 28, 2007 preliminary approval for a settlement in the class action “Horton v. Leading Edge Marketing, Inc., et al, Case No. 04-CV-212-PSF-CBS.” The lawsuit claimed that Leading Edge Marketing, Inc. and other companies and persons violated federal and state law by marketing, selling, and distributing VigRx for Men, and that persons who purchased VigRx for Men have a legal claim against the Defendants. Class members are defined as: All consumers who purchased VigRx for Men from Leading Edge Marketing, Inc., at any time during the period from October 1, 2001 through August 28, 2007, except counsel for the Class. Also excluded from the Class are: (a) wholesalers, i.e., persons who are recorded in Leading Edge Marketing's business records as purchasing VigRx for resale; (b) sales affiliates of Leading Edge who purchased VigRx; (c) persons who received a full refund of all charges including shipping and handling on or prior to August 28, 2007. The Court did not decide in favor of Plaintiffs or Defendants; instead, both sides agreed to a settlement. Defendants deny that they have done anything wrong. The Agreement resolves and compromises Plaintiff’s claims on behalf of himself and other similarly situated against Defendants. Under it, Leading Edge agreed to settle the suit for $6.5 million (Class Action Reporter, April 11, 2007). Under the agreement, class members are entitled to either: -- a $10 cash rebate; -- a $39.95 e-book "relating to men's sexual and reproductive health;" or -- a six-month subscription to anti-spam software worth $24.95. The settlement fund includes $4.2 million for the cash rebate, with the remaining $2.3 million to cover attorney's fees and a well-deserved incentive award for lead plaintiff Jeffery Horton. Mr. Horton filed a consumer fraud suit in 2004 against the Canadian company and others involved in the manufacture and sale of the product. The suit was filed against: -- Leading Edge Marketing Inc. (British Columbia); -- Leading Edge Marketing Inc. (Bahamas); -- Leading Edge Marketing Ltd.; -- Unipay Processing, Ltd.; -- DM Contact Management Ltd.; -- TechniPak, L.L.C.; -- Advanced Botanicals, Ltd.; -- Geoffrey M. MacKay; -- Andrew A. MacKay; -- Mark D. Scheidt; -- Douglas R. MacKay; -- Matthew Clayton; and -- Warren S. Brander. The suit claims the VigRx products don't produce the permanent enlargement and cure for erectile dysfunction that the company promises on its website and elsewhere. In May 2005, Judge Phillip Figa of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado found enough merit in the case to grant conditional class certification (Class Action Reporter, May 30, 2005). While an appeal of that decision was pending, the parties conducted lengthy negotiations with a mediator that culminated in the settlement. With the settlement, Leading Edge Marketing, avoids a jury award that would not have been covered by insurance and could have exceeded its total assets. Online Claims must be submitted on or before December 26, 2007. Claims filed by mail must be sent to the address below postmarked on or before December 26, 2007. Leading Edge Settlement Administrator C/O Class Action Administration, Inc. P.O. Box 6848 Broomfield, CO 80021-0015 USA The suit is "Horton v. Leading Edge Mkt BC, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-00212-PSF-CBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Phillip S. Figa with referral to Judge Craig B. Shaffer. Deadline to file objection or exclusion is Dec. 10, 2007. Fairness hearing is set Feb. 4, 2008 at 9 a.m. at the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado 80294, in Courtroom A602. Representing the class is: Bradley Corsello Corsello Law P.C. 485 Seventh Ave. 14th Floor New York, NY 10018 Representing the defense is: Michael S. Freeman Faegre & Benson LLP 3200 Wells Fargo Center 1700 Lincoln Street Denver CO 80203-4532 MAJESCO ENTERTAINMENT: Settles N.J. Securities Suit for $2.5M ------------------------------------------------------------- Majesco Entertainment Co. reached agreements to settle certain litigations pending in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey: a securities class action brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Majesco securities, a private securities action filed by Trinad Capital Master Fund, Ltd., and a second action filed by Trinad purportedly on behalf of the company. In July 2005, four purported class action complaints were filed against the company and several of its current and former directors and officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On Sept. 12, 2005, a fifth purported class action complaint was filed in the same court on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased shares of the company's common stock on Jan. 26, 2005 offering of six million shares of common stock. The complaint named as defendants the company, current and former officers of the company, and certain financial institutions who served as underwriters with respect to the offering. On Oct. 11, 2005, the court consolidated the five cases and appointed a lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff is Diker M&S Cap Master Ltd. On Dec. 14, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint, which is now the operative complaint. The complaint names as defendants: -- the company, -- Carl Yankowski, -- Jan E. Chason, -- Jesse Sutton, -- Joseph Sutton, -- Morris Sutton, -- Laurence Aronson, -- F. Peter Cuneo, -- James Halpin, -- Louis Lipschitz, -- Marc Weisman, -- RBC Capital Markets Corp., -- JMP Securities LLC, -- Harris Nesbitt & Corp., -- Wedbush Morgan Securities Inc., and -- Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the company's offering and certain of the company's press releases and other public filings contained material misstatements and omissions about the company's financial condition and prospects as well as its products. The lead plaintiff asserts a claim under Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act against all the defendants on behalf of investors who purchased in the offering. It asserts a Section 12(a)(2) claim against the company and the financial institutions who served as underwriters in connection with the offering, and a Section 15 control person claim against defendants Carl Yankowski, Jan Chason, Jesse Sutton, Joseph Sutton, and Morris Sutton. The lead plaintiff also asserts a claim under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under against the company and the defendants and a claim under Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act against the defendants. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The proposed class period for the Exchange Act claims is Dec. 8, 2004 through Sept. 12, 2005. The Company and the Individual Defendants have been in negotiations with Plaintiffs to resolve the matter, and have reached a tentative understanding on settlement terms (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 10, 2007). Settlement Terms As part of the settlement process, Majesco denied it acted improperly and stated it was settling these matters in order to eliminate the uncertainty, expense and distraction of further protracted litigation. Under the terms of the settlement agreement in the securities class action, which is subject to notice to the shareholder class and court approval, Majesco's insurance carrier will make a cash payment and the company will contribute shares of its common stock with a market value of approximately $2.5 million. The shares will be distributed to the settlement class if and when the court grants final approval to the settlement and the settlement becomes effective. As previously announced, in its second quarter ended April 30, 2007, the company recorded a $2.5 million charge for the settlement, representing the expected value of the securities to be paid to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' attorney fees will be paid from the settlement amount. The settlement of the private securities claim in the action brought by Trinad on its own behalf provides that Majesco's insurance carrier will make a cash payment to Trinad, subject to final approval of the class action settlement by the Court. The settlement agreement in the action filed by Trinad, purportedly on behalf of the company, will not result in a payment to the company. Plaintiff's attorneys will not receive any fees in connection with the settlement. As a result of the filing of this lawsuit by Trinad, Majesco has taken actions which it and Trinad believe will benefit Majesco shareholders and address some of the issues raised in the lawsuit. This settlement is also subject to notice to the company's shareholders and to court approval. The company believes it is in its best interest to resolve these claims, in order to enable management to focus all of its efforts on executing its strategy and creating greater value for shareholders. The suit is "In Re: Majesco Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:05-cv-03557-FSH-PS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg with referral to Judge Patty Shwartz. Representing the plaintiff is: Patrick Louis Rocco, Esq. Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP 163 Madison Ave., P.O. BOX 1277 Morristown, NJ 07962-1277 Phone: (973) 775-8997 E-mail: procco@lawssb.com Representing the defendants is: Joseph Domenick Giacoia, Esq. Capuder Fazio Giacoia, 90 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Phone: 212-509-9595 E-mail: jgiacoia@cfgny.com MORGAN STANLEY: Reaches $16M Settlement in Calif. Bias Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. reached a $16,000,000 settlement for a racial discrimination class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, The Associated Press reports. The suit was filed on behalf of African-American and Latino brokers in California. It alleged Morgan Stanley discriminated against African- American and Latino brokers and broker trainees in business, compensation, and other employment opportunities based on race and ethnicity. Originally, the case was filed as a gender discrimination case by a white female broker, Daisy Jaffe, who claimed she was wrongfully terminated. Ms. Jaffe's suit was later changed to a race-and-gender bias case after an African-American broker, Denise Williams, claimed the firm discriminated against her on the basis of color. Margaret Benay Curtis-Bauer, a former African-American Morgan Stanley broker, was added as a lead plaintiff in August 2007 in the second amended complaint. In a document filed with the court, Morgan Stanley agreed to set up a $16 million settlement fund for more than 1,000 claimants in the class action. In addition, as part of the proposed settlement, the retail brokerage firm agreed to institute programs to improve employee diversity. The settlement covers African-American and Latino employees of the firm's Global Wealth Management Group who have worked at Morgan Stanley any time since Oct. 12, 2002. It still requires court approval, thus the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is scheduled to rule on the terms of the proposed settlement in late November. The suit is “Jaffe, et al. v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv-03903-TEH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Thelton E. Henderson. Representing the plaintiffs are: James M. Finberg, Esq. Altshuler Berzon LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: 415-421-7151 Fax: 415-362-8064 E-mail: jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com - and - Kelly M. Dermody, Esq. Leiff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Phone: 415-956-1000 Fax: 415-956-1008 E-mail: kdermody@lchb.com Representing the defendants is: Rebecca Dianne Eisen, Esq. Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP One Market Plaza , Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415/442-1328 Fax: 415-442-1001 E-mail: reisen@morganlewis.com NEW CENTURY: Asks Court to Establish NCWC Claims Bar Dates ---------------------------------------------------------- New Century TRS Holdings, Inc., New Century Financial Corp., and their direct and indirect subsidiaries (Debtors) ask the Court to establish a bar date by which all entities and governmental units may file proofs of claim in the Chapter 11 cases of New Century Warehouse Corporation, wholly-owned by New Century TRS. The Debtors also ask Judge Carey to fix a date by which all entities must file proofs of claim (i) relating to NCWC's rejection of executory contracts or unexpired leases and (ii) arising out of NCWC's amendment of their schedules of assets and liabilities. NCWC, doing business as Access Holdings Corporation, is a specialty finance company providing warehouse financing to the middle market segment of the residential mortgage origination industry. Specifically, the Debtors propose that the Court should fix December 14, 2007, as NCWC's General Bar Date, which would apply to all entities holding claims against the NCWC that arose prior to its Petition Date. Moreover, the Debtors ask Judge Carey to fix January 31, 2008, at 5:00 p.m., as the Governmental Bar Date. The Debtors also ask that claims related to the rejection of executory contracts and unexpired leases, the Rejection Bar Date will be the later of the NCWC General Bar Date and 30 days after the effective date of rejection. Furthermore, the Debtors want the Schedules Bar Date fixed at (i) the later of the NCWC General Bar Date and (ii) 30 days after the date that notice of the applicable amendment, if any, to the NCWC Schedules is served on the claimant. The NCWC Bar Dates are applicable only to claims related to NCWC's Chapter 11 Case. Any entity asserting claims against the other Debtors must its file proof of claim in accordance with the Bar Date for the particular Debtor. Ad Hoc Committee Objects The Ad Hoc Committee of Beneficiaries of the New Century Deferred Compensation Plan and Supplemental Executive Retirement Savings Plan oppose the Debtors' request to set NCWC's Bar Dates. Joseph H. Huston, Esq., at Stevens & Lee, P.C., in Wilmington, Delaware, tells the Court that the Ad Hoc Committee that the Committee may file a class proof of claim with respect to a $43,000,000 trust for employee salaries, bonuses, and commissions. The Ad Hoc Committee is plaintiff to an adversary proceeding against the Debtors and other parties seeking relief in the alleged violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Pursuant to Rule 7023 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, which provides for a class action in adversary proceedings, Mr. Huston contends that the Ad Hoc Committee is entitled to file a proof of claim against NCWC. Accordingly, the Ad Hoc Committee seeks to be exempted from NCWC's Bar Dates, and to file a class claim following a final judgment in the adversary proceeding. (New Century Bankruptcy News, Issue Number 24; Bankruptcy Creditors' Services Inc. http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000) NORBORD INC: Named with Eight Others in Pa. OSB Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Norbord Inc. (TSX: NBD) and eight other North American OSB producers have been named as defendants in several lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuits allege that these nine North American OSB producers violated U.S. and various state antitrust and other laws by allegedly agreeing to fix prices and reduce the supply of OSB from June 1, 2002 through the present. During the quarter, the district court certified a class of persons and entities that purchased OSB in the U.S. directly from any of the named North American OSB producers between June 1, 2002 and the present. This class is seeking injunctive relief and damages under US federal antitrust law. The district court also certified a class of persons and entities who, as end users, indirectly purchased for their own use and not for resale, new OSB manufactured and sold by one or more of the named North American OSB producers between June 1, 2002 and the present. This class is seeking injunctive relief under US federal antitrust law. The district court is still considering the extent to which it will certify classes of indirect purchasers for purposes of pursuing claims under state laws. As of October 23, 2007, the district court has certified for purposes of pursuing claims under state laws a class consisting of persons and entities residing in eleven states who, as end users, indirectly purchased for their own use, and not for resale, new OSB manufactured and sold by one or more of the named North American OSB producers between June 1, 2002 and the present. This class is seeking damages, injunctive, and other relief under state laws. Norbord believes that the lawsuits are entirely without merit and intends to defend this matter vigorously. For further information, contact: Anita Veel Director, Corporate Affairs Norbord Inc. Phone: (416) 643-8838 E-mail: anita.veel@norbord.com PROGRESSIVE GAMING: Securities Suit Settlement Approval Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Mikohn Gaming Corp., d/b/a Progressive Gaming International Corp., has yet to report that the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has granted final approval to a settlement of a purported class action filed against it. Case Background The case, “In re Mikohn Gaming Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:05-cv-01410-PMP-RJJ,” has been pending since 2005. Commencing on Nov. 28, 2005, four similar purported class action complaints were filed, naming the company and two of its officers as defendants, and seeking unspecified money damages under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaints all alleged that during a “class period” beginning in early 2005 and ending on Oct. 19, 2005, the defendants misled the Company’s investors concerning the prospective application of SFAS No. 153 to the Company’s financial statements for the third quarter of 2005. The complaints were consolidated into a single action, and plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on April 13, 2006, which also asserted claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On Aug. 31, 2006, the court denied the motions with regard to the Sections 11 and 15 claims, but dismissed the other claims, with leave to amend. The parties have reached a tentative settlement, subject to the completion of confirmatory discovery and court approval, and as a result, the court has stayed plaintiffs’ filing of a second amended complaint. The court ordered the parties to submit settlement documentation for preliminary approval by March 2, 2007. On March 7, 2007, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement between the parties. Under the terms of the settlement, the plaintiffs agree to dismiss with prejudice all claims against all defendants, including the Company and its current and former officers and directors, in exchange for a payment in the amount of $2.8 million, virtually all of which is being provided pursuant to the Company’s insurance coverage. A June 6, 2007 fairness hearing was set. The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 19, 2007 Form 10-K/A Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The suit is “In re Mikohn Gaming Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:05- cv-01410-PMP-RJJ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under Judge Philip M. Pro with referral to Judge Robert J. Johnston. Representing the plaintiffs are: Mark Albright, Esq. Albright Stoddard Warnick & Albright 801 South Rancho Drive, Suite D-4 Las Vegas, NV 89106 Phone: (702) 384-7111 Fax: (702) 384-0605 E-mail: gma@albrightstoddard.com Ike L. Epstein, Esq. Beckley Singleton, Chtd. 530 Las Vegas Blvd. South Las Vegas, NV 89101 E-mail: ecf@beckleylaw.com Joni S. Jacobs, Esq. McCracken, Stemerman, Bowen & Holsberry 1630 S. Commerce St., Suite A-1 Las Vegas, NV 89102 E-mail: jjacobs@dcbwash.com - and - Maya Saxena, Esq. Saxena White, P.A. 5200 Town Center Circle, Tower One, Suite 600 Boca Raton, FL 33486 Phone: (954) 701-3965 Fax: (888) 782-3081 E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com RAYMOND JAMES: Former Employees File Gender Discrimination Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Three former employees of Raymond James Financial of St. Petersburg, Florida filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois claiming the brokerage is “biased against women," particularly those older than 40, the Times Wires reports. According to a St. Petersburg Times report named plaintiffs in the suit are: -- Pahoua Lee, 33 -- Bernadette Seprish, 58 and -- Beverly Beren, who gives her age as "over 50." All three of the women worked in Raymond James' St. Petersburg headquarters. The suit accuses the firm of denying the women promotions they earned, based on their age, gender and, in one case, race. The suit seeks class-action status to represent other current and former female employees. The women filed their complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but then asked for the right to sue, which the EEOC granted. The commission did not investigate or rule on the merits of their complaints. Raymond James notified employees of the lawsuit with a posting on the company intranet that has raised the ire of lawyers for the women. The company said it responded to the EEOC complaint "with detailed answers refuting the allegations and demonstrating that all employment decisions were proper and appropriate." It said the company showed the complaints were "without merit" and said it expects the charges to be dismissed. Raymond James instructed employees not to talk to the press about the suit and said those who have questions should call the company's legal department. The statements were improper, misleading and potentially intimidating, said Ethan Zelizer of Stowell & Friedman, the Chicago law firm representing the women. He asked the judge to require Raymond James to correct the notice and to get court approval for future notices sent to female employees as a group. Raymond James agreed to remove the notice from the company intranet. Raymond James -- http://www.raymondjames.com-- is a diversified financial services holding company with subsidiaries engaged primarily in investment and financial planning, in addition to investment banking and asset management. To contact Mr. Zelizer: Ethan Zelizer Stowell & Friedman , Ltd. Suite 1400, 321 South Plymouth Court Chicago, IL 60604-3912 Phone: (312) 431-0888 Fax: (312) 431-0228 ROSS STORES: Recalls Turtle Sprinklers Due to Laceration Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- Ross Stores Inc., Pleasanton, California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,800 turtle sprinklers. The company said the turtle’s body can fill with water, causing it to crack or explode, posing a laceration hazard to consumers. The firm has received one report of the turtle sprinkler cracking. No injuries have been reported. The turtle sprinkler is made of plastic resin and measures about 6-inches tall. The SKU number 400022708494 is printed on a label located on the underside of the sprinkler. These recalled turtle sprinklers were made in China and are being sold at Ross Stores and dd’s Discounts nationwide from March 2007 through September 2007 for about $9. Pictures of recalled turtle sprinklers: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08026.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using the sprinkler immediately, and return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. For further information, contact Ross toll-free at (877) 455-7677 anytime Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.rossstores.com ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Eleventh Circuit Denies Re-hearing Petitions ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit denied plaintiff’s petition for re-hearing and petition for re-hearing enbanc in connection with the affirmation of the dismissal of a purported class action against Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. and one of its cruise brands. Filed in April 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the suit alleges that the company's Celebrity Cruises Lines improperly requires its cabin stewards to share guest gratuities with assistant cabin stewards. The suit seeks payment of damages including penalty wages under 46 U.S.C. Section 10113 of U.S. law and interest. In March 2006, the Southern District of Florida dismissed the suit and held that the case should be arbitrated pursuant to the arbitration provision in Celebrity’s collective bargaining agreement. In June 2007, following an appeal by the plaintiff to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, the appellate court affirmed the District Court’s order dismissing the suit. In August 2007, the Court of Appeals denied the plaintiff’s petition for re- hearing and petition for re-hearing enbanc, according to the company’s Oct. 22, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. -- http://www.royalcaribbean.com-- is a cruise company with 34 cruise ships and 67,550 berths. The Company operates three brands: Royal Caribbean International, Celebrity Cruises and Pullmantur Cruises in the cruise vacation industry. The cruise vacation industry comprises the budget, contemporary, premium and luxury segments. SEATTLE SUPERSONICS: Faces Suit for “Misleading” Ticket Buyers -------------------------------------------------------------- Another Seattle SuperSonics season ticket holder filed a purported consumer fraud class action in King County Superior Court against the team, claiming that the new ownership group misled ticket buyers, Percy Allen of The Seattle Times reports. The suit, filed by Robert Brotherson, came just two days after Carolyn Bechtel, a 58-year-old Kirkland, Wash. resident, and Patrick Sheehy, a 36- year-old Seattle resident, two Sonics season-ticket holders filed a lawsuit against the team on Oct. 1, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2007). The earlier suit accused the team of false advertising to ticket buyers who purchased tickets so that as a result, they are under the impression that the Sonics would play in Seattle through 2010. Meanwhile, Mr. Brotherson's suit charges the Sonics “sent a letter to potential season-ticket holders guaranteeing that season ticket prices would be frozen at their current levels through the 2009-10 season.” The suit states the team “knew or should have known that the Sonics future in Seattle for the next three seasons was at best uncertain and more likely than not the team was going to be moved.” It is seeking class-action status on behalf of ticket buyers who purchased season tickets between July 2006, when the Oklahoma City-based Professional Basketball Club purchased the Sonics and Storm, and Sept. 21, 2007, when chairman Clay Bennett filed a demand for arbitration to escape the final two years of the team's KeyArena lease. For more details, contact: Michael David Myers, Esq. Thomas Baisch, Esq. MYERS & COMPANY, P.L.L.C. 1809 Seventh Avenue, Suite 700 Seattle, Washington 98101 Phone: (206) 398-1188 Fax: (206) 398-1189 E-mail: mmyers@myers-company.com tbaisch@myers-company.com TOP TANKERS: Moves to Junk Suit Over Alleged Accounting Fraud ------------------------------------------------------------- Grecian oil shipping company Top Tankers Inc. asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against it, Elaine Chow of the Securities Law360 reports. Initially, the company and certain of its executive officers and directors were named as defendants in a putative securities fraud class action. The suit is alleging violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The shareholders accused Top Tankers and its top executives of omitting key financial data in order to boost the company’s stock price. Questions about the shipping company’s accounting practices emerged when the company announced in June 2006 that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was investigating the company’s acquisitions dating back to 2004 and events before the company announced the $550 million sale and leaseback of 13 vessels on March 13, 2006. The company announced on Nov. 29, 2006, that its auditors, Ernst & Young, had resigned over the accounting for the sale and leaseback of the vessels. As of the company's April 20, 2007 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006, none of the defendants has been served in this action, which has been consolidated with nine additional putative class actions (Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2007). Top Tankers said that after its motion to dismiss the first consolidated complaint in the case, plaintiffs were “forced to take the unusual step of abandoning a large portion of their case, including their major theory of fraud,” related to Top Tankers mis-characterizing a distribution as a “special dividend” and thereby overstating its financial condition. “What remains, after plaintiffs were compelled to concede these allegations, is a bare skeleton of a complaint,” Top Tankers said. In the new complaint, there was not one specifically pleaded allegation suggesting that Top Tankers had meant to commit fraud. Nor did the complaint identify a single stock sale, or anything else, that could explain why Top Tankers would have done anything fraudulent. Top Tankers asked for the complaint to be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to replead since there is “no basis whatsoever for the claim of fraud...” The first identified complaint is "Bhojwani v. Pistiolis et al. Case No. 1:06-cv-13761-RCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Richard C. Casey. Representing the plaintiffs are: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 983-9330 Fax: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com Mark C. Gardy, Esq. Gardy & Notis, LLP 440 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 110 Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Phone: (201) 567-7377 - and - Lewis Stephen Kahn, Esq. Kahn, Gauthier Swick, LLC 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: (504) 455-1400 Representing the defendants is: Justina Louise Geraci, Esq. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr L.L.P. 399 Park Ave. New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 295-6380 Fax: (212) 230-8888 E-mail: justina.geraci@wilmerhale.com T ROWE PRICE: Investors Sue on Failure to Timely Adjust Prices -------------------------------------------------------------- T. Rowe Price International Funds, Inc. and its affiliates are facing a class-action complaint filed Oct. 3 in the Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit of Madison County, Illinois over its failure to use the latest prices from international markets. Also named in the complaint are: -- T. Rowe Price International, Inc.; -- Artisan Funds, Inc.; -- Artisan Partners Limited Partnership; -- AIM International Funds, Inc.; and -- AIM Advisors Named plaintiffs -- T.K. Parthasarathy, Edmund Woodbury, Stuart Allen Smith and Sharon Smith -- bring this complaint as a class action pursuant to Section 5/2-801 et seq. of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure individually and on behalf of all persons in the United States who have owned shares of T. Rowe Price International, Artisan International and Aim European Growth for more than 14 days from the date of purchase to the date of sale (redemption) or exchange (long term shareholders). They want the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants failed to properly evaluate on a daily basis whether a significant event affecting the value of T. Rowe Price International, Artisan International and AIM European Growth's portfolios of securities had occurred after the foreign home markets for such securities had closed but before the fund's NAV calculation and share price setting; (b) whether defendants failed to properly implement T. Rowe Price International, Artisan International and AIM European Growth's portfolios valuation and share pricing policies and procedures making daily adjustments based upon United States market results and recognized positive correlations between upward movements in United States and foreign markets in the valuation of the fund's portfolio securities prior to the calculation of the fund NAV and setting of the share price; (c) whether defendants failed to properly implement T. Rowe Price International, Artisan International and AIM European Growth's portfolios valuation and share pricing policies and procedures making daily adjustments to stale closing prices of the underlying portfolio securities before the fund's NAV calculation and share price setting; (d) whether defendants failed to properly implement T. Rowe Price International, Artisan International and AIM European Growth's portfolios valuation and share pricing policies so as to require the use of fair value pricing on a daily basis to value portfolio securities and fund NAV and share prices when closing prices of portfolio securities did not reflect their market values; (e) whether defendants failed to protect T. Rowe Price International, Artisan International and AIM European Growth's long term shareholders from market timing traders of fund shares who use T. Rowe Price International, Artisan International and AIM European Growth's shares as a trading vehicle to earn profits at the expense of long term shareholders because of the failure of T. Rowe price Funds, T. Rowe Price Fund Manager, Artisan Funds, Artisan Fund Manager, AIM Funds, and AIM Fund Manager to make daily adjustments, based upon known United States market results and recognized positive correlations between upward movements in United States and foreign markets, prior to the daily use of stale prices in the valuation of the fund's portfolio securities prior to the daily calculation of the fund NAV and the setting of share prices; (f) whether defendants breached the duties they owed to plaintiffs and the class; (g) whether plaintiffs and the class have been damaged and, if so, (h) the extent of such damages. Plaintiffs pray that the court enter judgment in their favor as follows: -- ordering that this action be maintained as a class action pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2 801 and the following class be certified: all persons in the United States who held shares in the T. Rowe Price International Stock Fund, Artisan International Fund, or AIM European Growth, for a period of more than 14 days before redeeming or exchanging them during the period beginning from five years prior to and through the date of the filing of this complaint; -- awarding plaintiff and the class compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, costs of suits, punitive damages and attorneys' fees for an amount representing the damages caused by defendants' breach of their duties not to exceed $75,000 per plaintiff or class member. The suit is "TK Parthasarathy et al. v. T. Rowe Price International Funds, Inc. et al., Case No. 05-CV-302-DRH," filed in the Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit in Madison County, Illinois. Representing plaintiffs are: Stephen M. Tillery 10 Executive Woods Court Swansea, IL 62226 Phone: (618) 277-1180 Fax: (618) 241-3525 George A. Zelcs Three First National Plaza 70 West Madison, Suite 660 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 641-9750 Fax: (312) 641-9751 E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com - and - Law Offices of Klint Bruno Klint Bruno #6257742 Oak Park, Illinois 60301 Phone: (312) 286-4915 VALENTINO USA: Card Holders Suit Settlement Hearing Set Today ------------------------------------------------------------- An Oct. 25 fairness hearing is set in a suit that alleges Valentino U.S.A., Inc. violated California Civil Code SS 1747.08 by requesting or requiring that credit card customers provide personal information, such as address, phone number, or e-mail address, in situations where doing so was prohibited by statute. The suit was filed by Maryann Shafie et al. in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, Case No. 06CC00151. The class is composed of persons who: (i) purchased merchandise with a credit card from a Valentino store in California between August 3, 2005 and August 31, 2006 and whose purchase did not involve Shipping or Delivery of the merchandise, an Alteration or Repair, a Special Order, or a Customer Contact Request; and (ii) for whom Valentino U.S.A., Inc. has a database entry containing the person's address or phone number. Class Members who do not opt out and who return a valid claim form establishing their class membership will receive a Credit Certificate for forty dollars ($40.00) off of a purchase at a Valentino store in California. Credit Certificates are valid only for in-store purchases (not online or phone purchases) of full price merchandise (not services) at the Valentino stores in Costa Mesa and Beverly Hills only, and may not be redeemed for cash or a gift card. Credit Certificates cannot be used in conjunction with any other offer, sale, or discount. Credit Certificates expire six months after date of mailing, are not transferable, and are limited to one per transaction and one per customer. The Credit Certificate must be used in one transaction; no change will be given. The fairness hearing will be at 1:30 p.m. in Department CX101 of the Superior Court of California for the County of Orange , Complex Civil Center , 751 West Santa Ana Boulevard , Santa Ana, CA 92701. WORKING FOREX: Faces Penna. Lawsuit Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------- Working Forex Investment is facing a class-action complaint filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania accusing it of running a Ponzi scheme on the Internet. The scheme was allegedly conducted over the internet from approximately January 2007 through the present. Under the guise of operating a legitimate high-yield investment program trading under the name "Working Forex Investment", the John Doe defendant defrauded thousands of victims with the promise that their "investments" would be secure and would provide a substantial guaranteed return. As ultimately happens with all Ponzi schemes, however, Working Forex Investment ceased to make payments and is no longer honoring their existing obligations to investors and the operators are threatening to abscond with all of their victims' investments. Named plaintiff Olusola Oluyemi seeks immediate and permanent injunctive relief to prevent such irreparable harm and an award of damages for fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment and breach of contract and violations of the Pennsylvania Securities Act and the Pennsylvania Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. This action is brought as a class action on behalf of all investors who invested value using E-Gold and/or Liberty Reserve with Working Forex Investment and suffered losses as a result of the defendants' conduct complained of. Plaintiff requests the court to enter judgment in the his favor and against defendants jointly and severally, and to award damages in an amount not less than $500,00, plus punitive damages in an amount not less than $1,500,000, for a total judgment in an amount not less than $2,000,000, together with interest thereon, plus the plaintiff's costs and attorneys' fees herein and any other relief that is proper; however, the total amount of such monetary relief for the class as a whole and for all counts and claims in this complaint combined shall not exceed $5 million in sum or value. The suit is "Olusola Oluyemi et al. v. Working Forex Investment et al. Case No. GD07-22760," filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Representing plaintiffs are: Michael J. Bruzzese The Bank Tower, Suite 1008 307 Fourth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 281-8676 - and - Scott M. Hare Bartony & Hare, LLP The Frick Building, Suite 1806 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 338-8632 New Securities Fraud Cases AETNA INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all securities purchasers of Aetna Inc. from October 27, 2005 through April 27, 2006, inclusive. The Complaint charges Aetna and certain of its officers and directors with violations of sections 10(b), 18, and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the second half of 2005, Aetna touted its expanding membership rolls as a primary reason for a growth in operating income. The Company's Medical Cost Ratio ("MCR") is the percentage of dollars a company spends on health care, including physician reimbursement, and is the key number for health plans in terms of their level of profitability. For six months, defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose the rise in Aetna's MCR. Unbeknownst to investors, however, from at least as early as September 2005, defendants had in their possession information that contradicted or rendered statements made by the defendants throughout the Class Period false. On April 27, 2006, the Company shocked the market when it disclosed a rise in its MCR relative to the prior year. This higher MCR, coupled with large membership growth, meant that the Company was under-pricing its health plans in order to speed up enrollment. This fact, which the defendants knew by September 2005, was conspicuously absent from defendants' public disclosures between October 27, 2005 and April 27, 2006. From April 26, 2006 to April 27, 2006, Aetna's shares fell from $46.43 per share to $37.00 per share, a decline of $9.43 per share, or over 20 percent, representing a loss in market capitalization of $5.4 billion. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than December 24, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. 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 FIRST HOME: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filed in Fla. Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. announced that a federal securities class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Fort Myers Division), on behalf of all persons who purchased one or more real properties for investment purposes from First Home Builders of Florida, a Florida general partnership in Cape Coral, Florida or Lehigh Acres, Florida between September 1, 2003 and December 31, 2005, based upon representations made by First Home and/or its agents, including the real estate brokerage firm of D'Alessandro & Woodyard, Inc. (D&W), that: (a) investors would receive a fourteen percent (14%) or greater return on their investment based upon a tenant occupying, and then purchasing, each property; (b) the tenants for each property would be procured solely through the efforts and expertise of First Home and/or D&W (and/or their respective affiliates or co-brokers); and (c) no further cash outlay would be required from investors other than the initial contract deposit. The Complaint alleges that First Home, D&W, and several of its officers and directors, violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements to prospective investors in order to induce them to purchase real estate investment properties from First Home. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants fraudulently induced investors to purchase real estate investment properties in Lee County, Florida by promising that: (a) defendants would procure tenants for all properties purchased by investors; (b) the rental income generated from these tenants would cover all of the investor's mortgage expenses: and (c) investors would receive a guaranteed 14% return on their investment after the first year. These representations were knowingly false and misleading at the time that they were made. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf all those who purchased real estate investment properties from First Home during the Class Period. For more information, contact: Daniel L. Wallach, Esq. 3111 Stirling Road Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Phone: (954) 965-5049 E-mail: dwallach@becker-poliakoff.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 * * *