/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/071107.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, November 7, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 221
Headlines
3M CO: Nov. 28 Certification Hearing Set for Minn. Age Bias Suit
3M CO: N.J. Age Discrimination Case Plaintiffs Amend Complaint
ALLSTATE CORP: Settles Lawsuit Over “Inherent Diminished Value”
CADENCE DESIGN: Still Faces Tech Workers' Overtime Suit in Cal.
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Nov. Hearing Set for Securities Suit in N.Y.
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Lakin Firm Requests Documents in PPO Suit
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Consumer Suit Settlement Yet to Get Court Ok
EVANS & TATE: Shareholders File Suit Against Failed Wine Maker
EXELON CORP: Dismissal of ERISA Violation Suit Under Appeal
EXELON CORP: Ill. Court Stays Proceedings in Savings Plan Suit
EXELON GENERATION: Still Faces Ill. Procurement Auction Lawsuit
FLORIDA: Court Finds Opa-locka's Water Bill Penalties Improper
GMH COMMUNITIES: Settles Shareholders, Unitholders Lawsuits
GRENVILE CHRISTIAN: Former Students File $1B Harassment Suit
ILLINOIS: Lawsuit Planned Over Ticketing of High School Students
INDIANA: Seeks to Dismiss Lawsuit Over Property Tax System
NOBEL PRODUCTION: Settles Col. Royalties Lawsuit for $27.5M
NORTH DAKOTA: High Court Hears Suit Over Fargo Traffic Tickets
NURSING HOMES: 15 Calif. Facilities Claim False Advertising
SHELBY GRAVEL: Settles Concrete Price Fixing Lawsuit for $5M
TENNESSEE: Medicaid Agency Ordered to Prove Program Compliance
TIRKOVOT BROMIDE: Faces $469M Suit Over Poisonous Gas Release
TRAVELERS COS: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Junk Securities Suit
TRAVELERS COS: No Rehearing for La. Hurricane Katrina Lawsuit
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
New Securities Fraud Cases
BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: David Chase Files Securities Fraud Suit
INLAND WESTERN: Chimicle & Tikellis Files Securities Fraud Suit
LDK SOLAR: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
MERRILL LYNCH: Chitwood Harley Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
OFFICE DEPOT: Saxena White Files Fla. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Wolf Popper Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
*********
3M CO: Nov. 28 Certification Hearing Set for Minn. Age Bias Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 28, 2007 class certification hearing is scheduled for an
age discrimination class action that was filed in the District
Court of Ramsey County in Minnesota against 3M Co.
On December 2004, a current and a former employee of the company
filed a purported class action, seeking to represent a class of
all current and certain former salaried employees employed by 3M
Co. in Minnesota below a certain salary grade who were age 46 or
older at any time during the applicable period to be determined
by the court.
The plaintiffs in the case are Clifford Whitaker, 60, and
Michael Mucci, 55. According to the lawsuit, since at least
2001, the company acted "to elevate younger employees to the
company's leadership and to remove employees over the age of 45
-- perceived as less able or willing to accept and apply new
business methodologies adopted by the company."
It also alleges that the company disproportionately selects
younger employees for a leadership-training program called "Six
Sigma."
The complaint alleges the plaintiffs suffered various forms of
employment discrimination on the basis of age in violation of
the Minnesota Human Rights Act and seeks injunctive relief,
unspecified compensatory damages (which they seek to treble
under the statute), including back and front pay, punitive
damages (limited by statute to $8,500 per claimant) and
attorneys’ fees.
In January 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to join four
additional named plaintiffs. This motion was unopposed by the
Company and the four plaintiffs were joined in the case,
although one claim has been dismissed following an individual
settlement.
The class certification hearing is scheduled for Nov. 28, 2007.
3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com-- is a diversified technology
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.
3M CO: N.J. Age Discrimination Case Plaintiffs Amend Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in an age discrimination lawsuit pending against 3M
Co. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
have amended their complaint and dropped the original class
action allegations in the matter.
In November 2005, a purported age discrimination class action
was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of Essex
County, New Jersey, on behalf of a class of New Jersey-based
employees of the Company.
The Company removed this case to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.
On June 29, 2007, the attorneys for the plaintiff amended their
complaint and dropped the class action allegations.
3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com-- is a diversified technology
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.
ALLSTATE CORP: Settles Lawsuit Over “Inherent Diminished Value”
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp. reached a tentative settlement in a purported
class action in Washington state court involving uninsured
motorist property damage coverage, according to the company's
Oct. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
2007
A 19-state certified class action was filed against Allstate in
Washington state court alleging that its failure to pay
“inherent diminished value” to insureds under the uninsured
motorist property damage liability provisions of auto policies
constitutes breach of contract and fraud.
Plaintiffs define “inherent diminished value” as the difference
between the market value of the insured automobile before an
accident and the market value after repair.
Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to the payment of
inherent diminished value under the terms of the policy.
This lawsuit is similar to others filed against other carriers
in the industry.
A settlement of the class action for an amount that is not
material has been preliminarily approved by the court.
Class members in 16 of the 19 states will be invited to
participate in the settlement, but the entire case will be
dismissed as a result of the settlement.
The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co. Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company,
Allstate Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively,
including Allstate Corp., Allstate). Allstate is primarily
engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business
and the life insurance, retirement and investment products
business. It conducts its business primarily in the United
States.
CADENCE DESIGN: Still Faces Tech Workers' Overtime Suit in Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cadence Design Systems, Inc. continues to face a purported
nationwide class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California that accuses the company of
failing to pay overtime wages in violation of federal and state
labor laws.
On May 30, 2007, Ahmed Higazi, a former Cadence employee, filed
a lawsuit against Cadence in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging that Cadence improperly
classified him as exempt from overtime pay.
The suit was filed by attorneys from Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP and Altshuler Berzon LLP on behalf of current and
former Cadence Systems Engineers (Class Action Reporter, June 1,
2007).
Plaintiff Ahmed Higazi, a 45-year-old Pleasanton resident, was a
technical support worker for Cadence in its San Jose
headquarters for 5 years. He was responsible for installing,
maintaining, and supporting computer software and hardware for
the company.
The complaint charges that Cadence unlawfully characterizes its
employees who install, maintain, and support computer software
and hardware as exempt from certain federal and California labor
law compensation requirements in order to deprive them of
overtime pay.
The proposed class consists of current and former Cadence
Systems Engineers, who were wrongly classified by the company as
exempt from the overtime provisions of wage and hour laws.
The suit alleges claims for unpaid overtime under the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act and California law, waiting time
penalties under the California Labor Code, failure to provide
proper earnings statements under California law, failure to
provide meal and rest breaks as required by California law,
unfair business practices under California Business &
Professions Code section 17200, and unpaid 401(k) contributions
in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or
ERISA.
Cadence filed an Answer denying the material allegations of the
complaint and raising a number of affirmative defenses.
The lawsuit is asking the federal court to issue an injunction
requiring Cadence to provide overtime pay to eligible employees
as well as compensation and damages to all current and former
employees who were denied overtime both in California and
elsewhere.
The company reported no development in the case at its Oct. 29,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 29, 2007.
The suit is “Higazi v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Case No.
5:07-cv-02813-JW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge James Ware.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Phone: 1-800-541-7358 and 415-956-1000
Fax: 415-956-1008
E-mail: kdermody@lchb.com
Web site: http://www.lieffcabraser.com
- and -
Eve Hedy Cervantez, Esq.
Altshuler Berzon LLP
177 Post Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone: (415) 421-7151
Fax: 415-362-8064
E-mail: ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com
Representing the defendants is:
Molly A. Harcos, Esq.
Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP
55 Second Street, Twenty-Fourth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-3441
Phone: (415) 856-7043
Fax: (415) 856-7100
E-mail: mollyharcos@paulhastings.com
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Nov. Hearing Set for Securities Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 13-14, 2007 hearing is set to resolve factual issues
regarding the typicality and adequacy of the proposed class
representatives in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit filed
against Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. and its officers in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
A shareholder class action was filed on Feb. 17, 2006 against
the company, Gerald M. Glenn, Robert B. Jordan, and Richard E.
Goodrich in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York entitled, “Welmon v. Chicago Bridge & Iron
Co. NV, et al. (No. 06 CV 1283).”
The complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired our
securities from March 9, 2005 through Feb. 3, 2006 and were
damaged thereby.
The action asserts claims under the U.S. securities laws in
connection with various public statements made by the defendants
during the class period and alleges, among other things, that
the company misapplied percentage-of-completion accounting and
did not follow its publicly stated revenue recognition policies.
Since the initial lawsuit, other suits containing substantially
similar allegations and with similar, but not exactly the same,
class periods were filed.
On July 5, 2006, a single Consolidated Amended Complaint was
filed in the Welmon action in the Southern District of New York
consolidating all previously filed actions.
The company and the individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Complaint, which was denied by the Court.
On March 2, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and the company and the individual defendants
filed an opposition to class certification on April 2, 2007.
After an initial hearing on the motion for class certification
held on May 29, 2007, the Court scheduled another hearing to be
held on Nov. 13-14, 2007, to resolve factual issues regarding
the typicality and adequacy of the proposed class
representatives. The parties have agreed to a rescheduling of
the hearing to a later date.
The suit is "Wayne Welmon, et al. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co.
NV, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01283-JES," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
John E. Sprizzo.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Catherine A. Torell, Esq.
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
150 East 52nd Street
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-838-7797
Fax: 212-838-7745
E-mail: ctorell@cmht.com
Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: 631-367-7100
Fax: 631-367-1173
E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com
Arthur N. Abbey, Esq.
Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP
212 East 39th Street
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 889-3700
Fax: (212) 684-5191
E-mail: aabbey@abbeygardy.com
- and -
Eric James Belfi, Esq.
Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP
275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801
New York, NY 10016
Phone: 212-907-0878
Fax: 212-818-0477
E-mail: ebelfi@labaton.com
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Lakin Firm Requests Documents in PPO Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder has taken under
advisement a motion by the Lakin Law Firm requesting that
Cincinnati Insurance produce documents dating at least more
than a decade ago with the words "silent PPO" in it, the Madison
St. Clair Record reports.
Dennis Barton of the Lakin Law Firm represents chiropractor
Frank Bemis who claims Cincinnati runs a secret scheme to reduce
payouts on medical bills through preferred provider
organizations.
At a Sept. 27, hearing Mr. Barton asked for at least 17 years of
records in all lines of business across 35 states in addition to
every email and other documents with the letters PPO.
The complaint claims Cincinnati improperly applied PPO
discounts, withheld payment for valid insurance claims and
unfairly profited by their schemes. It alleges violations of
the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, unjust enrichment and civil
conspiracy.
Mr. Bemis seeks a judgment in damages not to exceed $75,000,
plus all costs, and further compensation as the Court sees fit.
The insurer denies wrongdoing and says it doesn't know what
silent PPO means, according to the report.
The case is “Frank C. Bemis & Associates, et al. v. The
Cincinnati Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 05 L 178.”
Representing Mr. Bemis is:
Dennis J. Barton, III, Esq.
The Lakin Law Firm, P.C.
300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229
Wood River, Illinois 62095-0229
(Madison Co.)
Phone: 618-254-1127
Telecopier: 618-254-0193
Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com
Representing Cincinnati Insurance is:
Daniel G. Litchfield, Esq.
Litchfield Cavo LLP
Suite 300
303 West Madison Street
Chicago, Illinois 60606-3300
(Cook Co.)
Phone: 312-781-6669
Fax: 312-781-6630
Web site: http://www.litchfieldcavo.com
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Consumer Suit Settlement Yet to Get Court Ok
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri has yet to give
final approval to a proposed $12.5 million settlement of the
consumer class action, “Marvin Fielder, et al. v. Credit
Acceptance Corp.”
The class action was commenced on Oct. 15, 1996 in the Circuit
Court of Jackson County, Missouri and removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
The complaint seeks unspecified money damages for alleged
violations of a number of state and federal consumer protection
laws.
On Oct. 9, 1997, the District Court certified two classes on the
claims brought against the Company, one relating to alleged
overcharges of official fees, the other relating to alleged
overcharges of post-maturity interest and a subclass relating to
allegedly inadequate repossession notices.
On Aug. 4, 1998, the District Court granted partial summary
judgment on liability in favor of the plaintiffs on the interest
overcharge claims based upon the District Court's finding of
certain violations but denied summary judgment on certain other
claims.
The District Court also entered a number of permanent
injunctions, which among other things restrained the Company
from collecting on certain class accounts.
The Court also ruled in favor of the Company on certain claims
raised by class plaintiffs.
Because the entry of an injunction is immediately appealable,
the Company appealed the summary judgment order to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Oral argument on the appeals was heard on April 19, 1999. On
Sept. 1, 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
overturned the Aug. 4, 1998 partial summary judgment order and
injunctions against the Company.
The Court of Appeals held that the District Court lacked
jurisdiction over the interest overcharge claims and directed
the District Court to sever those claims and remand them to
state court.
On Feb. 18, 2000, the District Court entered an order remanding
the post-maturity interest class to the Circuit Court of Jackson
County, Missouri while retaining jurisdiction on the official
fee class.
The Company then filed a motion requesting that the District
Court reconsider that portion of its order of Aug. 4, 1998, in
which the District Court had denied the Company's motion for
summary judgment on the federal Truth-In-Lending Act (TILA)
claim.
On May 26, 2000, the District Court entered summary judgment in
favor of the Company on the TILA claim and directed the Clerk of
the Court to remand the remaining state law official fee claims
to the appropriate state court.
On July 18, 2002, the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
granted plaintiffs leave to file a fourth amended petition,
which was filed on Oct. 28, 2002.
Instead of a subclass of Class 2, that petition alleges a new,
expanded Class 3 relating to allegedly inadequate repossession
notices.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's fourth
amended complaint on Nov. 4, 2002. On Nov. 18, 2002, the
Company filed a memorandum urging the decertification of the
classes.
On Feb. 21, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a brief opposing the
Company's Nov. 4, 2002 motion to dismiss the case.
On May 19, 2004, the Circuit Court released an order, dated Jan.
9, 2004, that denied the Company's motion to dismiss.
On Nov. 16, 2005 the Circuit Court issued an order that, among
other things, adopted the District Court's order certifying
classes.
By adopting the District Court's order, the Circuit Court's
order certified only the two original classes and did not
certify the new, expanded Class 3.
On Jan. 13, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion entitled Plaintiffs'
Motion to Adjust Class 2 Definition to Correspond with
Allegations of Their Fourth Amended Complaint which requested
that the "repossession subclass" be deleted from Class 2 and a
new Class 3 be adopted.
The Company filed a response arguing that the new, expanded
Class 3 is inappropriate for a number of reasons including the
expiration of the statute of limitations.
On May 23, 2006, the Circuit Court issued several orders,
including an order granting plaintiffs' motion and adding the
new Class 3.
On June 2, 2006 the Company filed for leave to appeal the
Circuit Court's decision to allow the expanded repossession
class as well as its Nov. 16, 2005 certification order.
The Court of Appeals denied the Company's request for leave to
appeal the Circuit Court's decision on Aug. 31, 2006.
Memorandum of Agreement
In October 2006, the Company and plaintiffs' counsel commenced
settlement discussions, agreeing to use a third party
facilitator in face to face discussions in November and December
2006.
These discussions led to the execution of a Feb. 9, 2007
Memorandum of Understanding whereby the parties agreed to settle
the lawsuit.
The Company, without any admission of liability, agreed to pay
$12.5 million in full and final settlement of all claims against
the Company.
The Court entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed
settlement on June 7, 2007. Hearings on the final settlement
were held on Sept. 7, 2007 and Oct. 12, 2007.
The Company expects that the Court will enter a final order
approving the settlement shortly, according to its Oct. 30, 2007
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007
Credit Acceptance Corp. -- http://www.creditacceptance.com-- is
a provider of auto loans to consumers, using a nationwide
network of automobile dealers who benefit from sales of vehicles
to consumers who otherwise could not obtain financing; from
repeat and referral sales generated by these same customers, and
from sales to customers responding to advertisements for the
Company's product, but who actually end up qualifying for
traditional financing.
EVANS & TATE: Shareholders File Suit Against Failed Wine Maker
--------------------------------------------------------------
Investors, who have lost more than $4 million in failed West
Australian wine maker Evans & Tate, have filed a class action
against its founder and former executive chairman, Franklin
Tate, Glenda Korporaal of The Australian reports.
On Aug. 21, 2007, Australia and New Zealand Bank, Evans & Tate's
largest creditor, appointed Voluntary Administrators (Martin
Jones and Bruce Carter of Ferrier Hodgson) and Receivers &
Managers (Peter Anderson, Shaun Fraser and Andrew Birch of
McGrathNicol) to Evans & Tate Ltd. and its subsidiaries.
The suit is being led by Sydney investor Tony Lewis, chief
executive of Lewis Securities Ltd. It accuses Mr. Tate of
issuing "materially misleading" statements to investors between
2003 ane early 2005 regarding the status of the company's
finances and its profit prospects.
The shareholders bought shares in the company for between 38c a
share and 95c a share between August 15, 2004, and September 12,
2005.
The suit also claims that the company failed to comply with its
continuous disclosure requirements because of Mr. Tate's
influence.
Mr. Tate was forced to resign as both chairman and chief
executive in July 2005, but remained a director of the company
until just before it was put into receivership in August. A
directions hearing against him will be heard in the Federal
Court in Sydney on Friday.
The purported class action is being handled by class action
specialist lawyer Maurice Blackburn.
Headquartered in Wembley, Western Australia, Evans & Tate
Limited -- http://www.etw.com.au/-- is an Australian wine
company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. The primary
businesses of the Evans & Tate Wine Group are the production,
marketing and distribution of a number of branded, exclusive
labeled and unbranded wines; contract winemaking; wine trading;
viticultural services; and wine tourism through its Visitor
Centers.
EXELON CORP: Dismissal of ERISA Violation Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action against The Exelon Corp.
Cash Balance Pension Plan are appealing the dismissal of the
case in its entirety.
On July 11, 2006, a former employee of Commonwealth Edison Co.
filed the purported class action in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The complaint alleges that the Plan, which covers certain
management employees of Exelon’s subsidiaries, calculates lump
sum distributions in a manner that does not comply with ERISA.
The plaintiff seeks compensatory relief from the Plan on behalf
of participants who received lump sum distributions since 2001
and injunctive relief with respect to future lump sum
distributions.
On Aug. 31, 2007, the District Court dismissed the lawsuit in
its entirety. The plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is
pending before the Court, according to Exelon Corp.'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 “Fry v. Exelon Corp. Cash Balance Pension Plan, Case
No. 1:06-cv-03723,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge William T. Hart.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
George A. Zelcs, Esq.
Korein Tillery
205 N. Michigan Plaza, Suite 1950
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 641-9750
E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
Representing the defendants is:
William F. Conlon, Esq.
Sidley Austin LLP
One South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 853-7000
E-mail: wconlon@sidley.com
EXELON CORP: Ill. Court Stays Proceedings in Savings Plan Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted a motion to stay a class action filed against Exelon
Corp. Employee Savings Plan, Plan #003.
On Sept. 11, 2006, five individuals claiming to be participants
in the Exelon Corp. Employee Savings Plan, Plan #003, filed a
putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.
The complaint names as defendants Exelon, its director of
Employee Benefit Plans and Programs, the Employee Savings Plan
Investment Committee, the Compensation and the Risk Oversight
Committees of Exelon's Board of Directors and members of those
committees.
The complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary
duties under Employee Retirement Income Security Act by, among
other things, permitting fees and expenses to be incurred by the
Savings Plan that allegedly were unreasonable and for purposes
other than to benefit the Savings Plan and participants, and
failing to disclose purported "revenue sharing" arrangements
among the Savings Plan's service providers.
The plaintiffs seek declaratory, equitable and monetary relief
on behalf of the Savings Plan and participants, including
alleged investment losses. On Feb. 21, 2007 the district court
granted the defendants' motion to strike the plaintiffs' claim
for investment losses.
On Feb. 21, 2007, the district court granted the defendants’
motion to strike the plaintiffs’ claim for investment losses.
On June 27, 2007, the district court granted the plaintiffs’
motion for class certification.
On June 28, 2007, the district court granted the defendants’
motion to stay proceedings in this action pending the outcome of
the forthcoming appeal to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals in another case not involving Exelon.
In that case, an appeal is expected to be taken from the June
20, 2007 decision of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin, which dismissed with prejudice
substantially similar claims.
The suit is “Loomis et al. v. Exelon Corporation et al., Case
No. 1:06-cv-04900,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge John W. Darrah.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Elizabeth J. Hubertz, Esq.
Schlichter, Bogard & Denton
100 South Fourth Street, Suite 900
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: 314-621-6115
E-mail: ehubertz@uselaws.com
Representing the defendants is:
Anne E. Rea, Esq.
Sidley Austin LLP
One South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 853-7000
E-mail: area@sidley.com
EXELON GENERATION: Still Faces Ill. Procurement Auction Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Generation Co., a subsidiary of Exelon Corp., continues
to face a purported class action in Illinois state court in
connection with the state’s procurement auction.
On March 28, 2007 and March 30, 2007, class actions were filed
in Illinois state court against Commonwealth Edison Co. and
Exelon Generation Co. as well as the other suppliers in the
Illinois procurement auction, claiming that the suppliers
manipulated the auction and that the resulting wholesale prices
are unlawfully high.
Exelon Corp. reported no development in the matter in its Oct.
26, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.
Exelon Corp. -- http://www.exeloncorp.com/-- is a utility
services holding company. The Company operates through its
principal subsidiaries: Exelon Generation Co., LLC, Commonwealth
Edison Co., and PECO Energy Co. Generation’s business consists
of its owned and contracted electric generating facilities, its
wholesale energy marketing operations and its retail sales
operations.
FLORIDA: Court Finds Opa-locka's Water Bill Penalties Improper
--------------------------------------------------------------
A judge ruled against Opa-locka city in a class action over
water bill penalties, Miami New Times reports.
The suit was aimed at the more than 10 percent compounded
interest per month that the city charges customers on late water
bills. It was filed in March by Steve Barret, a former city
commissioner and vice-mayor, against the city.
On trial, it was discovered further that the city had instituted
a special “friends and family” plan that exempts city employees
and their friends and some account holders from paying the late
penalties and the $25 reconnection fee.
The city declared that it “reserved the right” to establish
“payment plans” with individuals unable to pay the city on time,
but a judge ruled these practices were “capricious, arbitrary,
and discriminatory,” according to the report.
The judge has not yet ruled on exactly how much may be paid back
to Barret and the rest of the town’s residents, the report
states.
GMH COMMUNITIES: Settles Shareholders, Unitholders Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
GMH Communities Trust has reached a final settlement agreement
with the lead plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit brought on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common shares between May
5, 2005 and March 10, 2006.
On April 5, 2006, the company, Gary M. Holloway Sr., company
chairman, president and chief executive officer; and Bradley W.
Harris, the company's former chief financial officer, were named
defendants in a class action complaint.
The complaint states that the plaintiff has filed a federal
class action on behalf of purchasers of the publicly traded
securities of the company between Oct. 28, 2004 and March 10,
2006. The plaintiff seeks to pursue remedies under the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants issued a series of false and
misleading financial results regarding the company to the market
during the class period, and more specifically, failed to
disclose:
-- that the company's earnings, net income and revenues
were materially inflated and expenses were materially
understated;
-- that the company's funds from operations were
materially inflated;
-- that the company lacked adequate internal controls;
-- that the company's reported financial results were in
violation of generally accepted accounting principles,
or Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and
-- that as a result of the foregoing, the company's
financial results were materially inflated at all
relevant times.
Plaintiff alleges claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act
with respect to all of the defendants; Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act with respect to the company; Section 15 of the
Securities Act with respect to Mr. Holloway and Mr. Harris;
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act with respect to
all of the defendants; and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
with respect to Mr. Holloway and Mr. Harris.
On April 11, 2006, April 20, 2006, April 27, 2006 and May 15,
2006, four additional class action complaints were filed with
the court against the defendants by separate law firms, and
additional complaints may be filed in the near future until the
court has certified a class and a lead plaintiff has been named.
Each of these additional filed complaints alleges the same
claims against the defendants as described above with respect to
the complaint filed on April 5, 2006, except that the complaint
filed on April 20, 2006 restricts the class period to purchasers
of the publicly traded securities of the company to the time
period between May 5, 2005 and March 10, 2006.
On Jan. 22, the court entered an order appointing two lead
plaintiffs, as well as lead counsel and a liaison counsel (Class
Action Reporter, April 9, 2007).
In addition, on that date, the court entered an order indicating
that the lead plaintiffs shall file a consolidated complaint
within 60 days of the date of the order and that defendants
shall respond to the consolidated complaint within 60 days of
service of such consolidated complaint.
The order also stated that the parties should not file any
dispositive motions before attending a settlement conference
with an assigned magistrate judge.
Under the terms of the recent class action settlement, all
claims against the Company and related defendants will be
dismissed without admission or presumption of liability or
wrongdoing. The settlement is contingent upon various
conditions, including but not limited to, final approval by the
Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania after notice to the class
and a final court hearing.
The Company also reached final settlement in connection with
litigation brought by certain unitholders in the Company's
operating partnership stemming from similar claims to those made
under the Company's class action litigation. All parties in this
action have executed a final settlement and release agreement,
under which the lawsuit has been dismissed with prejudice and a
full release of the Company and all related defendants has been
provided.
Commenting on the announcement, the Company's General Counsel
and Executive Vice President, Joseph Macchione, stated: "While
we are confident that GMH had meritorious defenses to the claims
made in both cases, we believe avoiding protracted litigation,
expense and distraction is in the best interest of the Company
and our shareholders. We are pleased to have settled these
matters quickly and favorably, and we are glad to be closing
this chapter in our history."
The Company's insurance carrier has agreed to pay a substantial
portion of the settlement amounts and legal expenses related to
the defense of both matters. The Company expects the net
charges, inclusive of its contribution to the settlement amounts
and legal expenses associated with defending the matters, will
be approximately $2.2 million for the nine months ended
September 30, 2007.
GRENVILE CHRISTIAN: Former Students File $1B Harassment Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The now-closed private school Grenville Christian College in
east of Brockville, Ontario is facing a class action for alleged
harassment of former students, reports say.
The suit was filed by three former students in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice on October 17. The students are Tim
Blacklock, Mark Vincent and Martin Whyte.
The suit names as defendants:
-- Grenville Christian College;
-- Rev. Alastair Haig, former headmaster;
-- Rev. Charles Farnsworth, former headmaster;
-- the Anglican Church;
-- Berean Fellowship International of Canada; and
-- a Massachusetts group known as the Community of Jesus.
The statement of claim alleges that Grenville Christian College,
the Anglican Church and the Community of Jesus Inc. were
negligent for employing incompetent staff and "permitted, either
expressly or tacitly, teachers and non-teaching staff to
physically, emotionally and psychologically abuse students."
The lawsuit also alleges the bizarre disciplinary practices such
as "light sessions" were used to punish pupils at the boarding
school.
None of the allegations have been proven in court and no
statement of defence has yet been filed.
Plaintiffs are seeking $1 billion in damages on behalf of former
students who attended the school between 1970 and 2007; and
"complete reimbursement for all tuition and other fees paid to
the college" with compound interest from the date of the
payment.
The $1 billion in damages is divided as: $500 million in general
damages, $250 million in general and special damages, and
another $250 million in aggravated, exemplary and punitive
damages, according to Kim Lunman of Brockville Recorder and
Times.
The school closed in July citing falling enrollment and rising
operating costs, according to The Globe and Mail.
An investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police into an
alleged criminal wrongdoing at the school is still ongoing,
according to the Brockville Recorder and Times report.
Representing the plaintiffs is Burlington lawyer, Christopher
Haber.
ILLINOIS: Lawsuit Planned Over Ticketing of High School Students
----------------------------------------------------------------
A process to file a class action complaint over the Peoria
Manual High School students' tickets issue is underway, a
community activist said, according to WEEK-TV.
Local civil rights groups have accused the police department of
racial profiling in their ticketing of students for walking in
the middle of the streets and obstructing traffic.
The report cited General Parker saying there have been enough
incidents involving African-American people in Peoria and the
police and the city to file a class action. He says that
process is already underway.
INDIANA: Seeks to Dismiss Lawsuit Over Property Tax System
----------------------------------------------------------
Indiana Tax Judge Thomas G. Fisher heard in October arguments by
the state government, the city of Indianapolis and Marion County
to dismiss a suit challenging the constitutionality of Indiana's
property tax system, Bryan Corbin of the Courier Press reports.
A group of homeowners and taxpayer groups, including the
Vanderburgh County Taxpayers Association, filed the suit seeking
to represent a class consisting of potentially 2 million
taxpayers statewide. In general, the suit questions legality of
statewide assessment methods and the use of tax abatement. It
contends the current tax structure does not comply with the
state constitution's requirement for a "uniform and equal rate
of property assessment and taxation."
Specifically, according to Mr. Corbin's report, the plaintiffs
want the judge to:
-- void the deadline extensions Gov. Mitch Daniels
previously ordered that gave counties more time to adopt
local-option income taxes to reduce their property taxes
because he does not have a power to do so; and
-- overturn a recent 1.65 percent income tax increase in
Indianapolis, because one of the Indianapolis City-
County Council members who voted to adopt it should have
been disqualified over his residency. That council
member, Patrice Abduallah, later resigned.
Defendants contended the plaintiffs did not exhaust all the
administrative remedies available to them before taking their
case to court, meaning the Indiana Tax Court does not have
jurisdiction to hear the case yet. In response, John Price, the
plaintiff's attorney said the constitutional issues are too
broad to be decided by local tax boards or state agencies.
According to the report, the judge will issue a ruling within 10
days. If the suit continues, the plaintiffs plan to call
witnesses at a hearing Nov. 16.
NOBEL PRODUCTION: Settles Col. Royalties Lawsuit for $27.5M
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nobel Production Inc., a subsidiary of Nobel Energy, reached an
out-of-court agreement to settle a class action filed by royalty
owners in Northern Colorado for $27.5 million, Greeley Tribune
reports.
The suit was filed in Weld District Court in January 2003,
originally by Stow Witwer Jr. of Greeley on behalf of Jack and
Dorothy Holman of Kersey, against Patina Oil and Gas, who later
merged with Nobel Production. Jack Holman has since died.
Larry Moffett, an attorney in Oxford, Miss., had the case
certified into a class action based on a Colorado Supreme Court
decision involving an eastern Colorado case in 2001. In the
case, the state's high court ruled that oil and gas companies
could not deduct royalty payments to process the gas to a
marketable condition once it leaves the well head.
That settlement involves natural gas taken from the Wattenburg
Field. Most of those who will benefit from the settlement are
mineral right owners residing in Weld, Mr. Moffett said. They
number between 8,200 and 8,300.
Under the settlement, Nobel is required to make back-payments to
royalty owners from 1997 through December 2006. It will have to
make additional payments covering natural gas production in 2007
in March 2008. In addition, Nobel will be allowed to take only
half of what it had been taking from royalty owners starting in
2008 to process the gas it removes from wells in the Wattenburg
Field, Mr. Moffett said, according to the report.
Weld District Judge Daniel Maus has approved the settlement.
NORTH DAKOTA: High Court Hears Suit Over Fargo Traffic Tickets
--------------------------------------------------------------
The North Dakota Supreme Court heard arguments on Nov. 5 in a
case over alleged excessively high traffic tickets in the city
of Fargo, reports say.
The suit was filed in January by Stephanie Sauby who claimed
Fargo can’t charge higher fees for traffic violations. Ms.
Sauby, of West Fargo, received tickets for three Fargo traffic
violations in 2003 and one each in 2004 and 2006.
The question before the High Court is whether Fargo can have
higher fines for traffic violations than state law does. In
Fargo, a careless driving ticket will cost the driver $150.
State law provides a $30 penalty. Driving 11 miles over the
speed limit in Fargo carries a $100 fine. Under state law, it
could be $11.
State law specifically stipulates that cities may not exceed the
fees imposed by the state, Ms. Sauby’s legal team argues in
court documents. The city argues it gets that authority from
its home rule, a power it acquired from the Legislature in 1969.
The suit alleges the city violates federal laws guaranteeing
equal protection, due process and protection against excessive
fines. It requests the case have class-action status.
In the Nov. 5 hearing, Mike Miller, one of two attorneys
representing Fargo in the case, told justices that the city’s
home rule charter gives Fargo the authority to set traffic fines
higher than those set by the state, as long as they are not
excessive, Dave Olson of The Forum reports.
Ms. Sauby's lawyer argued that home rule cities, under North
Dakota law, cannot establish fines higher than those set by the
state. According to Mr. Olson, attorney Monte Rogneby argued
that permitting such a situation would deny equal protection
under the law because a person stopped in Fargo would face
different penalties depending on whether they were cited by a
city police officer or an officer working for the county or
state.
The Supreme Court issued no ruling, stating it would take the
case under advisement.
If certified the suit could benefit any motorist who has paid a
Fargo traffic fine since August 2001.
The suit is "Sauby v. Fargo, City of, Case No. 3:2007-cv-00010,"
filed in the U.S. District Court of North Dakota under Judge
Rodney S. Webb with referral to Judge Karen K. Klein.
For more information, contact the plaintiffs’ counsel:
Timothy Q. Purdon, Esq.
Monte Lane Rogneby, Esq.
Vogel Law Firm
U.S. Bank Building, 200 N. 3rd Street, Suite 201
P.O. Box 2097
Bismarck, North Dakota 58502-2097
Phone: 701-258-7899
Fax: 701-258-9705
Web Site: http://www.vogellaw.com
E-mail: tpurdon@vogellaw.com, and
mrogneby@vogellaw.com
Representing Fargo is:
Stacey Elizabeth Tjon, Esq.
Solberg, Stewart, Miller & Johnson
P.O. Box 1897, 1129 Fifth Avenue South, Fargo
ND 58107-1897
Phone: (701) 237-3166
Toll free: (877) 237-3166
Fax: (701) 237-4627
Web site: http://www.solberglaw.com
NURSING HOMES: 15 Calif. Facilities Claim False Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit (Case #07CC01402), was filed in Orange
County Superior Court against:
-- S&F Management Company, Inc.;
-- S&F Management Company, LLC;
-- Windsor Healthcare Management, Inc.; and
-- its 15 skilled nursing care facilities around the
state
on behalf of Donald Boone by and through his Attorney in Fact,
Virginia Boone, on his behalf and on behalf of all California
citizens who resided in, or are residing in, one of the
company's California facilities from Nov. 7, 2003 through Nov.
7, 2007.
The complaint alleges that Windsor promotes itself to people who
are elderly and to their families by claiming to provide
superior and attentive care. Windsor's advertisements, web
sites, brochures and other promotional materials claims the
facilities provide skilled nursing care services of a particular
standard and quality which will meet the needs of prospective
and current residents.
"The Windsor facilities make great claims, but they don't
deliver. In fact, I believe they're an elder abuse case in the
making," says Long Beach, Calif., plaintiff attorney Stephen
Garcia of The Garcia Law Firm. "We know they aren't providing
what they promise -- excellent care -- because the 15 facilities
have a long record with the California Department of Health
Services of repeatedly receiving citations of deficiencies that
found the facilities consistently provided their residents
substandard care and violated their rights."
Mr. Garcia points to Windsor Manor Rehabilitation Center of
Concord to illustrate his case. The facility received a mind-
boggling 64 notices of deficiencies from June 1, 2006 to Aug.
31, 2007. The state average during this time period is 15.
The lawsuit alleges that substandard care and neglect of
residents' rights was a corporate-wide strategy and policy
mandated by its parent corporations, officers, and specifically
the principals of S&F Management, Lee C. Samson, president, and
Lawrence E. Feigen, chief operation officer. Windsor and its
principals, deliberately understaffed its facilities by forcing
each to operate under a budget, approved and directed by them
and the directors of the individual facilities, resulting in
increased business profits by charging for services that were
not provided.
S&F Management is a privately owned West Hollywood-based company
that operates skilled nursing facilities under the Windsor name.
It was formed in 1990 to allegedly turn troubled facilities into
profitable operations.
"Basically, we believe that Windsor's corporate strategy and
policy is to maximize profit at the expense of the elderly and
vulnerable people it claims to serve," says Mr. Garcia. "A June
26, 2007 article in the Fremont local paper celebrates the
remodeled Windsor Park Care Center with a "posh reception" and
praise for Samson and Feigen from a local county supervisor. I
wonder how the Fremont community would feel to hear that from
June 1, 2006 to Aug. 31, 2007, the facility racked up 20
citations of deficiencies for substandard care and rights
violations."
List of sued nursing care facilities:
California Facilities
ANAHEIM
Windsor Gardens Convalescent Center of Anaheim
June 1, 2006 to Aug. 31, 2007: 17 notices of deficiencies
ARTESIA
Windsor Palms Care Center of Artesia
June 1, 2006 to Aug. 31, 2007: 25 notices of deficiencies
June 1, 2005 to May 31, 2006: 15 notices of deficiencies
CONCORD
Windsor Manor Rehabilitation Center of Concord
June 1, 2006 to Aug. 31, 2007: 64 notices of deficiencies
June 1, 2005 to May 31, 2006: 16 notices of deficiencies
June 1, 2004 to May 31, 2005: 15 notices of deficiencies
FREMONT
Windsor Park Center of Fremont
June 1, 2006 to Aug. 31, 2007: 20 notices of deficiencies
June 1, 2005 to May 31, 2006: 32 notices of deficiencies
FULLERTON
Windsor Gardens Care Center of Fullerton
June 1, 2006 to Aug. 31, 2007: 29 notices of deficiencies
HAWTHORNE
Windsor Gardens Convalescent Center of Hawthorne
June 1, 2006 to Aug. 31, 2007: multiple notices of
deficiencies
HAYWARD
Winder Gardens Care Center of Hayward
June 1, 2005 to May 31, 2006: 14 notices of deficiencies
LONG BEACH
Windsor Convalescent Center of North Long Beach
June 1, 2006 to Aug. 31, 2007: 23 notices of deficiencies
June 1, 2005 to May 31, 2006: 22 notices of deficiencies
Windsor Convalescent Center of Long Beach
June 1, 2006 to Aug. 31, 2007: 19 notices of deficiencies
June 1, 2005 to May 31, 2006: 29 notices of deficiencies
LOS ANGELES
Windsor Gardens Convalescent Hospital of Los Angeles (90019)
June 1, 2006 to Aug. 31, 2007: multiple notices of
deficiencies
NATIONAL CITY
Windsor Gardens Convalescent Center of San Diego
June 1, 2004 to May 31, 2005: 20 notices of deficiencies
NORTH HOLLYWOOD
Windsor Gardens Healthcare Center of North Hollywood
June 1, 2006 to Aug. 31, 2007: 7 notices of deficiencies
June 1, 2004 to May 31, 2005: 25 notices of deficiencies
SALINAS
Windsor Gardens Rehabilitation Center of Salinas
June 1, 2006 to Aug. 31, 2007: 23 notices of deficiencies
June 1, 2005 to Aug. 31, 2006: 28 notices of deficiencies
June 1, 2004 to May 31, 2005: 32 notices of deficiencies
SAN DIEGO
Windsor Gardens Convalescent & Rehabilitation Center of
Golden Hill
June 1, 2006 to Aug. 31, 2007: 22 notices of deficiencies
VAN NUYS
Windsor Terrace Healthcare Center
June 6, 2006 to Aug. 31, 2007: 25 notices of deficiencies
June 1, 2005 to May 31, 2006: 14 notices of deficiencies
June 1, 2004 to May 31, 2005: 18 notices of deficiencies
For more information, contact:
Stephen Garcia
The Garcia Law Firm
One World Trade Center, Suite 1950
Long Beach, CA 90831
Phone: 562-216-5270
Fax: 562-216-5271
Website: http://www.lawgarcia.com
SHELBY GRAVEL: Settles Concrete Price Fixing Lawsuit for $5M
------------------------------------------------------------
Shelby Gravel agreed to pay $4.7 million to customers, who are
seeking class-action status for a lawsuit seeking damages from
a price-fixing scandal, the Indianapolis Star reports.
In 2005, five more ready-mixed concrete companies were accused
of price-fixing in an amended lawsuit filed by R. Shane Tharp,
an Indianapolis business owner (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29,
2005).
Though the suit was separate from Department of Justice charges
brought against Irving Materials Inc. in June, it is the first
public accusation to link any Indianapolis-area ready-mixed
concrete companies to Irving, which pleaded guilty to price-
fixing charges and agreed to pay a $29 million fine.
Mr. Tharp's amended lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District
Court in Indianapolis, claims that:
-- Prairie Material Sales Inc.,
-- Builder's Concrete & Supply Inc.,
-- Shelby Materials Inc.,
-- American Concrete Co. and
-- Carmel Concrete Products Co.
all participated in the price-fixing. None of those companies
though has been charged with a crime.
Criminal investigators have said that the price-fixing
conspiracy affected "virtually everyone who purchased ready-
mixed concrete in the Indianapolis market" from July 2000 till
May 2004.
Mr. Tharp's suit, which seeks class action status, is the only
one of the 17 pending against Irving that specifically accuses
other firms of price-fixing.
Shelby's recent settlement still awaits approval of Judge Sarah
Evans Barker, the U.S. District Court judge who is overseeing
the civil lawsuit by customers.
Settlement money goes into a fund to pay up to 5,000 customers
who bought concrete from the defendants from 2000 to 2004, when
the price-fixing occurred.
According to the report, earlier, American Concrete, which is no
longer in business, became the first of about seven corporate
defendants to announce a settlement with plaintiffs. American
agreed to pay $368,000.
The original suit is “Tharp v. Irving Materials, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-01045-SEB-VSS,” filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indian, under the
Honorable Sarah Evans Barker.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Irwin B. Levin
Cohen & Malad, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 636-6481
Fax: (317) 636-2593
Web site: http://www.cohenandmalad.com
TENNESSEE: Medicaid Agency Ordered to Prove Program Compliance
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court entered an order to compel the Tennessee
Medicaid agency and the managed care companies that run
TennCare, the state's Medicaid waiver program, to produce
documents supporting its claim that it is in compliance with the
federal Medicaid law, according to an article in CCH Health
Care.
The ruling stemmed from a class action filed in 1998 on behalf
of 550,000 children entitled to early and periodic screening,
diagnosis and treatment services. On the same year, a consent
decree directed the agency to take meet certain benchmarks to
show compliance with the Medicaid law.
Counsel for the class returned to court to enforce the decree in
2001 and in June 2004.
Between October 2004 and October 2007, the court has directed
the special master to develop a plan to bring the state into
compliance with the law, ordered the agency to submit the plan
under which it was operating to comply with the consent decree,
and ordered officials to comply with the consent decree and to
submit documentation of their compliance with the court.
The agency claimed that it had achieved compliance with the
consent decree, and the class sought proof of the claim. When
the agency resisted discovery orders, the class sought to compel
complete responses to the discovery.
A resolution made after a hearing on the motion to compel the
complete responses to the discovery states: because the agency
claimed that it was in compliance with the consent decree, the
class was entitled to discovery to test that claim. The court
ordered the agency to provide to opposing counsel
electronically stored information (ESI) documenting the services
provided to class members.
According to the report, at the hearing, the evidence also
established that:
-- as of 2004, the agency had not attained the goals that
the order required to be met in 2001;
-- the agency had never filed the work plan ordered by the
court;
-- the agency and the contractors failed to preserve
relevant ESI, despite agreements and court orders to
place a "litigation hold" on the information to prevent
loss or destruction;
-- the agency had exaggerated the cost and the
administrative burden of compliance by failing to
account for the use of search terms and filters to
narrow the scope of the electronic searches.
The suit is “John B. v. Menke,” filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee.
TIRKOVOT BROMIDE: Faces $469M Suit Over Poisonous Gas Release
-------------------------------------------------------------
Agrochemical factory Tirkovot Bromide Ltd. is facing a $469.24
million class action (NIS1.86 billion) in the Beersheba District
Court for polluting the air with hazardous chemicals, the
Jerusalem Post reports.
Attorney Yochi Geva filed the lawsuit on behalf of some 260,000
residents of Beersheba, Kibbutz Revivim, Segev Shalom, and the
local Beduin community, demanding redress.
According to the report, Mr. Geva told Army Radio that the suit
was based on the results of some 60-80 snap inspections
conducted on the factory's premises since 2001 that showed it
was releasing hundreds, if not thousands, of times the permitted
amount of hazardous materials, including ammonia and chloride,
into the air.
The attorney said that in addition to the carcinogens, the
substances allegedly polluting the air around the Ramat Hovav
petrochemical complex also risked causing local residents
irreversible liver damage.
Plaintiffs are seeking to establish a fund that will cover the
cost of tests to determine what, if any, adverse medical
conditions have been caused by the firm's pollutants and treat
them.
The report said that Mr. Geva has also requested a class-action
suit against another Ramat Hovav chemical plant, Makhteshim Agan
Industries.
Tirkovot Ltd. said in response that it had not yet received a
copy of the suit, and that it was careful to comply with
environmental regulations, the report said.
TRAVELERS COS: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Junk Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has yet to
rule on several motions filed in the consolidated securities
class action, “In Re: St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation
II, Case No. 0:04-cv-04697-JRT-FLN,” which was filed against The
Travelers Companies, Inc., formerly The St. Paul Travelers
Companies, Inc.
In November 2004, two purported class actions were brought by
certain shareholders of the Company against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.
These two actions were consolidated as 'In re St. Paul Travelers
Securities Litigation II.”
On July 11, 2005, an amended consolidated complaint was filed.
The amended and consolidated complaint alleged violations of
federal securities laws in connection with the Company’s alleged
failure to make disclosure relating to the practice of paying
brokers commissions on a contingent basis, the Company’s alleged
involvement in a conspiracy to rig bids and the Company’s
allegedly improper use of finite reinsurance products.
On Sept. 26, 2005, the Company and the other defendants in “In
re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II” moved to dismiss
the amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim.
Oral argument on the Company’s motion to dismiss was presented
on June 15, 2006. By order dated Sept. 25, 2006, the Court
denied the Company’s motion to dismiss.
On Nov. 3, 2006, the Company and the other defendants in “In re
St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II” moved for partial
judgment on the pleadings seeking dismissal of the allegations
relating to the allegedly improper use of finite reinsurance
products.
On June 1, 2007, the Court granted that motion and permitted the
lead plaintiff to replead.
On June 8, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended and
consolidated complaint alleging the same claims as in the first
amended and consolidated complaint but extending the putative
class period.
On July 11, 2007, the Company and other defendants in 'In re St.
Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II” moved to dismiss the
second amended and consolidated complaint. That motion remains
pending.
The lead plaintiff in “In re St. Paul Travelers Securities
Litigation II” has moved for certification of a class of all
purchasers of securities of the Company and St. Paul from Jan.
27, 2000, through and including Nov. 16, 2004. That motion
remains pending, according to the company's Oct. 25, 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: St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II,
Case No. 0:04-cv-04697-JRT-FLN," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge John R. Tunheim
with referral to Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.
Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
270 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10016
Phone: 212-545-4690, 212-545-4605 and 212-545-4762
Fax: 212-545-4653
E-mail: isquith@whafh.com, bruckner@whafh.com and
rifkin@whafh.com
- and -
Jack L. Chestnut, Esq.
Karl L. Cambronne, Esq.
Chestnut & Cambronne
222 S. 9th St., Ste. 3700
Mpls., MN 55402
Phone: (612) 339-7300
Fax: 612-336-2940
E-mail: jchestnut@chestnutcambronne.com and
kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com
Representing the defendants are:
David H. LaRocca, Esq.
Michael J. Chepiga, Esq.
Michael J. Garvey, Esq.
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP
425 Lexington Ave.
New York, NY 10017-3954
Phone: 212-455-2377, 212-455-2598 and 212-455-7358
E-mail: dlarocca@stblaw.com, mchepiga@stblaw.com and
mgarvey@stblaw.com
- and -
Peter W. Carter, Esq.
Richard B. Solum, Esq.
Dorsey & Whitney,
50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
Mpls., MN 55402-1498
Phone: 612-340-2600
Fax: 612-340-2868
E-mail: carter.peter@dorsey.com and
solum.rick@dorsey.com
TRAVELERS COS: No Rehearing for La. Hurricane Katrina Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied a
Petition for Rehearing En Banc of its reversal of a decision
that denied summary disposition of a consolidated case over
insurance coverage for Hurricane Katrina losses.
The suits, which names The Travelers Companies, Inc., formerly
The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., as a defendant are:
-- “Chehardy, et al. v. State Farm, et al., C.A. No. 06-
1672, 06-1673 and 06-1674,”
-- “Vanderbrook, et al. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., et
al. C.A. No. 05-6323;” and
-- “Xavier University of Louisiana v. Travelers Property
Ca. Co. of America, C.A. No. 06-516.”
“Chehardy” and “Vanderbrook” are purported class actions in
which the Company is one of several insurer defendants.
“Xavier” is an individual suit involving a property insurance
policy brought by one of the Company’s insureds.
All of these actions allege that the losses were caused by the
failure of the New Orleans levees.
On Nov. 27, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana issued a ruling in the three consolidated
cases denying the motions of the Company and certain other
insurers for a summary disposition of the cases.
The Court’s ruling did not determine that any additional amounts
were owed under any of the Company’s policies or otherwise reach
the merits of the policyholders’ claims.
The Company, along with certain other insurers named in the
consolidated lawsuits, filed an immediate appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
On Aug. 2, 2007, the Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court’s
ruling. The Fifth Circuit held that there is no coverage for
the plaintiffs’ flood losses under the policies at issue
(including policies issued by the Company) because the policies’
flood exclusions unambiguously exclude coverage.
The plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc, which the
Fifth Circuit denied on Aug. 27, 2007, according to the
company's Oct. 25, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Sept. 30, 2007.
The Travelers Companies, Inc. -- http://www.travelers.com/-- is
a holding company that is principally engaged in providing a
range of commercial and personal property and casualty insurance
products and services to businesses, government units,
associations and individuals.
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
November 7-8, 2007
BAD FAITH LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Miami
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
November 7-9, 2007
MEALEY'S CONSTRUCTION DEFECT SUPERCONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Westin Casuarina Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 8-9, 2007
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Bellagio, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227
November 8-9, 2007
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA,
AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
November 14-15, 2007
MEALEY'S GLOBAL REINSURANCE FORUM
Mealeys Seminars
Elbow Beach, Bermuda
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 29-30, 2007
PREPARING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE LIABILITY
American Conference Institute
New Orleans
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
November 29-December 1, 2007
ADVANCED EMPLOYMENT LAW AND LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Washington, DC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
December 10-11, 2007
LEXISNEXIS TRIAL STRATEGIES SEMINAR & EXPO
PREPARING AND DEFENDING THE ULTIMATE CATASTROPHIC PERSONAL INJURY CASE
Mealeys Seminars
Sheraton City Center, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 10, 2007
MEALEY'S SECURITIZATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Marriott Financial Center, NYC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 10-11, 2007
MEALEY'S INSURANCE SUPERCONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Madison, Washington, D.C.
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 11-12, 2007
MEALEY'S VIATICAL SETTLEMENTS CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Harvard Club, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 12-14, 2007
DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Waldorf Astoria, New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
January 23-24, 2008
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
January 29-30, 2008
CONSUMER FINANCE CLASS ACTION AND LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
February 7-8, 2008
DAMAGES IN EMPLOYMENT CASES
ALI-ABA
Washington, DC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
February 14-16, 2008
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
San Diego
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
February 27-28, 2008
MANAGING COMPLEX LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
March 27-28, 2008
ENVIRONMENTAL AND TOXIC TORT LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale AZ
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
April 10-11, 2008
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Wynn, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227
May 1-2, 2008
SECURITIES LITIGATION: PLANNING AND STRATEGIES
ALI-ABA
Boston, MA
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
May 29-30, 2008
MASS LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Charleston, SC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
October 23-24, 2008
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Bellagio, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227
* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
November 1-30, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
November 1-30, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
November 1-30, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
November 1-30, 2007
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
November 1-30, 2007
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
November 1-30, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND TORT CASES IN
TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
November 1-30, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
November 8, 2007
LEXISNEXIS® INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 101 TELECONFERENCE SERIES: COPYRIGHTS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 13, 2007
MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S
EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO SALES AND
ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org
New Securities Fraud Cases
BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: David Chase Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of David R. Chase, P.A. filed a class action on
October 29, 2007 on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. between November 9, 2005 and October
25, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.
The Complaint alleges that BankAtlantic, and certain of its
officers and directors, violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. At the start of the Class Period, BankAtlantic touted its
"negative provision for loan losses." Nevertheless, BankAtlantic
materially understated reserves for real estate loan losses on
its financial statements, and thus materially overstated net
income. BankAtlantic gave a $27.8 million real estate loan
without obtaining an independent appraisal of the real estate.
The loan was granted to Michael Tringali, who worked together
with Neil Mohamed Husani. The two men inflated land values and
then flipped a series of properties in Florida to obtain higher
real estate loans from several banks, including BankAtlantic.
Husani and Tringali have been under FBI investigation for this
scheme, which the Company either knew at the time or recklessly
ignored.
BankAtlantic knew or recklessly ignored that the collateral
underlying this $27.8 million loan -- vacant land in Manatee
County, Florida -- was worth no more than $17.1 million.
BankAtlantic deflected questions about the adequacy of its loan
loss reserves for this property. BankAtlantic said it
commissioned an "appraisal" of the property, but real estate
experts questioned whether this appraisal had any basis. In
April 2007, BankAtlantic announced that it was having difficulty
with its Florida real estate portfolio but hid the true extent
of the inadequacy of its loan loss reserves.
On October 25, 2007, the Company announced that it had to
increase its loan loss reserves substantially. The news sent
BankAtlantic's shares down nearly 40%, from $7.45 to $4.72 on
heavy trading volumes.
Interested parties may move the court no later than December 28,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
David R. Chase, Esq.
Law Office of David R. Chase, P.A.
1700 East Las Olas Boulevard
Penthouse 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Phone: 888-337-8625 (Toll Free) or 954-920-7779
INLAND WESTERN: Chimicle & Tikellis Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, Labaton Sucharow LLP
and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announced that a
securities class action complaint has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
charging Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc., certain
of its directors, officers and affiliates, and William Blair &
Company, L.L.C. with violations of Sections 14(a) and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, and/or state law claims.
Inland REIT, a real estate investment trust whose stock is not
traded on a national stock exchange, is primarily engaged in the
acquisition and ownership of commercial real estate properties.
The Complaint was filed on behalf of a proposed class of Inland
REIT's shareholders who are entitled to vote on the Schedule 14A
Proxy Statement that was filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 10, 2007, which Proxy is alleged to be
materially false and misleading. The Complaint also alleges
that, by their conduct, defendants breached fiduciary duties
owed to the shareholders. In addition, the Complaint includes
derivative claims on behalf of Inland REIT for breaches of
fiduciary duty and contract.
The Proxy seeks shareholder approval of the merger of Inland
REIT with its Advisor and Property Managers for $375 million
worth of Inland REIT's stock ("Internalization"). These
entities, which provide Inland REIT with property management
services and act as its business manager and supervisor of daily
operations, are wholly-owned directly or indirectly by officers,
directors and affiliates of Inland REIT. Thus, the
Internalization is a $375 million self-dealing, affiliated
transaction that must receive the utmost scrutiny by the Class
and Inland REIT. The Complaint charges that the Internalization
does not stand up to that scrutiny.
The Complaint includes allegations that:
(a) Inland REIT paid fees to the Advisor and Property
Managers that were not calculated in compliance with
the terms of the applicable contracts. Consequently:
(i) the Advisor was overpaid by more than $60 million
in 2005 and 2006;
(ii) the Advisor failed to reimburse Inland REIT over
$20 million in 2005 and 2006; and
(iii) the Property Managers were paid above-market and,
thus, excessive, fees.
(b) Financial statements included in the Proxy, which
purport to support the fees historically paid to the
Advisor and Property Managers and their price in the
Internalization, are false and misleading.
(c) Material departures from the contract terms governing
fees paid to the Advisor and Property Managers
artificially distorted their earnings and, therefore,
their financial and operating results that were used to
justify the $375 million price to be paid in the
Internalization.
(d) The Internalization is timed to evade contractual
provisions that were put in place to protect Inland
REIT and its shareholders from overreaching by their
fiduciaries in connection with the Internalization. If
those provisions had been adhered to, in all likelihood
the Advisor and Property Managers would have received
as little as zero cash consideration for the same
transaction now costing $375 million.
(e) Distorted and inflated values have been attributed to
the Advisor and the Property Managers, thereby
artificially and improperly inflating the amount of
consideration paid in the Internalization.
(f) In formulating, negotiating and recommending the
Internalization, Defendants were assisted by William
Blair who served as a "financial advisor" and rendered
an "opinion" that $375 million for the Internalization
was fair, from a financial point of view to the
shareholders. This opinion, which was included in the
Proxy, was inherently flawed, misleading, and masked
Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty.
In sum, those, among other, material facts were not disclosed in
the Proxy, and Inland REIT's officers, directors and affiliates,
who have already received millions in unearned fees from Inland
REIT, have now entered into an improper transaction that
constitutes a waste of Inland REIT's assets.
Interested parties may move the court no later than January 4,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Nicholas E. Chimicles
Kimberly M. Donaldson
Chimcles & Tikellis LLP
361 West Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
Telephone: 610-642-8500
Fax: 610-649-3633
E-Mail: kimdonaldson@chimicles.com
Website: http://www.chimicles.com
Lawrence A. Sucharow
Joseph Sternberg
Labaton Sucharow LLP
140 Broadway
New York, New York 10005
Telephone: 212- 907-0700
Fax: 212-818-0477
E-Mail: info@labaton.com
Website: http://www.labaton.com
- and -
Lawrence P. Kolker
Alexander Schmidt
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10016
Telephone: (212) 545-4600
Email: Kolker@whafh.com
Website: http://www.whafh.com
LDK SOLAR: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
filed a lawsuit on behalf of its client and all persons who
purchased the securities of LDK Solar Co., Ltd. (NYSE:LDK) from
June 1, 2007 through October 8, 2007, inclusive.
The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. Based on recent additional
disclosures by LDK the court may be asked to extend the class
period beyond October 8.
The complaint charges that LDK and several of its officers and
directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Company and the Defendant
officers and directors improperly failed to disclose and
misrepresented material adverse facts, including the fact that
the Company had significantly less feedstock inventory than it
claimed to have and the fact that only a fraction of the
feedstock inventory it did have was of sufficient quality for
use in the manufacture of silicone wafers.
The revelation of alleged improprieties at the Company led to a
sharp drop in the CompanyÂ’ s stock price. On October 3, 2007,
Piper Jaffray stated in a research note that it had "confirmed
that the LDK financial controller recently left the company,"
and was "aware of the former controller's allegations of poor
financial controls and a 250-tonne inventory discrepancy." On
this news, the Company's shares declined $16.66 per share, or
over 24 percent, to close on October 3, 2007 at $51.65 per
share, on heavy trading volume.
On October 4, 2007, the Company stated that it had formed a
committee to investigate the allegations and conduct a physical
inventory of LDK's polysilicon materials. The Company indicated
that it had found no "material discrepancies" as compared to its
financial statements, but that it had solicited an accounting
firm to conduct a separate review. On this news, the Company's
shares declined an additional $3.35 per share, or 6.5 percent,
to close on October 4, 2007 at $48.30, again on heavy trading
volume.
Then on October 8, 2007, Barron's reported that the Company "may
be overstating earnings and the value of its inventories." The
report indicated that the Company's inventories "may be
overvalued by as much as $82 million," and that the quality of
the Company's silicon ingots "is so low that a recent production
run produced tons of them that were too contaminated for
technicians to analyze." On this news, the Company's shares
declined an additional $13.45 per share, or over 26 percent, to
close on October 8, 2007 at $37.50 per share, also on heavy
trading volume.
Interested parties may move the court no later than December 10,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
LDK manufacturers and provides multicrystalline solar wafers to
manufacturers of photovoltaic products, including solar cells
and solar modules.
For more information, contact:
Steven J. Toll, Esq.
Scott Evans
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
West Tower - Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600
E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or sevans2@cmht.com
MERRILL LYNCH: Chitwood Harley Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP filed a class action against Merrill
Lynch & Co. Inc. (NYSE: MER) accusing the company and certain of
its officers and directors of violating the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
The suit, which was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, covers purchasers of the
company s common stock between February 26, 2007 and October 23,
2007. The complaint has alleged that, during the class period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the company s business and financial results.
Merrill had gone heavily into collateralized debt obligations
which generated higher yields in the short term but which would
be devastating to the company as the real estate market
continued to soften and the risky loans led to losses.
The lawsuit has alleged that in early October 2007, Merrill
acknowledged it would have to take a $5 billion third quarter
2007 charge for mortgage and credit problems and then on October
24, 2007, the company said that the third quarter charge would
be $8 billion instead. During this time the company also posted
its biggest quarterly loss in its 93-year history.
For more information, contact:
Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP
2300 Promenade II
1230 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 873-3900 or (888) 873-3999 (Toll Free)
Fax: (404) 876-4476
OFFICE DEPOT: Saxena White Files Fla. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A., on November 5, filed suit on behalf of
shareholders against Office Depot, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who acquired Office Depot
securities between April 26, 2006 and October 26, 2007,
inclusive.
On October 29, 2007, Office Depot announced that it had delayed
the release of third quarter 2007 earnings due to an independent
review by the Audit Committee of the Company's vendor program
funds. The review concerns the timing of revenue recognition and
the accounting for certain vendor payments. As a result of the
announcement, Office Depot's stock price plunged 14 percent in
the largest stock price decline for the Company since May of
2000. Indeed, the full extent and magnitude of investors' losses
is still unknown, since the details of Office Depot's accounting
improprieties have yet to be revealed. In the wake of the news,
analysts have raised serious questions concerning the integrity
of the Company's financial statements and the valuation of the
stock.
Interested parties may move the court no later than January 4,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Greg Stone
Joseph White, Esq.
Saxena White P.A.
2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Tel: (561) 394-3399
Fax: (561) 394-3382
Website: http://www.saxenawhite.com
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Wolf Popper Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP has filed a class action against Washington
Mutual, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of investors who purchased Washington Mutual
common stock on the open market from July 19, 2006 through
October 31, 2007.
The complaint charges that during the Class Period Washington
Mutual improperly exerted pressure on a third-party appraisal
firm, eAppraiseIT (a division of the First American
Corporation), to inflate the appraised value of homes used as
collateral for loans originated by Washington Mutual. Washington
Mutual failed to disclose this scheme, which violated federal
and state laws and regulations requiring an independent
appraisal process. The inflated appraisals caused Washington
Mutual's financial results to be misstated, including causing
its loan assets to be overstated while its provision for
doubtful accounts and reserves for loan losses were materially
understated.
On October 17, 2007, Washington Mutual revealed that its
anticipated fourth quarter 2007 writedowns of home loan assets
would be $1.3 billion greater than previously disclosed. These
writedowns were caused, at least in part, by the impairment of
loan assets that were originated based on the inflated
appraisals fraudulently orchestrated by the defendants. Between
October 17 and October 31, Washington Mutual's stock price
declined by $5.19 per share, or 15.6%.
On November 1, 2007, the Attorney General of the State of New
York filed a lawsuit against First American Corporation and
eAppraiseIT, alleging their complicity in a scheme to provide
inflated appraisals to Washington Mutual. On November 1, 2007
and November 2, 2007, following the announcement of the NY AG's
lawsuit against First American, Washington Mutual shares fell
further, closing at $23.81 on November 2, 2007, down $4.07 per
share, or 15%, from the October 31, 2007 closing price.
Interested parties may move the court no later than January 4,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
James Harrod, Esq.
Wolf Popper LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Tel.: 212.759.4600 or 877.370.7703 (toll free)
Fax: 212.486.2093 or 877.370.7704 (toll free)
Email: irrep@wolfpopper.com
Website: http://www.wolfpopper.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 * * *