/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/071105.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, November 5, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 219 Headlines ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Settles Drivers Suit Over Medpay Coverage ALLTRADE TOOLS: Recalls Battery Charger that can Overheat AMSCAN INC: Recalls Halloween "Ugly Teeth" on High Lead Content AT&T CORP: Mo. Judge Revokes Class Status of Contraceptives Suit AWP LITIGATION: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Ordered to Pay $14M CALIFORNIA: Parents Sue Over Bisphenol A Content in Baby Bottles CERTEGY CHECK: Faces Litigation in Fla. Over Information Leakage DJO INC: Cal. Shareholders' Suit Over ReAble Merger Consolidated EBAY INC: Calif. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Suit Over Paypal EBAY INC: Subsidiary Still Faces FACTA Violations Suit in Calif. GEORGIA: City of McDonough Faces Lawsuit Over “Impact Fees” HEALTH NET: Makes $201M Charge for McCoy, Wachtel, Scharfman HENRY GORDY: Recalls Toy Figures on High Lead Paint Content INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Told to Pay Each Diacetyl Exposure Victim INTERNATIONAL PROFIT: Judge Limits Sexual Harassment Lawsuit JM FAMILY Settles Ga. Suit Over Unearned Premiums for $45M KEYSTONE HEALTH: Lawyers Appeal Sanctions in Health-Insurer Case MORGAN STANLEY: African-American Group Opposes $16M Settlement NEWFIELD EXPLORATION: Okla. Court Approves Royalties Suit Deal POTLATCH CORP: Pa. Court Certifies Classes in OSB Antitrust Case RADIOSHACK CORP: Tex. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuits RADIOSHACK CORP: Ill. Court Approves $8.8M FLSA Suit Settlement STAPLES INC: Settles California Wage, Hour Lawsuit for $38M STATE STREET: Sued Over Mishandling of Retirement Accounts * Edwards Angell to Merge with U.K.'s Kendall Freeman * Corporate Europe Believes Class Actions Will Increase in U.K. New Securities Fraud Cases CBRE REALY: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Conn. COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Entwistle, Susman File Securities Suit ISILON SYSTEMS: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit WSB FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing ********* ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Settles Drivers Suit Over Medpay Coverage ------------------------------------------------------------- Allstate Insurance Co. has reached a tentative agreement to settle a suit filed by injured drivers in Washington claiming they were shortchanged by their insurance company, Phuong Cat Le of Seattle Post Intelligencer reports. The suit was filed by Pamela Coffell of Snohomish County in 2005, alleging that the company arbitrarily limited payouts of medical expenses resulting from a car accident. The settlement will affect Allstate car insurance policyholders who filed personal-injury protection claims or Medpay coverage and their claims were adjusted using "the ADP or Mitchell Medical bill review system," a computer software that computes costs for medical bills according to geographic area. Allstate allegedly used the billing review software and then only paid 85% of the claim, without giving any reason to not cover the other 15%. As a result some insured people had to pay their medical expenses when they thought they had full insurance coverage. The tentative settlement covers anyone who was injured in an accident covered by an Allstate car insurance policy and filed claims under personal-injury protection or Medpay coverage and whose claims were adjusted using "the ADP or Mitchell Medical bill review system," according to the settlement. Those covered by the lawsuit will receive $45 and a percentage of their out-of-pocket expenses based on their coverage, according to the settlement. The settlement will impact anywhere from 30,000 to 40,000 policy holders in Washington state, according to plaintiff attorney David Breskin. The class action is expected to have effects in other states and force other insurance companies to rethink this bill review system. A fairness hearing is set Nov. 19 before King County Superior Judge William Downing. The company continues to deny wrongdoing. For more information, contact: Robert B. Kornfeld, Esq. Robert Kornfeld Inc. P.S. 800 Fifth Avenue Suite 4100 Seattle, Washington 98104 (King Co.) 801 Kirkland Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA, 98033 Phone: 206-623-2835 http://www.lawyers.com/kornfeldlaw Breskin Johnson & Townsend PLLC 999 Third Avenue Suite 4000 Seattle, Washington 98104-4009 (King Co.) Phone: 206-652-8660 Fax: 206-652-8290 Web site: http://www.bjtlegal.com ALLTRADE TOOLS: Recalls Battery Charger that can Overheat --------------------------------------------------------- Alltrade Tools LLC, of Long Beach, Calif., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling about 800,000 battery Chargers supplied with certain Kawasaki branded Power Tool Kits. The company said that when used with an incompatible charger, the battery pack can overheat and melt during charging, or can explode during use, posing burn, laceration and bruise hazards to consumers. Alltrade Tools has received 30 reports of incidents, including eight injuries from the battery packs melting or forcefully expelling plastic shards while in use. Injuries include minor acid burns from handling fractured battery packs, cuts, bruises and some temporary hearing loss from a loud noise that can occur if an internal battery cell ruptures. The recall includes battery chargers sold with certain model numbers of both 19.2 and 21.6 volt NiCad battery packs. The battery model number is located on a label on the bottom of the battery pack. The power tool’s model number is stamped onto the inside lid of the tool set’s plastic carrying case. Power Tool Power Tool Battery Pack Model Model KW Black 19.2V Cordless Drill 840128 691034 KW Black 19.2V 26 PC Drill Set 840135 691034 KW Black 4 PC Power Tool Combo 840338 691034 KW Black 2 PC Power Tool Combo 840339 691034 KW Black 19.2V 26 PC Drill Set 840135A 691240 KW Black 21.6V Cordless Drill 840266 691221 KW Black 21.6V Cordless Drill 840267 691221 To see picture of recalled battery charger: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08513c.jpg The battery chargers were made in China and sold by national wholesale club retailers nationwide from September 2005 through September 2007 for between $40 and $100. Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled battery chargers immediately and register at http://www.alltradetools.comto receive a free compatible battery charger. Alltrade Tools LLC is directly contacting consumers who purchased the power tools containing the recalled chargers. Consumers should not return the battery chargers to the store where purchased. For additional information, please contact Alltrade Tools LLC at (877) 231-9239 between 8:30 a.m. and 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, and between 9 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. ET on Saturday, or visit http://www.alltradetools.com. AMSCAN INC: Recalls Halloween "Ugly Teeth" on High Lead Content --------------------------------------------------------------- Amscan Inc., of Elmsford, N.Y., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling 43,000 “Ugly Teeth” Party Favors. The company said the surface paint on the teeth contains excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No incidents/injuries have been reported. The fake Halloween teeth are painted white, black and orange with brown gums. They were sold as party favors in packages of eight. “Ugly Teeth,” “Amscan,” “Party Favors,” “Value Pack Party Favors,” UPC 0-48419-65002-7 and UPC 0-48419-61663-4 are printed on the packaging. Picture of the recalled fake Halloween teeth: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08059.jpg The fake Halloween teeth were mad in China and sold at various retailers nationwide from January 2006 through October 2007 for about $2. Consumers should immediately take the recalled Halloween teeth away from children and return them to the place where purchased for a full refund. For additional information, contact Amscan Inc. at (800) 335- 7585 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site at www.amscan.com AT&T CORP: Mo. Judge Revokes Class Status of Contraceptives Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Howard Sachs rescinded his ruling certifying as class action a lawsuit over the refusal of the company's health insurance plan to cover prescription contraceptives, according to Kaisernetwork.org. Last year, the judge granted class-action status to the suit, "Stocking v. AT&T Corp., Case No. 03-421 CV-W-HFS" (Class Action Reporter, July 10, 2007). The suit was filed on May 12, 2003 by Susan Stocking and Jane Lund. It challenges a corporate policy excluding coverage of prescription contraceptives from employee health plans that cover other prescription drugs and devices. It contends that excluding prescription contraceptives disproportionately harms women, and is therefore sex discrimination, which is barred under Title VI, the federal anti-discrimination law. In its June 7, 2006 class certification order, the court defined the class as, "all female employees of AT&T enrolled in the Occupational Medical Expense Plan who, for their own use, at any time between Oct. 31, 2001 and June 30, 2002 purchased prescription contraception solely for birth control without insurance reimbursement from said Plan." The court also held that the company was required under Title VII and/or the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to cover prescription contraceptives for birth control under its Occupational Medical Expense Plans, but failed to do so. The court's class certification order is available free of charge at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?d66. In October 2007, Judge Sachs retracted his certification order saying he is bound by a precedent established by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis that found Union Pacific Railroad's policy of not covering contraceptives does not discriminate against women. The suit is "Stocking v. AT&T Corp., Case No. 03-421 CV-W- HFS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri under Judge Howard F. Sachs. Representing the plaintiffs are: Rick D. Holtsclaw, Esq. DeFeo, Holtsclaw, Kendall, LLC 2029 Wyandotte, Suite 100 Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 221-2555 Fax: (816) 221-2508 E-mail: rick@holtsclaw-kendall.com Sylvester James, Jr., Esq. The Sly James Firm, Trial Lawyers, PC 802 Broadway, 7th Floor Kansas City, MO 64105 Phone: 816-472-6800 Fax: 816-472-6805 E-mail: sly@slyjamesfirm.com Representing the company are: Laura M. Franze, Esq. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4100 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 969-2779 Fax: (214) 969-4343 E-mail: lfranze@akingump.com; and Brian N. Woolley, Esq. Lathrop & Gage, L.C. 2345 Grand Blvd., Suite 2500 Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 292-2000 Fax: (816) 292-2001 E-mail: bwoolley@lathropgage.com AWP LITIGATION: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Ordered to Pay $14M -------------------------------------------------------------- A U.S. district judge awarded consumers millions of dollars in damages against drug giants AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb for the companies' role in unfair trade practices involving the pricing of drugs in an important state case that could have major implications in future litigation. On June 21, 2007, U.S. District Judge Patti Saris in Boston ordered AstraZeneca Plc, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Schering- Plough Corp. to pay damages for overcharging on some drugs paid for by Medicare (Class Action Reporter, July 23, 2007). On Nov. 2, Judge Saris ordered AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb to pay nearly $14 million, including a doubling of some damages against both defendants. The ruling comes in a class action involving the pricing of pharmaceutical drugs reimbursed by Medicate, private insurers, and patients making coinsurance payments based on average wholesale price between 1991 and 2001. For the most part, the drugs at issue are administered by doctors for the treatment of cancer and other serious ailments. Class plaintiffs have alleged that four pharmaceutical companies: * AztraZeneca, * Schering-Plough, * Bristol-Myers Squibb, and * Johnson & Johnson have engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93 A by grossly inflating the AWPs of certain specified drugs, which are published in commercial publications, and that these inflated prices have caused damages to Medicare, third-party payors, and patients making percentage co-payments. Plaintiffs’ core claim is that the published AWPs for defendants' drugs are fictitious because they do not reflect the true average sales price to providers, like doctors and pharmacists. Because AWP is the predominant benchmark for reimbursement by the government and third-party payors, plaintiffs contend that manufacturers grossly inflate each drug's AWP to create a "spread" between the doctor's real acquisition cost and the fictitious published AWP, and that drug manufacturers then "market the spread" in order to obtain market share over a competitor's drug. "We are absolutely ecstatic about Judge Saris' ruling [Fri]day," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and lead counsel for the plaintiffs. "Judge Saris agreed with our damage estimates and did not pull punches in her characterization of the defendants' actions." In her 30-page order, Judge Saris said "the defendants well understood the devastating impact the mega-spreads had on old and sick patients required to make co-payments they could ill afford." The two classes affected by the recent ruling include third- party payors in Massachusetts that reimbursed Medicare beneficiaries for their statutory twenty percent coinsurance, and all third-party payors and consumers in Massachusetts who made coinsurance payments based on AWP. Judge Saris goes on to point out AstraZeneca's actions in creating mega-spreads for prescription drug prices were "clearcut" and concluded that "the damage to sick and old beneficiaries inevitable." "I find that BMS's conduct was willful and knowing when less than ten percent of its sales were made within five percent of the list price, and the spreads where huge. In these situations, BMS knew that the published wholesale list price was not an accurate price and was deceptive and unfair," Saris states in her ruling. "Justice has served, but only in part. We have more work to do," Berman said. "The court has invited plaintiffs to expand this case to a nationwide class action for the next trial, potentially giving consumers across the country the same remedies this state case affords." To date AWP plaintiffs have been awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements and verdicts, including a $70 million settlement from GlaxoSmithKline, one of the major defendants, which came in August 2006 removing them from this litigation. In the proposed settlement agreement, 30 percent of the $70 million settlement will go to consumers who incurred co-payments based on AWP for a list of specific Medicare Part B covered drugs manufactured by GSK. The remaining 70 percent will go to third- party payers including health plans, HMOs and other organizations who purchased certain GSK drugs. The "Average Wholesale Price," or AWP, is a benchmark figure reported by drug manufacturers which health plans, government health programs such as Medicaid and other "third party payors" use to determine co-pays and physician reimbursements, among other uses. The AWP class action suit was originally filed in 2002 in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts. The original complaint names 23 pharmaceutical companies including many of the U.S.'s major drug manufacturers, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson & Johnson. The original suit represents all people who have taken or paid for any one of 37 named drugs in the original filing. The suit is "In Re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL No. 1456, Civil Action No. 01-12257-PBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. For more information, contact: Steve Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro Phone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com Website: http://www.hbsslaw.com/ - and - Mark Firmani Firmani + Associates Inc. Phone:(206) 443-9357 E-mail: Mark@firmani.com CALIFORNIA: Parents Sue Over Bisphenol A Content in Baby Bottles ---------------------------------------------------------------- A group of parents filed a class action in Los Angeles Superior Court in California against manufacturers and sellers of baby bottles containing bisphenol A, Elizabeth Weise and Liz Szabo of USA Today reports. One of those joining the case is Melissa Melendez, who says she fears that the chemical, leaching from bottles, may have caused her 19-month-old daughter, Lexie, to show signs of premature puberty. Ms. Melendez, 25, of Fallbrook, Calif. told USA Today, “It makes me so upset. To think I might have been harming her without even knowing it.” According to reports, bisphenol A is found in water bottles, food containers, baby bottles, some dental fillings and the coatings for the inside of food cans. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said research has shown that 95 percent of people in the United States have detectable levels of bisphenol A in their bodies. A hearing for the matter is scheduled for February 28, 2008. CERTEGY CHECK: Faces Litigation in Fla. Over Information Leakage ---------------------------------------------------------------- Certegy Check Services Inc., a subsidiary of Fidelity National Information Services Inc., faces a purported class action that charges the company of not adequately protecting confidential personal and financial information of its clients, The Jacksonville Business Journal reports. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for Middle District of Florida by the law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP on behalf of customers whose info was sold to direct marketers by a former employee. In July 2007, Certegy, which provides check verification services to major retailers, revealed that a former senior database administrator stole data and sold the information to marketing firms. The company has filed a civil suit against the former employee. Initially, Certegy said about 2.3 million consumer records were at issue, but later said an ongoing investigation determined 8.5 million consumer records were stolen. The company reiterated though that it has found no evidence that the information was used for anything other than marketing purposes. Defendants in the suit are: Certegy Check Services, Inc., Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., William G. Sullivan and S&S Computer Services, Inc. The suit is "Sellers v. Certegy Check Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:2007-cv-01020" filed in the U.s. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge Timothy J. Corrigan, and Senior Judge Howell W. Melton, with referral to Judge Thomas E. Morris. For more details, contact: Girard Gibbs LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: 415-981-4800 Fax: 415-981-4846 E-mail: mail@girardgibbs.com Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com/ DJO INC: Cal. Shareholders' Suit Over ReAble Merger Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- DJO, Inc. faces two purported class actions in California Superior Court in the County of San Diego, challenging the company’s proposed merger with ReAble Therapeutics Finance LLC, according to the company's Oct. 29, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 29, 2007. On July 15, 2007, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with ReAble Therapeutics Finance LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (Parent), and Reaction Acquisition Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent. Parent is controlled by affiliates of The Blackstone Group. On Aug. 31, 2007 and Sept. 6, 2007, two purported shareholder class actions were filed in California Superior Court, in the County of San Diego, on behalf of the Company’s public stockholders. The court ordered the two lawsuits consolidated for all purposes on September 21, 2007. The court further ordered that plaintiffs shall file a consolidated amended complaint as soon as practicable, and that the defendants need not respond to either of the two original complaints. The two original complaints named the Company, ReAble Therapeutics, Inc., an affiliate of Parent, and the current members of the Company’s board of directors as defendants. One of the original complaints also named Blackstone as a defendant. The two substantially similar original complaints alleged, among other things, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties of care, good faith and loyalty by approving the proposed merger with an allegedly inadequate price, without adequately informing themselves of the Company’s highest transactional value, and without adequately marketing the company to other potential buyers. The original complaints also alleged that the individual defendants and the Company failed to make full and adequate disclosures in the preliminary proxy statement regarding the proposed merger. The original complaints pray for, among other things: -- class certification, -- declaratory relief, -- an injunction of the proposed merger or a rescission order, -- corrective disclosures to the proxy statement, -- damages, -- interest, -- attorneys’ fees, -- expert fees and other costs, and -- such other relief as the court may find just and proper. DJO Inc. -- http://www.djortho.com-- is a provider of solutions for musculoskeletal and vascular health, specializing in rehabilitation and regeneration products for the non-operative orthopedic, spine and vascular markets. EBAY INC: Calif. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Suit Over Paypal ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has yet to rule on a motion seeking for the dismissal of a purported class action against eBay Inc. that alleges the company, through its wholly owned subsidiary PayPal, used illegal tie-in and steering practices to improperly “monopolize” the forms of payment that sellers can use on eBay. Initially, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on March 2007. In it plaintiff alleges claims under sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, as well as related state law claims. That suit sought treble damages and an injunction. In April 2007, the plaintiff re-filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (No. 07- CV-01882-RS), and dismissed the Texas action. In June 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the class action complaint. The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 29, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is “In Re eBay Seller Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 5:07-cv-01882-JF,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to Judge Richard Seeborg. Representing the plaintiffs is: Michael Andrew McShane, Esq. Audet & Partners LLP 221 Main Street, Suite 1460 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-568-2555 Fax: 415-568-2556 E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com Representing the defendants is: Thomas Patrick Brown, Esq. O'Melveny & Myers LLP Embarcadero Center West, 275 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-3305 Phone: (415) 984-8947 E-mail: tbrown@omm.com EBAY INC: Subsidiary Still Faces FACTA Violations Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The StubHub subsidiary of eBay Inc. continues to face a purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act. The suit, “Liliana Vasquez-Torres v. Stubhub Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01328-PSG-SS,” was filed on February 2007. It is a purported class action alleging that StubHub violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act by allegedly printing receipts containing more than the last five digits of a credit card number or the expiration date. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys fees. The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 29, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is “Liliana Vasquez-Torres v. Stubhub Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01328-PSG-SS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Philip S. Gutierrez with referral to Judge Suzanne H. Segal. Representing the plaintiff is: Robert S. Ackley, Esq. Herbert Hafif Law Offices 269 W. Bonita Ave. Claremont, CA 91711-4784 Phone: 909-624-1671 Representing the defendant is: Peter M. Adams, Esq. Cooley Godward Kronish 4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121-9109 Phone: 858-550-6000 E-mail: padams@cooley.com GEORGIA: City of McDonough Faces Lawsuit Over “Impact Fees” ----------------------------------------------------------- The Southeastern Legal Foundation filed on Oct. 25 a lawsuit against the City of McDonough, Georgia in Henry County Superior Court, alleging that the City illegally collected so-called “impact fees,” which would exempt builders from the City’s building moratorium. The City did not have an impact fee ordinance during the period it collected the fees, according to a statement by SLF. Filed on behalf of a group of individual builders and the Greater Atlanta Home Builders Association, the lawsuit, “GAHBA, et al. v. City of McDonough,” seeks a declaratory judgment that the City violated state law when it enacted a $1,200 per project fee which, when paid by builders, would exempt them from the building moratorium enacted by the City in 2002. The lawsuit alleges that approximately $300,000 was collected during the period in question, and the plaintiffs are asking for a refund of the fees. SLF attorneys raised the likelihood of a legal challenge and began discussions with City officials in 2003. State law empowering local governments to collect impact fees, or fees designed to offset the impact of new construction on certain public services like roads, water/sewer, and E/911 emergency services, requires a comprehensive study, a formula for determining the specific impact of a specific project and, therefore, the amount of the fees to be paid, and requires the funds to be segregated and spent for those specific public projects. McDonough officials, as alleged in the lawsuit, did none of those things before collecting the fees. “What McDonough officials did during the years in question was nothing short of confiscation,” said Shannon L. Goessling, SLF executive director. “They enacted a moratorium to allegedly slow growth, but allowed every single project to move forward –- as long as the builder paid a flat $1,200 fee per project. Many builders paid the fee under protest, and we believe that City officials were aware – and continue to be aware – that the City acted illegally.” According to Goessling, the explosion of impact fees programs across the state and the nation underscores the need for increasing accountability to check the power of local government. “Impact fees, like taxes and other fee structures, are a pocketbook power of government. Revenue-raising efforts by local governments must be clearly authorized by state law, closely monitored, and challenged when illegal. If a local government can illegally demand fees from one industry or class of people, it can demand them from all people.” The suit is “GAHBA, et al. v. City of McDonough,” filed in Henry County Superior Court. HEALTH NET: Makes $201M Charge for McCoy, Wachtel, Scharfman ------------------------------------------------------------ Health Net, Inc. included in its result for the third quarter of 2007 the full effect of a $296.8 million pretax, or $216.0 million after-tax, charges incurred as a result of Health Net reaching an agreement in principle to settle three class actions known as the McCoy, Wachtel and Scharfman lawsuits; the proposed resolution of regulatory issues with the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance; and other litigation matters. For the third quarter, Health Net reported a loss of $103.8 million, or $0.93 per share. The settlement of the three class actions, the first of which was filed in federal court in New Jersey in December 2001, is subject to the execution of a definitive agreement and court approval. The class actions relate to certain Health Net out-of- network commercial claims payment practices for the period between 1995 and July 2007. The agreement in principle calls for Health Net to, among other things, implement certain operational changes relating to its payment of out-of-network claims. The regulatory issues with the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance primarily relate to out-of-network claims payment practices. Health Net expects to enter into a consent order with the Department and make restitution relating to these issues in the near future. The charges include expenses for disbursements to eligible class members, a "Prove-Up" fund to reimburse specific claims, attorneys' fees, regulatory fines and remediations, and costs of resolving litigation unrelated to the class action lawsuits. The charges are accounted for in two parts: -- $201.5 million is included in third quarter of 2007 health plan services expenses for claims-related matters, class disbursements and remediations; and -- $95.3 million is included in third quarter of 2007 general and administrative (G&A) expenses related to attorneys' fees, regulatory fines and estimated liability for litigation unrelated to the class action lawsuits. McCoy and Wachtel Lawsuits Initially, two class actions were filed: -- “McCoy v. Health Net, Inc. et al,” and -- “Wachtel v. Guardian Life Insurance Co.” These two lawsuits are styled as nationwide class actions and are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a class of subscribers in a number of the company's large and small employer group plans. The Wachtel complaint initially was filed as a single plaintiff case in New Jersey State court on July 23, 2001. Subsequently, the company removed the Wachtel complaint to federal court, and plaintiffs amended their complaint to assert claims on behalf of a class of subscribers in small employer group plans in New Jersey on Dec. 4, 2001. The McCoy complaint was filed on April 23, 2003 and asserts claims on behalf of a nationwide class of Health Net subscribers. These two cases have been consolidated. Plaintiffs allege that Health Net, Inc., Health Net of the Northeast, Inc. and Health Net of New Jersey, Inc. violated ERISA in connection with various practices related to the reimbursement of claims for services provided by out- of-network providers. Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of payment of additional benefits, injunctive and other equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees. On April 23, 2003, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification seeking to certify nationwide classes of Health Net subscribers. The District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on Aug. 5, 2004, and issued an order (Class Certification Order) certifying two nationwide classes of Health Net subscribers who received medical services or supplies from an out-of-network provider and to whom the defendants paid less than the providers’ billed charge during the period from 1995 to Aug. 31, 2004. Health Net appealed the Class Certification Order to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On June 30, 2006, the Third Circuit ruled in Health Net’s favor on the appeal. The Third Circuit held that the District Court’s class certification opinion failed to properly define the claims, issues and defenses to be treated on a class basis. The Third Circuit thus vacated the certification order and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In September 2006, the District Court certified the same classes but limited them to the resolution of 19 legal issues. Scharfman Lawsuit On Jan. 13, 2005, the class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against: -- Health Net, Inc., -- Health Net of the Northeast, Inc., -- Health Net of New York, Inc., and -- Health Net Life Insurance Co. The complaint alleges both Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims in connection with various practices related to the reimbursement of claims for services provided by out-of-network providers. The alleged claims in Scharfman run from Sept. 1, 2004 until the present. Plaintiffs in the Scharfman action seek relief in the form of payment of additional benefits, civil penalties, restitution, compensatory, and consequential damages, treble damages, prejudgment interest and costs, attorneys fees and injunctive and other equitable relief. “Scharfman et al. v. Health Net, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:05-cv- 00301-FSH-PS,” was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg with referral Judge Patty Shwartz. Representing the plaintiffs is: Barry M. Epstein, Esq. Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer 90 Woodbridge Center Drive Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Phone: 732-636-8000 E-mail: bepstein@wilentz.com Representing the defendant is: James E. Del Bello, Esq. Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1701 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 963-5182 E-mail: jdelbello@morganlewis.com - and - Herve Gouraige, Esq. Epstein Becker & Green, PC Two Gateway Center, 12TH Floor Newark, New Jersey 07102-5003 Phone: (973) 642-1900 E-mail: hgouraige@ebglaw.com "Wachtel, et al. v. Health Net, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:01-cv- 04183-FSH-PS," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Faith S. Hochberg with referral to Patty Shwartz. Representing the plaintiffs is: Barry M. Epstein at Sills, Esq. Cummis, Epstein & Gross PC One Riverfront Plaza Newark, NJ 07102-5400 Phone: (973) 643-7000 E-mail: bepstein@sillscummis.com Representing the defendants are: John J. Gibbons, Esq. Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, PC One Riverfront Plaza Newark, NJ 07102-5496 Phone: (973) 596-4500 E-mail: jgibbons@gibbonslaw.com - and - Herve Gouraige, Esq. Epstein Becker & Green, PC Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor Newark, NJ 07102-5003 Phone: (973) 642-1900 E-mail: hgouraige@ebglaw.com HENRY GORDY: Recalls Toy Figures on High Lead Paint Content ----------------------------------------------------------- Henry Gordy International Inc., of Plainfield, N.J., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 380,000 of “Galaxy Warriors” Toy Figures The company said the surface paints on the recalled toys contain excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No incidents/injuries have been reported. Description: The posable spaceman figures are about 4 1/2-inches tall and come with two accessories. They were sold in various colors including yellow, grey, silver, blue, green, gold, black, and red. Picture of the recalled toy figurine: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08060a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08060b.jpg The toys were made in China and sold at Family Dollar Stores nationwide from January 2006 through October 2007 for about $1. Consumers should take the recalled toys away from children immediately and return the toy to the firm for a full refund plus postage. For additional information, contact Henry Gordy International toll-free at (888) 790-2700 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. CT Monday through Friday. INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Told to Pay Each Diacetyl Exposure Victim ---------------------------------------------------------------- A New York appeals court has denied a request by International Flavors and Fragrances to treat diacetyl-related health damage to former Missouri popcorn plant workers as a single occurrence, NewsInferno.com reports. The Manhattan Supreme Court Appellate Division ruled that if plaintiffs successfully prove their claims that diacetyl exposure caused them to develop Popcorn Workers Lung, each should receive a minimum $50,000 deductible payment from International Flavors and Fragrances. Diacetyl, which has been associated with Popcorn Workers Lung, is used to give microwave popcorn and other snacks a buttery flavor. Popcorn Workers Lung, also known as bronchiolitis obliterans, is a potentially life threatening ailment, for which the only cure is a lung transplant. The suit against International Flavors and Fragrances was filed by 30 current and former employees of a Missouri popcorn plant who are now suffering from Popcorn Workers Lung. It names International Flavors and Fragrances as a defendant because the company supplied the factory with diacetyl between 1992 and 1996. International Flavors and Fragrances has asked the Manhattan Supreme Court that it pays workers for an "occurrence" that constituted all of the Popcorn Workers Lung injuries taken as a whole. Under the proposal, the company only had to pay one deductible for each of its eight liability policies no matter how many workers were involved in the lawsuit. Depending on the policy, those deductibles range from $50,000 to $100,000 per occurrence. In a unanimous decision, the appeals court disagreed with International Flavors and Fragrances’ arguments, and concluded that there was no single occurrence that caused each of the workers bronchiolitis obliterans. The judge writing the court’s opinion asserted that the employees sustained their injuries “as a consequence of repeated deliveries” of diacetyl to the popcorn plant, and were exposed to the toxic chemical at different times. INTERNATIONAL PROFIT: Judge Limits Sexual Harassment Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. District Judge Joan Gottschall did not allow the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to seek class-based punitive damages in a sexual harassment suit it filed against International Profit Associates Inc., the Chicago Tribune reports. The suit, now involving 113 women, was filed by in 2001. It claims widespread sexual harassment allegations against female employees of the marketing consultancy company. The EEOC pursued the class action using the same approach it successfully used for the first time in a sexual harassment case it filed against Mitsubishi Motors plant in Illinois in 1996. The case resulted to each of the 486 women who sued Mitsubishi sharing in a $34 million settlement. According to the Chicago Tribune article, The "pattern or practice" approach holds the employer liable for perpetuating a hostile workplace if it regularly and systematically discriminates. Once proof of a pattern or practice is established, there's a presumption that individuals were subject to discriminatory behavior, making individual claims easier to prove. EEOC also used the approach in a case filed against Dial Corp. and its soap plant in west suburban Aurora. According to the article, in this case, the EEOC was able to get the court to agree on a trial for a verdict on punitive damages and another trial to allocate the damages among the individual class members based on proof of their injuries. The punitive damage aspect of the case was based on overall conduct rather than individual instances. Before a trial could start, Dial settled for a total of $10 million with 100 women. In the International Profit case, however, the judge rejected the precedent set in the Dial and Mitsubishi cases, and declined to allow the EEOC to seek class-based punitive damages. In making her Oct. 23 opinion, Judge Gottschall cited case law that established the determination of punitive damages only after individual liability has been proved. She also found the EEOC's approach to trial as unfair. "The EEOC is seeking ... an approach that will dramatically increase its odds of prevailing in this case, particularly with respect to its ability to recover punitive and compensatory damages," she wrote. The ruling means proof of an overall hostile work environment is not enough to hold an employer liable for punitive damages. Monetary awards, the judge said, will be awarded only on an individual basis. The only relief plaintiffs would receive by proving a hostile workplace is an injunction ordering the company to stop the discriminatory behavior. The article cites lawyers familiar with the case saying that the ruling could weaken the hand of the EEOC, which enforces the nation's anti-discrimination employment laws. The company has denied all of the allegations, said its attorney Myron Cherry. Myron M. Cherry, Esq. Myron M. Cherry & Associates, LLC 30 North La Salle Street, Suite 2300 Chicago, Illinois 60602-2504 (Cook Co.) Phone: 312-372-2100 Telecopier: 312-853-0279 JM FAMILY Settles Ga. Suit Over Unearned Premiums for $45M ---------------------------------------------------------- An insurance unit of JM Family Enterprises will pay $45 million to end a class action over unearned premiums, according to plaintiff's lawyer, Jim Butler, The Miami Herals reports. The settlement has obtained preliminary approval. It is still subject to final approval by Muscogee County Superior Judge Doug Pullen. The suit was filed by Ken Toole in January 2003, according to Laywers and Settlements. Mr. Toole claimed he was entitled to get a refund on an unearned car insurance premium that the company did not pay. Generally, the suit claimed JMIC failed to refund unearned premiums when loans were paid off early. The suit was granted-class action status in August 2005. Mr. Butler said that as many as 60 percent of 768,000 insured customers paid off loans before they were due. JM Family is a subsidiary of JMIC Life Insurance Co., a seller of credit insurance for car loans. KEYSTONE HEALTH: Lawyers Appeal Sanctions in Health-Insurer Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Several attorneys in the purported class action, "Grider, et al. v. Keystone Central Inc., et al, Case No. 2:01-cv-05641-JKG," are appealing a sanction handed out to them by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The sanction was issued by Judge James Knoll Gardner on Oct. 2, 2007. The lawyers are appealing the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, according to a report by Jane M. Von Bergen of The Philadelphia Inquirer. Specifically, Judge Gardner had accused the lawyers of evasive conduct in producing evidence in the class action started by a Kutztown doctor who sued Keystone Health Plan Central Inc., Highmark Inc. and Capital Blue Cross over reimbursement formulas. The lawyers sanctioned were: -- John S. Summers, of Hangley Aronchick, Segal & Pudlin in Philadelphia, -- Sandra Girifalco of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young in Philadelphia, and -- Daniel Huyett and Jeffrey Bukowski of the Reading firm Stevens & Lee. Their firms and clients were also criticized, according to reports. Case Background In 2006, Judge Gardner granted class-action status to the matter, giving eligibility to thousands of Pennsylvania doctors to join a lawsuit over a Blue Cross health plan's reimbursement rates (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 28, 2006). Named defendants in the suit are: -- Keystone Plan Central, Inc., -- Highmark, Inc., -- Capital Blue Cross, -- John S. Brouse, -- James M. Mead, and -- Joseph Pfister. The suit charges that Keystone Health Plan Central systematically lowered its reimbursement rates to doctors by: -- bundling or changing procedure codes; -- failing to pay legitimate claims on time; and -- undercounting the number of patients assigned to doctors in the managed-care plan and other practices. The case involves medical claims dating from January 1996 through November 2001, when the lawsuit was filed on behalf of a Kutztown doctor and her practice group. The plaintiffs accuse the health maintenance organization of fraud and racketeering, paralleling a strategy used in suits nationwide over managed-care rates, many of which have been consolidated in a Florida case. According to the judge's Dec. 21 order, the two sides have since been locked in an acrimonious battle over discovery and other pre-trial issues. He conducted several days of hearings in March on the question of class certification, taking testimony from former Keystone officials, an economist and others. Keystone Health Plan Central, which serves central Pennsylvania and the Lehigh Valley, was co-owned at the time by Highmark Inc., a Blue Shield affiliate, and Capital Blue Cross. It had more than 6,400 participating physicians in 2001, according to court documents. The judge upheld class-action status on two racketeering claims and a third involving the prompt payment for health care services. He rejected class certification on a breach-of- contract claim, saying they should be tried individually. The suit is "Grider, et al. v. Keystone Central Inc., et al, Case No. 2:01-cv-05641-JKG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge James Knoll Gardner. Representing plaintiffs are: Louis C. Bechtle, Esq. Conrad, O'Brien, Gellman & Rohn, P.C. 1515 Market Street, 16th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: 215-864-9600 - and - Francis J. Farina, Esq. 577 Gregory Lane Devon, PA 19333 Phone: 610-695-9007 Representing defendants are: Sandra A. Girifalco, Esq. William T. Mandia, Esq. Lee A. Rosengard, Esq. Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP 2600 One Commerce SQ Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-564-8000 or 215-564-8083 or 215-564-8032 Fax: 215-564-8120 E-mail: sgirifalco@stradley.com mandia@stradley.com lrosengard@stradley.com - and - Malcolm J. Gross, Esq. Gross, McGinley, Labarre & Eaton, LLP 33 South 7th Street, P.O. Box 4060 Allentown, PA 18105-4060 Phone: 610-820-5450 Fax: 610-820-6006 E-mail: mgross@gmle.com MORGAN STANLEY: African-American Group Opposes $16M Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Fifteen African-Americans are opposing the terms of a settlement reached by Morgan Stanley with one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit “Jaffe et al. v. Morgan Stanley,” a gender discrimination class action transformed into a "race and color" discrimination class action. The African-Americans said in a press statement they believe Morgan Stanley took this action to avoid addressing the issues of race discrimination that the group raised with the firm over one year ago. They said: “We are deeply disappointed by both the programmatic and monetary relief presented in the proposed settlement. We have carefully studied the organizational changes that Morgan Stanley has proposed and feel certain that even if they are implemented, African-Americans working at the company will continue to suffer from workplace discrimination. “The proposed settlement fund is grossly inadequate to compensate the victims of Morgan Stanley's systemic race discrimination. The $16 million fund available to resolve the claims of over 1,300 African-Americans and Latinos who worked at Morgan Stanley since October of 2002 pales in comparison to the payouts by other Wall Street firms in similar discrimination cases brought by brokers, including the “Cremin v. Merrill Lynch” lawsuit (over $200 million recovered by class members) and “Martens v. Smith Barney” (over $100 million). “Indeed, the settlement is a fraction of the settlements Morgan Stanley has recently made in gender discrimination cases of $46 million (“Augst-Johnson v. Morgan Stanley”) and $54 million (“Schiefflin v. Morgan Stanley”). “We understand that one of the two African-American named plaintiffs has decided to opt out of the settlement and not serve as a class representative. We respect her decision. As a result, the sole remaining class representative is a person who worked for Morgan Stanley for only one month during the class period, and who is not Latino. This turn of events raises serious questions about the fairness of the settlement and whether the class is adequately represented. “We are also troubled by the lawsuit and settlement grouping African-Americans and Latinos into a single class, without a Latino class representative. It is naive and incorrect to simply assume that the experiences of and issues facing African- Americans and Latinos at Morgan Stanley are the same and that a member of one group can adequately represent the interests of the other. “We believe that the proposed settlement's terms and the way in which it was negotiated reveal the extent of Morgan Stanley's disrespect and hostility towards African-Americans and Latinos, and its lack of commitment to equal opportunity. “We intend to oppose the settlement and ask the Court in the Jaffe case to appear in court to address a number of our concerns, including: -- At the time Morgan Stanley reached this settlement, only one of the two Jaffe plaintiffs was African-American, and the complaint did not include any class claim of race or color discrimination; -- We do not believe the Jaffe plaintiffs received full and fair disclosure about our group's existence and efforts to address racial discrimination at Morgan Stanley, which may have influenced their decision to settle; -- The sole class representative in the lawsuit worked at Morgan Stanley for only about one month of the proposed class period, but seeks to represent a class from October 2002 until the present. -- Although the class purports to resolve the claims of all African-Americans and Latinos, the lone class representative is not Latino, nor does it appear that Latino class members were included in settlement negotiations. “We will take appropriate action to ensure that the rights of African-Americans are protected and that Morgan Stanley is held accountable for its ongoing discriminatory practices. “We stand ready, willing and able to vigorously prosecute our case challenging Morgan Stanley's systemic discrimination against African-Americans to a full and fair conclusion that will result in meaningful change at Morgan Stanley and fair compensation for those who suffered from the Firm's discrimination. (See Moore, et al. v. Morgan Stanley complaint, Case No. 07 C 5606 (N.D. Ill.)) About “Moore et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.” The named plaintiffs of Moore et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. are 15 African-Americans, including current and former Morgan Stanley Financial Advisors and managers of varying levels of seniority and production, who were denied business and management opportunities, and an applicant denied a position on account of race. The Moore plaintiffs worked at over ten different Morgan Stanley offices across the country for a number of different managers, but all were subjected to the same systemic race discrimination by Morgan Stanley. “Jaffe, et al. v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc.” 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 NEWFIELD EXPLORATION: Okla. Court Approves Royalties Suit Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- A court in Beaver County, Oklahoma has approved a proposed settlement of a class action over royalty payments that was filed against a subsidiary of Newfield Exploration Co. In December 2002, a lawsuit against the company's Mid-Continent subsidiary was filed in Beaver County, Oklahoma and was later certified as a class action. The complaint alleges that the company improperly reduced royalty payments for certain expenses and charges, and also claims breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duties, among other claims. In April 2007, the company entered into a non-binding settlement agreement that has recently received court approval, according to the company's Oct. 29, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Newfield Exploration Co. -- http://www.newfld.com/-- is an independent oil and gas company engaged in the exploration, development and acquisition of crude oil and natural gas properties. POTLATCH CORP: Pa. Court Certifies Classes in OSB Antitrust Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania certified classes in two Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaints captioned, “In Re OSB Antitrust Litigation,” which names Potlatch Corp. as a defendant. Beginning in March 2006, a series of private antitrust lawsuits were filed against the company and certain other manufacturers of oriented strand board (OSB) by plaintiffs who claim they purchased OSB at artificially high prices. The cases generally have been consolidated into two Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the caption, “In Re OSB Antitrust Litigation,” one on behalf of direct purchasers of OSB and the other on behalf of indirect purchasers. The complaints allege that the defendant OSB manufacturers violated federal and state antitrust laws by purportedly conspiring from mid-2002 to the present to drive up the price of OSB. The indirect purchaser complaints also allege that defendants violated various states’ unfair competition laws and common law. Each consolidated complaint seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages to be trebled as provided under the antitrust laws and other relief. In August 2007, the court ordered that the cases may proceed as class actions. The court certified a nationwide class of direct purchasers who bought OSB structural panel products directly from one of the defendants during the period from June 1, 2002 to the present. It also certified a nationwide class of indirect purchaser end users who purchased new OSB manufactured or sold by one of the defendants during the same time period; this class excludes persons who bought OSB that was incorporated into a house or other structure. The claims of the nationwide indirect purchaser class are limited to injunctive relief. However, the court also certified a multistate class of indirect purchasers in eleven states whose members may recover compensation as allowed by state law. The court refused to certify the claims of indirect purchaser plaintiffs from six other states for class action treatment. However, the court allowed plaintiffs to designate substitute class representatives from those states, and discovery is underway to determine whether they may represent state indirect purchaser classes. Plaintiffs’ expert in the direct purchaser case has estimated total damages of $1.952 billion, before trebling. Indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ expert estimates the damages for all seventeen indirect purchaser states in the range of $186 to $213 million, before trebling. The suit is "In Re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 06- CV-00826 (PSD)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Paul S. Diamond. Representing the plaintiffs are: Mary Kay Christodoulou, Esq. David L. Comerford, Esq. Edward F. Mannino, Esq. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP One Commerce Square, 2005 Market St., Suite 2200, Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-965-1200 E-mail: mchristodoulou@akingump.com Representing the defendants are: William P. Butterfield, Esq. Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-408-4600 E-mail: wbutterfield@cmht.com - and - Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. Spector Roseman and Kodroff 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-496-0300 E-mail: jcorrigan@srk-law.com RADIOSHACK CORP: Tex. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed two securities fraud class actions filed against RadioShack Corp. and certain of its former and current directors and officers. The suits, filed on March 16, 2007, and March 27, 2007, respectively, are: -- "Damore v. RadioShack et al.," and -- "Hawana v. RadioShack et al." These actions purport to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased RadioShack's common stock between Jan. 14, 2003, and June 7, 2006. The complaints allege, among other things, that the company failed to disclose material adverse facts about its financial well-being, business relationships, and prospects. The complaints seek, among other things, a declaration that the actions are a proper class action, as well as awards for damages and interest, reasonable costs and expenses (including attorneys' and experts' fees). The suit suits were dismissed without prejudice on May 23, 2007, and May 22, 2007, respectively, according to the company's Oct. 26, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The first identified complaint is "Richard Damore, et al. v. RadioShack Corporation, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Plaintiff firms in this or similar case: Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA, 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 Fax: 619-231-7423 - and - Provost & Umphrey Law Firm, LLP 3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: 214-744-3000 Fax: 214-744-3015 E-mail: info@provostumphrey.com RADIOSHACK CORP: Ill. Court Approves $8.8M FLSA Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted final approval to an $8.8 million settlement of a purported class action filed against Radioshack Corp. over allegations that the company misclassified certain RadioShack store managers as exempt from overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act or similar state laws. The suit is "Alphonse L. Perez, et al. v. RadioShack Corp.," filed on Oct. 31, 2002. The company has reached a class-wide settlement with counsel for the Perez plaintiffs and four other wage-hour lawsuits pending against it. This global settlement resulted in a maximum payment by us of approximately $8.8 million, in the aggregate, to resolve all of these pending lawsuits, which we recorded in the second and third quarters of 2006. The respective courts have granted final approval of the settlement, according to the company's Oct. 26, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is "Perez, et al. v. RadioShack Corp., Case No. 02 C 7884," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer. Representing the plaintiffs are: Timothy J. Touhy, Esq. Daniel K. Touhy, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Touhy & Touhy, Ltd. 161 North Clark Street, Suite 2210 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Phone: (877) 372-2209 Fax: (312) 456-3838 E-mail: lawyers@touhylaw.com Web site: http://www.radioshackclassaction.com - and - Peter M. Callahan, Esq. Robert W. Thompson, Esq. Lee A. Sherman, Esq. Callahan, McCune & Willis 111 Fashion Lane Tustin, California 92780 Phone: (714) 730-5700 Fax: (714) 730-1642 E-mail: classaction@cmwlaw.net Representing the company are: Edward W. Bergmann, Esq. Justin M. Crawford, Esq. Brian J. Hipp, Esq. Seyfarth Shaw 55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Phone: (312) 346-8000 Fax: (312) 269-8869 - and - Robert S. Brewer, Jr., Esq. Ross H. Hyslop, Esq., Robert A. Cocchia, Esq. McKenna, Long & Aldridge, LLP 750 B Street, Suite 3300 San Diego, California 92101 Phone: (619) 595-5400 Fax: (619) 595-5450 E-mail: rsattorneys@mckennalong.com STAPLES INC: Settles California Wage, Hour Lawsuit for $38M ----------------------------------------------------------- Staples, Inc. (Nasdaq: SPLS) reached a settlement in a wage and hour class action concerning the alleged misclassification of its California-based assistant store managers. The settlement of $38 million, which is subject to court approval, resolves the allegations and allows Staples to avoid further expense and distraction from litigation that has been ongoing for the past eight years. The company first reported this litigation in its Form 10-Q filing on May 20, 2003 and subsequently reported claims for up to $150 million. The settlement amount includes interest and class counsel's attorney fees. Settlement documentation is expected to be filed with the Court on November 7, 2007. Staples believes that its store labor model, which is based on a commitment to fair and respectful treatment of its associates, is fully compliant with applicable California law. Staples admits no wrongdoing in connection with the allegations, which claim that assistant store managers in California were misclassified as exempt from overtime pay. The settlement amount resolves claims for damages spanning a twelve-year period made by attorneys representing a class of more than 1,700 current and former associates. About Staples Staples, Inc. -- http://www.staples.com-- invented the office superstore concept in 1986 and today is the world's largest office products company. With 74,000 talented associates, the company is committed to making it easy to buy a wide range of office products, including supplies, technology, furniture, and business services. With 2006 sales of $18.2 billion, Staples serves consumers and businesses ranging from home-based businesses to Fortune 500 companies in 22 countries throughout North and South America, Europe and Asia. Headquartered outside of Boston, Staples operates more than 1,900 office superstores and also serves its customers through mail order catalog, e- commerce and contract businesses. STATE STREET: Sued Over Mishandling of Retirement Accounts ---------------------------------------------------------- The law firms Keller Rohrback L.L.P. and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman announce the filing of a class action against State Street Bank & Trust Company and State Street Global Advisors. The Plaintiff, The Companies Employee Savings and Profit Sharing Plan, seeks to recover the losses State Street caused to Plaintiff, and to ERISA retirement plans throughout the country by investing purportedly conservative, risk-averse bond funds in high risk mortgage backed securities and exotic financial instruments. Certain bond funds managed by State Street increased their holdings of mortgage-backed securities from just 8% in September 2006 to 25% in March 2007, despite the fact that the indices those funds were supposed to track are comprised 60% of Government bonds, with the remainder comprised largely of Corporate bonds. In addition, State Street highly leveraged those investments by purchasing mortgage-backed securities using borrowed money, thus compounding the risk to investors. As a result of those imprudent investments, bond funds managed by State Street -- which were supposed to track a well-defined index of investment- grade U.S. Government and Corporate bonds -- lost up to 40% of their value when the market for mortgage-backed securities collapsed in August 2007. As the Investment Manager for the bond funds, the action seeks to hold State Street liable under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 for the losses caused by its imprudent management of those funds. The complaint filed by Keller Rohrback and Bernstein Litowitz asserts that State Street breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA, and seeks to recover losses to ERISA plans caused by State Street's actions. The claim is asserted on behalf of all ERISA plans, and the participants therein, that were invested in bond funds managed by State Street between January and October 2007. For more information, contact: Derek W. Loeser Keller Rohrback L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 10019 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel: 206-623-1900 Email: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com Website: http://www.kellerrohrback.com - and - Gerald H. Silk Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York Tel: 212-554-1400 Email: jerry@blbglaw.com Website: http://www.blbglaw.com * Edwards Angell to Merge with U.K.'s Kendall Freeman ----------------------------------------------------- U.S. law firm Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge (EAPD) and Kendall Freeman of London announced a plan to merge effective January 1, 2008. In a press release, Edwards Angell said the merger will significantly enhance the capabilities of the firms' insurance and reinsurance practices and offers synergies in their commercial litigation and corporate practices by providing an international platform to serve clients on both sides of the Atlantic. The combined firm will have more than 600 attorneys and solicitors practicing in 11 offices. "This is a fantastic opportunity that will add value to many of the services our firms provide to clients in the financial services sector, in particular in the insurance and reinsurance industries," said Terrence M. Finn, Co-Managing Partner of EAPD. "This merger fits within the firm's overall plan, and is a natural step in the continued development of the firm's international footprint," he added. Both EAPD and Kendall Freeman are internationally recognized, particularly in the United States, Europe, Bermuda and Hong Kong, for their work in the insurance and reinsurance industry. Uniting the two legal teams will enable both firms to enhance their service to this industry and will provide a competitive advantage. EAPD Partner, Alan J. Levin and Kendall Freeman Senior Partner, David Kendall, will chair the firm's 100- attorney Insurance & Reinsurance Department. "We are very excited about this merger," said David Kendall. "This combination will give our clients an unparalleled depth and breadth of experience in the global insurance market. EAPD has a highly regarded insurance and reinsurance practice with strengths in coverage, reinsurance, regulatory and corporate law that is supported by a strong corporate and securities practice. In addition, the combined experience and expertise of the merged firm's litigation department will provide a powerful global dispute resolution practice." "Since we started talking about a merger, we have all been struck by how similar our approaches and cultures are," said Laurence Harris, Managing Partner of Kendall Freeman. "Over the years our size and specialisms have made us a natural target for other firms to talk to. None were as good a business fit as EAPD; none offered the opportunity to build leading international insurance and reinsurance practices and first class international litigation and corporate practices. EAPD is a firm where we can maintain the valued culture of collegiality and support that we have in London. We are very excited about the merger and about the international capability it offers our clients." Terrence Finn and Charles E. DeWitt will continue to serve as Co-Managing Partners of Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge. Laurence Harris will serve as Partner-in-Charge of the firm's London office and will join EAPD's Executive Committee along with David Kendall. About the Firms Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP offers a full array of legal services to clients worldwide with offices in Boston, MA; New York City, NY; Providence, RI; Hartford and Stamford, CT; Madison, NJ; Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, FL; Washington, DC; and Wilmington, DE. EAPD's mission is to create value by providing superior legal advice and business counsel to protect and advance the interests of its clients. For additional information visit http://www.eapdlaw.com/. Kendall Freeman is a London-based law firm focused on handling high value and complex transactions and disputes for clients in the insurance and reinsurance markets, banks, corporations and the public sector. http://www.kendallfreeman.com/. * Corporate Europe Believes Class Actions Will Increase in U.K. --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.K. is the most fertile ground in Europe for class actions, according to “Collective Litigation in Europe: a survey,” sponsored by Bryan Cave LLP, carried out by the Economist Intelligence Unit. Fifty-nine per cent of the potential corporate defendants surveyed in Europe expect collective litigation (also known as class actions) to emerge in the U.K. within the next three years. More than 240 company executives and lawyers were surveyed in September to examine the actual -- and expected -- rise in class actions in Europe, and to discover what steps businesses were taking. “We know there is a growing appetite among European consumers for redress,” said Mr. Bryan Cave partner Lawrence Scarborough. “What we didn't know is whether corporate Europe is aware of this significant shift and how it might affect their operations. The results of this research paint a sobering picture for European companies, especially in the UK.” In the U.K., the Office of Fair Trading has made it clear that class actions should be more broadly available and the National Association of Pension Funds has publicly encouraged its members to pursue class action claims. Mr. Scarborough said, “Businesses that have not examined their contingency plans for such legal action could be placing themselves at great risk, especially as plaintiffs' lawyers are getting better at deploying evidence across jurisdictions.” Nearly half (49%) of respondents expect courts in their countries to expand access for individuals acting collectively within the next three years, with the main impetus coming from consumer groups. Nearly 59% of respondents expect consumer goods companies to be targeted, followed by the pharmaceuticals (50%) and financial services (42%) industries. Litigation is expected to arise from product liability (67%), cartel and price-fixing (38%) and shareholder rights disputes (28%). Europeans are far from eager to adopt US class action procedures, and reject many features of the American system. However, 60% of respondents expect that legal fees will become linked in some way to the outcome of cases in Europe, and 43% expect to see the introduction of contingency fees for lawyers as a percentage of court judgments. More than 87% of respondents expect court awards in European class-action cases to be lower than those in the U.S. To reduce the potential risk of litigation, some European companies are already taking such steps as implementing systems to monitor customer complaints (38%), training employers in changing safety rules and directives (36%), seeking early settlement of cases that could escalate (33%), ensuring that insurance policies cover collective claims (29%), implementing corporate early-warning systems (26%) and keeping detailed records on product development and testing (25%). New Securities Fraud Cases CBRE REALY: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Conn. ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C. filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of CBRE Realty Finance, Inc. (NYSE:CBF) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering on or about September 29, 2006 through August 6, 2007. The Complaint charges that CBRE, a commercial real estate specialty finance company, and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. On or about September 26, 2006, CBRE filed with the SEC a Form S-11/A Registration Statement, for the IPO. On or about September 29, 2006, the Prospectus with respect to the IPO, which forms part of the Registration Statement, became effective. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus failed to disclose that at the time of the IPO more than $20 million in loans on the company's books were impaired and should have been written down but were not. On August 6, 2007, CBRE issued a press release announcing its financial results for the second quarter of 2007, the period ending June 30, 2007. The Company reported that it was taking a $7.8 million impairment charge due to a write-down on a foreclosed asset. On this news, the price of CBRE stock declined to $4.25 per share, 70% lower than the IPO price of $14.50. Lead plaintiff filing deadline is December 31, 2007. For more information, contact: Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Schatz Nobel Izard P.C. Phone: (800) 797-5499 E-mail: firm@snilaw.com Web site: http://www.snilaw.com COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Entwistle, Susman File Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Entwistle & Cappucci LLP and Susman Godfrey LLP filed a class action complaint for violations of the federal securities laws and California state law against Countrywide Financial Corp. (NYSE:CFC), Angelo R. Mozilo, David Sambol and Eric P. Sieracki in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Countrywide Financial Corporation Series A Floating Rate Convertible Senior Debentures Due 2037 (the Series A Debentures) and/or Countrywide Financial Corporation Series B Floating Rate Convertible Senior Debentures Due 2037 (the Series B Debentures) (collectively, the Debentures) from May 17, 2007 through and including August 9, 2007. No class has yet been certified in this action. The complaint alleges that the Defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts concerning the Company’s lending practices and internal controls. In this regard, Countrywide allegedly misrepresented its position in the mortgage market by stating that the current downcycle in the housing market would actually place the Company in a “superior competitive position” based on the strength of its “capital liquidity positions, superior business model, and best in class workforce.” The complaint further alleges that the Defendants falsely assured investors that Countrywide employed exacting loan underwriting and origination practices to ensure creditworthiness of loan applicants; implemented internal controls to anticipate appropriate loan loss reserves for any negative changes in the credit and housing markets; and maintained actual reserves to adequately meet such market downturns. Moreover, the complaint alleges that the Company’s statements were materially false and misleading because Defendants, in fact: (i) did not follow Countrywide’s reportedly strict underwriting and loan-origination practices; (ii) made a material portion of the Company’s loans with little, if any, supporting documentation, such that Countrywide had no way of confirming the creditworthiness of many loan applicants; (iii) mischaracterized “low documentation” and “no documentation” loans as “prime loans;” (iv) failed to maintain adequate loan loss reserves; and (v) improperly attributed the Company’s growth to sound risk management programs, rather than the Company’s aggressive and risky loan origination practices. Thus, Countrywide’s actual lending practices and internal controls differed materially from the description of those practices in the Company’s Securities and Exchange Commission filings, press releases and other public statements. The Defendants’ fraudulent statements and omissions concealed the Company’s deteriorating financial condition as a result of increased delinquencies and defaults on subprime loans, and allowed the Defendants to artificially inflate the price of its Debentures. Accordingly, the complaint alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act as well as California state law. Beginning on July 24, 2007, investors began to learn the truth about Countrywide’s actual financial condition through a series of partial disclosures. Specifically, on July 24, 2007, Countrywide reported that as a result of “softening home prices . . . and [rising] delinquencies and defaults,” the Company was taking a $417 million impairment on its investments in “credit- sensitive retained interest. . . . attributable to accelerated increases in delinquency levels and increases in the estimates of future defaults and loss severities on the underlying loans.” In addition, Countrywide reported that the Company took a $181 million charge to its loan loss reserves in its “held-for- investment” portfolio as a result of increased loan defaults in the prime market, setting aside in total $292.9 million for loan losses for the quarter, compared to $61.9 million a year earlier. As a result of these disclosures, the Series A Debentures fell $1.06 per debenture, or 1.10%, to close at $95.31 per debenture on July 24, 2007. The Series B Debentures fell $1.07 per debenture, or 1.11%, to close at $95.31 per debenture on July 24, 2007. On August 9, 2007, Countrywide issued an additional press release disclosing the Company’s potential-short-term liquidity issues, directly contradicting the Company’s earlier assurances. Specifically, the Company warned of disruptions in the debt and secondary mortgage market that would likely affect the Company’s short-term financial condition and earnings. Upon this disclosure, the Series A Debentures fell another $1.37 per debenture, or 1.48%, to close at $91.00 per debenture on August 10, 2007. The Series A Debentures continued to decline steadily to close at $84.81 per debenture on August 15, 2007, just one week after the August 9, 2007 disclosure, representing a total drop that week of $7.56 per debenture, or 8.18%. The Series B Debentures fell another $0.98 per debenture, or 1.08%, to close at $90.02 per debenture on August 10, 2007. The Series B Debentures continued to decline steadily to close at $81.94 per debenture on August 16, 2007, just one week after the August 9, 2007 disclosure, representing a total drop that week of $9.06 per debenture, or 9.96%. In connection with the Company’s recent corrective disclosures, on October 17, 2007, The Wall Street Journal reported that the SEC has commenced an inquiry into millions of dollars in stock sales by Defendant Mozilo, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer. In particular, the SEC is investigating the timing of such sales by Mozilo and changes Mozilo made to his arranged stock selling program. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members and is represented by the law firms of Entwistle & Cappucci and Susman Godfrey, which have significant experience in both prosecuting and defending complex business, securities and antitrust actions. The attorneys at Entwistle & Cappucci and Susman Godfrey have personally handled numerous private as well as class action cases resulting in highly significant recoveries to defrauded investors. Entwistle & Cappucci currently serves as Lead Counsel and/or as a member of Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in many high profile securities class actions currently pending throughout the country. Entwistle & Cappucci’s work in representing financial institutions, venture capital and asset management funds in a variety of complex commercial disputes and transactions, further positions it to bring a unique perspective to the prosecution of complex litigation. Lead plaintiff filing deadline is December 31, 2007. For more information, contact: Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq. Entwistle & Cappucci LLP 280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West New York, New York 10017 Phone: (212) 894-7200 Fax: (212) 894-7272 E-mail: rcappucci@entwistle-law.com Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. Susman Godfrey LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 Los Angeles, California 90067-6029 Phone: (310) 789-3100 Fax: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com ISILON SYSTEMS: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of purchasers of Isilon Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:ISLN) common stock during the period between December 14, 2006 and October 3, 2007, and on behalf of all persons or entities who acquired the common stock of Isilon pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with its December 14, 2006 initial public offering. The complaint charges Isilon and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. Isilon is a provider of clustered storage systems for digital content. The complaint alleges that on December 14, 2006, Isilon completed its IPO of 8.9 million shares at $13.00 per share (including 590,717 shares sold as part of an over-allotment) for net proceeds of approximately $105.7 million, pursuant to the Registration Statement. The Registration Statement failed to disclose the truth about Isilon’s business operations, finances, business metrics, and future business and financial prospects. Due to defendants’ positive, but false statements in the Registration Statement, Isilon’s stock immediately soared – its shares closing up over 77% on its first day of trading in the best debut of a technology IPO in more than six years. Isilon’s stock continued to climb, closing as high as $27.37 per share on December 29, 2006. Then on October 3, 2007, after the market closed, Isilon announced disappointing preliminary results for its third quarter 2007. On this news, Isilon’s stock price collapsed from $7 per share on October 3, 2007 to close at $5.66 per share on October 4, 2007 – a decline of over 19% on volume of 3 million shares (over five times the average previous trading volume for the stock). This closing price represented an all-time trading low for Isilon. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were omitted from the Registration Statement or were known by certain of the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were: (a) the Company was not on track, nor would it be able, to reach profitability by the second half of 2007; (b) the Company’s clustered storage solutions did not provide a competitively differentiated business model which would enable the Company to effectively compete against the dominant players in the traditional storage market; (c) the Company’s past results were not indicative of its future operations, including the amount of revenue it derived from its large customers, such as the Eastman Kodak Company, the Company’s ability to continue to sustain quarter over quarter revenue growth, and its ability to manage its cost structure; and (d) despite being able to grow and significantly diversify its overall customer base, the Company would remain highly dependent upon Kodak. Given that the clustered network attached storage market in which the Company operates is a highly competitive, high-growth emerging market, the Company had no reasonable basis to make projections about its 2007 results. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Isilon common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. Lead plaintiff filing deadline is 60 days from Nov. 1. For more information, contact: Darren Robbins, Esq. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 E-mail: djr@csgrr.com WSB FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm announced that a class action for violations of the federal securities laws has been filed on behalf of purchasers of the WSB Financial Group, Inc. (Nasdaq:WSFG) stock from the date of the Company's Initial Public Offering on December 14, 2006 to October 23, 2007. The complaint charges that WSB, certain officers, directors and the Company's underwriter violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively the "Registration Statement") in connection with the Company's IPO. In particular, the Complaint asserts that WSB's Registration Statement was inaccurate because it failed to reveal that the Company had been violating certain banking laws and regulations relating to the origination, administration and monitoring of mortgage and construction loans. The Complaint asserts that when the market learned of this adverse information, the price of WSB's stock declined dramatically. Interested parties may move the court no later than December 31, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. Phone: (212) 686-1060 Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425 Toll Free: 1-866--767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com Website: http://www.rosenlegal.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 * * *