/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/071205.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, December 5, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 241 Headlines [] AON CORP: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Litigation in Ill. ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Judgment in N.Y. Fees Suit BANK OF AMERICA: Motion to Dismiss Mass. Racial Bias Suit Junked COUNTRYWIDE CAPITAL: Co-Lead Plaintiffs Named in Securities Suit FIBERNET TELECOM: Service Disruption Suit Kept in Federal Court JDSU: Wins Favorable Ruling in Securities Suit by Trust Fund LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Nixing of Cal. Securities Suit Under Appeal LENOX GROUP: Settles Pa. Lawsuit Over Alleged FACTA Violations LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Del. Court Okays Securities Suit Settlement LIVE NATION: Cal. Antitrust Suit Stayed on Certification Appeal MASTERCARD INT'L: Agrees to Settle Currency Conversion Fee Suit MEDQUIST INC: Jan. 28 Conference Set for N.J. Labor Lawsuit MEDQUIST INC: N.J. Court OKs $7.8M Securities Suit Settlement MINNESOTA: FAA Approves $126M Settlement of Noise Pollution Suit MISSISSIPPI MUTUAL: Mass. Lawsuit Accuses Insurer of Racial Bias MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.M. HMO Suit MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Responds to Amended Securities Suit in N.Y. NATIONSCREDIT FINANCIAL: Mortgage Loan Discount Suit Revived NEENAH PAPER: Still Faces Retirees' Suit After Terrace Bay Deal OAKLEY INC: Dec. 13 Hearing Set for Shareholder Suit Over Merger OAKLEY INC: Continues to Face FCRA Violations Lawsuit in Calif. OLD DOMINION: Faces Suits Over Fuel Surcharges in LTL Shipments SAILING (U.S.) INT'L: Recalls Pacifiers Due to Choking Hazard STONE ENERGY: Continues to Face Shareholder Lawsuit in Louisiana TOBACCO LITIGATION: $1.2B Escrow Funds Released to Philip Morris UNITED STATES: Health Dept. Accused of Seizing Medicare Money VERIZON WIRELESS: Faces Fraud Suit Over GPS in BlackBerries XETHANOL CORP: Settles Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y. Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences ********* [] AON CORP: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Litigation in Ill. --------------------------------------------------------------- Aon Corp. continues to face several purported class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of the securities laws. On Oct. 25, 2004, David Roth and other similarly situated parties initiated a class action against Aon Corp. and certain of its officers, alleging material misrepresentation of its investors leading to stock losses. The complaint charges Aon Corp. and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Aon, through its various subsidiaries worldwide, serves its clients through three operating segments: Risk and Insurance Brokerage Services, Consulting and Insurance Underwriting. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Aon and its top officers violated the federal securities laws by disseminating false and misleading statements concerning the Company's results and operations. The true facts, which were known by each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: -- that the Company was receiving illegal and concealed "contingent commissions" pursuant to illegal "contingent commission agreements"; -- that by concealing these "contingent commissions" and such "contingent commission agreements," the defendants violated applicable principles of fiduciary law, subjecting the Company to enormous fines and penalties totaling potentially tens -- if not hundreds -- of millions of dollars; and -- that as a result, Company's prior reported revenue and income was grossly overstated. The complaint further alleges that on Oct. 14, 2004, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer announced he had charged several of the nation's largest insurance companies and the largest broker with bid rigging and pay-offs that he claimed violated fraud and competition laws. Upon revelation of these illegal acts, the Company's shares fell to $23.03, a loss of 16%. Then on Oct. 19, 2004, The Wall Street Journal published an article on A.G. Spitzer's investigation of Aon, which stated that the reinsurance business, or insurance policies for insurance companies, was the focus of the probe, because A.G. Spitzer suspected Aon's insurance-buying clients may not have received the best deal. On these revelations, the Company's shares fell again, from $21.20 to $19.20, a drop of 9%. On May 12, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On Nov. 14, 2006, Judge Charles R. Norgle Sr. granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is “David Roth, et al. v. Aon Corporation, et al., Case No. 04-CV-6835,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs in the suit are: Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY, 10017 Phone: 212.907.0800 Fax: 212.684.6083 - and - Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA, 92101 Phone: 206.749.5544 Fax: 206.749.9978 E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Judgment in N.Y. Fees Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The counsel for plaintiffs in a suit against Astoria Financial Corp. over mortgage loan preparation fees is asking a federal court to reconsider a ruling granting the company's request for summary judgment. In 2004, David McAnaney and Carolyn McAnaney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated filed the suit against Astoria Financial Corp., and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The suit is claiming that the company's charging of attorney document preparation fees, recording fees, and facsimile fees for mortgage loans violate state laws. The action, commenced as a punitive class action, alleges that in connection with the satisfaction of certain mortgage loans made by Astoria Federal, The Long Island Savings Bank, FSB, which was acquired by Astoria Federal in 1998, and their related entities, customers were charged attorney document preparation fees, recording fees and facsimile fees allegedly in violation of: -- the federal Truth in Lending Act, -- the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), -- the Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCA), and -- the New York State Deceptive Practices Act The suit also alleges unjust enrichment and common law fraud. Astoria Federal previously moved to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion was granted in part and denied in part, dismissing claims based on violations of RESPA and FDCA. The Court further determined that class certification would be considered prior to considering summary judgment. On Sept. 19, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. Astoria Federal has denied the claims set forth in the complaint. Both the company and the plaintiffs have filed motions for summary judgment. The District Court, on Sept. 12, 2007, granted the company's motion for summary judgment on the basis that all named plaintiffs’ Truth in Lending claims are time barred. All other aspects of plaintiffs’ and defendant’s motions for summary judgment were dismissed without prejudice. The Court found the named plaintiffs to be inadequate class representatives and provided plaintiffs’ counsel an opportunity to submit a motion for the substitution or intervention of new named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ counsel has moved the Court to reconsider its decision, according to the company's Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is “McAnaney et al. v. Astoria Financial Corp. et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-01101-JFB-WDW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge Joseph F. Bianco with referral to Judge William D. Wall. Representing the plaintiffs are: G. Oliver Koppell, Esq. 99 Park Avenue, Suite 800 New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-368-0400 Fax: 212-973-9494 E-mail: okoppell@koppellaw.com - and - Joseph S. Tusa, Esq. Whalen & Tusa, P.C. 90 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-786-7377 Fax: 212-658-9685 E-mail: joseph@whalen-tusa.com Representing the defendants are: Alfred W.J. Marks, Esq. Day, Berry & Howard, LLP 875 Third Avenue, 28th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-829-3634 Fax: 212-829-3601 E-mail: awjmarks@dbh.com BANK OF AMERICA: Motion to Dismiss Mass. Racial Bias Suit Junked ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts cleared the way for the anti-discrimination class action to proceed in Massachusetts against defendants Bank of America, N.A. (BOA) and its subsidiary, Banc of America Investment Services, Inc. (BAI). The suit, "Turnley et al. v. Banc of America Investment Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-10949-NG," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on May 18, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, May 23, 2007). Listed as plaintiffs in the suit are: -- Richard Turnley, III, -- Baron H.C. Finlayson, -- Coleen Alecia Hinds, -- Mark Anthony Brown, and -- Timothy Johnson, II. In general, the complaint is alleging that defendants discriminated against African-American brokers and bankers in promotion, compensation, mentoring and other employment opportunities. It specifically alleges that defendants regularly discriminated against black bankers and financial advisers, teaming them with other black bankers or advisers and steering more lucrative clients to white employees. As a result of this practice, allegedly, "African Americans face greater difficulty in developing their business, career and income," according to the complaint. The complaint seeks cover people who worked as bankers or brokers for the defendants from April 2003 to present. It also seeks a halt to the alleged improper practices, back pay, and compensatory and punitive damages. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all African-Americans who were or are employed at BOA or BAI as premier bankers and/or financial advisors at any time from April 1, 2003 to the present, and alleges that, among other things, BOA and BAI discriminate against African-American premier bankers and financial advisors on the basis of race with respect to, among other things, compensation, work and territorial assignments, promotion, training and mentoring, resources, and business opportunities. In response to the complaint, defendants BOA and BAI brought motions to transfer the action to Georgia, to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under the Massachusetts anti-discrimination statute and to stay discovery in the action. The Court denied each of defendants' motions in an Order dated Nov. 29, 2007. Accordingly, plaintiffs may now begin prosecuting this action in Massachusetts. In addition, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a First Amended Class Action Complaint, which, among other things, adds as a named plaintiff a Massachusetts resident who worked for BAI in Boston and also adds claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq. on behalf of class members. The Amended Complaint includes previously filed allegations that BOA and BAI regularly discriminate against African-American bankers and financial advisors by, among other things, engaging in "racial steering" with respect to work assignments, including the allegations that BAI and BOA management told employees who complained about the allegedly racist practices that clients are more "comfortable" dealing with members of their own race. The Amended Complaint also adds new allegations, including that BAI and BOA management said that African-American client pools were not a "lucrative market," and not "sophisticated," "competent," or "savvy." The suit, is "Turnley et al. v. Banc of America Investment Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-10949-NG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Nancy Gertner. Representing the plaintiffs are: Ellen J. Messing, Esq. Messing, Rudavsky & Weliky PC 50 Congress Street, Suite 1000 Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-742-0004 Fax: 617-742-1887 E-mail: mail@mrwemploymentlaw.com COUNTRYWIDE CAPITAL: Co-Lead Plaintiffs Named in Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California named New York state comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, and the New York city Pension Funds as co-lead plaintiffs in a class action filed against Countrywide Financial Corp., The Business Review reports. According to Global Pensions, the court found that the two, together, suffered losses of as much as $100 million as a result of mistatements made by the company. The losses were the largest of any investors who applied for lead plaintiff status in the case. The lawsuit accuses Countrywide of "misstatements and omissions" about its lending practices that artificially inflated stock prices. Hon Mariana Pfaelzer on behalf of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, appointed DiNapoli, as administrative head of the New York State and Local Retirement Systems and as trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund, and the New York City Pension Funds. The court also approved the state comptroller’s and New York City Pension Funds’ choice of securities law firm Labaton & Sucharow as lead counsel for the class. The state retirement fund is worth about $154 billion. DiNapoli is its sole trustee, the report said. Mr. Thomas DiNapoli's counsel is: Labaton Sucharow LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: 212-907-0700 Toll-free: 888-753-2796 Fax: 212-818-0477 E-mail: info@labaton.com FIBERNET TELECOM: Service Disruption Suit Kept in Federal Court -------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Chief Judge Joseph Goodwin ruled that a lawsuit filed against telecommunications company FiberNet Telecom Group Inc. in Wood County Circuit Court belongs to federal court. The lawsuit was filed in relation to the disruption of service to customers caused by a computer glitch in the company’s downtown office on July 10 (Class Action Reporter, July 23, 2007). As a result of the computer problem, about 11,000 of FiberNet's 24,000 customers in West Virginia were unable to receive calls, make credit card transactions and send faxes for at least a day due to the technical failure. At least 500 limited video lottery machines at 50 to 60 of the state's approximately 2,000 locations were also affected. Those who filed the suit were Complete System Support Inc.; Neurological Case Management Associates LLC, a Charleston-based coordinator of rehabilitative services; and H.E. Gene Sigman, a South Charleston private investigator. The suit was filed by attorney Harry Deitzler. The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, fraud and negligence, and seeks class-action status and unspecified punitive and compensatory damages. Plaintiffs had requested that the case be kept in circuit court after Fibernet asked it come under federal jurisdiction. However, Judge Goodwin, in an opinion filed Nov. 14, maintained that the lawsuit belongs in federal court since FiberNet's rates are governed by Federal Communications Commission regulations. The court will not decide until June, however, on a motion for class certification. Jim Peterson of the Charleston law firm of Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Deitzler, has said that many more customers are seeking compensation and has requested the lawsuit be granted class-action status. Attorney Anthony Majestro is co-counsel on the case. For more information, contact: Jim Peterson, Esq. Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Deitzler 500 Tracy Way Charleston, WV 25311 Phone: (304) 345-5667 Toll Free: (800) 822-5667 Fax: (304) 345-1519 JDSU: Wins Favorable Ruling in Securities Suit by Trust Fund ------------------------------------------------------------ JDSU announced that a jury has ruled in favor of the Company on all claims in a securities class action filed by Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland, California. "We are extremely gratified by the jury's verdict, as we have always believed that the plaintiffs' claims were without merit," said Kevin Kennedy, JDSU's President and Chief Executive Officer. "We will continue focusing our full attention on developing innovative products and delivering on the significant potential of our business model to create shareholder value." The Company noted that while the jury's decision in this case is a significant positive milestone, it continues to defend itself in the securities class action and related litigation. JDSU -- http://www.jdsu.com-- enables broadband and optical innovation in the communications, commercial and consumer markets. JDSU is a leading provider of communications test and measurement solutions and optical products for telecommunications service providers, cable operators, and network equipment manufacturers. JDSU is also a leading provider of innovative optical solutions for medical/environmental instrumentation, semiconductor processing, display, brand authentication, aerospace and defense, and decorative applications. LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Nixing of Cal. Securities Suit Under Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal against a dismissal of a consolidated securities class action filed against Leadis Technology, Inc., and certain of its officers and directors. On March 2, 2005, a securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the defendants. The complaint alleges the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making allegedly false and misleading statements in the company's registration statement and prospectus filed on June 16, 2004 for the company's initial public offering. Another similar action was filed on March 11, 2005. On April 20, 2005, the court consolidated the two actions. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a class of purchasers that acquired shares of the company common stock pursuant to its registration statement and prospectus. The claims appear to be based on allegations that at the time of the IPO demand for the company's color organic light-emitting diodes products was already slowing due to competition from one of its existing customers and that the company failed to disclose that it was not well positioned for continued success as a result of such competition. On Oct. 28, 2005, the company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. By a March 1, 2006 order, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, with prejudice, and a judgment was entered in favor of the company and all other defendants. On or about March 28, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The parties have filed their respective appellate briefs and the appeal is now pending. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is “Safron Capital Corporation v. Leadis Technology, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00882-CRB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Charles R. Breyer. Representing the plaintiffs is: Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415/288-4545 Fax: 415-288-4534 E-mail: patc@mwbhl.com Representing the defendants are: Grant P. Fondo, Esq. Laura R. Smith, Esq. Cooley Godward, LLP Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Phone: 650 843-5458 Fax: 650 857-0663 E-mail: gfondo@cooley.com smithlr@cooley.com LENOX GROUP: Settles Pa. Lawsuit Over Alleged FACTA Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Lenox Group, Inc. reached a tentative settlement in a purported class action pending against it in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. On April 12, 2007, Amanda Curiale filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which is a purported class action alleging that the Company willfully violated FACTA by continuing to print more than the last five digits of the credit card number and/or the expiration date on receipts provided to debit card and credit cardholders transacting business with the Company. The Company understands that similar complaints have recently been filed against a large number of retailers. The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of herself and the class, statutory damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 for each violation, as well as unspecified punitive damages, costs and attorneys’ fees and a permanent injunction from further engaging in violations of FACTA. On Sept. 20, 2007, the parties held an all-day meditation session and reached a tentative settlement which is subject to the parties signing a definitive settlement agreement and court approval. Under the terms of the settlement, Lenox denies all claims as to liability, damages, penalties, interest, fees, restitution and all other forms of relief sought in the FACTA Litigation. Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, the Company will pay a non-material sum for attorney’s fees, a charitable contribution and a plaintiff’s incentive fee, and will provide participating claimants with a coupon off a future purchase or a free product through Company-operated retail stores. In return, the Company and its affiliates will be completely released from any and all claims, demands and actions concerning the FACTA Litigation and any claims that could have been alleged in the FACTA litigation. The suit is “Curiale v. Lenox Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07- cv-01432-RBS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge R. Barclay Surrick. Representing the plaintiffs are: Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. Schiffin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King Of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Carlson Lynch, Ltd. 36 N. Jefferson Street P.O. BOX 7635 New Castle, PA 16107 Phone: 724-656-1555 Fax: 724-656-1556 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com Representing the defendant is: Wilson M. Brown, III, Esq. Drinker Biddle And Reath L.L.P. One Logan Square 18th And Cherry Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-988-2700 E-mail: wilson.brown@dbr.com LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Del. Court Okays Securities Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The Delaware Chancery Court approved a settlement of a purported class action filed against Leucadia National Corp. with regards to its 2005 acquisition of minority interest in MK Resources Co., according to the company's Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The case is “Special Situations Fund III, L.P., et al. v. Leucadia National Corp., et al.,” a consolidated action involving a petition for appraisal and a class action pending in the Delaware Chancery Court. The pending appraisal petition seeks a judicial determination of the fair value of approximately 3,979,400 shares of MK Resources' common stock as of Aug. 19, 2005, the date of the merger of one of the company's subsidiaries into MK Resources. The class action alleges breach of fiduciary duty by the former MK Resources directors and the Company and seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, costs, disbursements and any further relief that the court may deem just and proper and, in the alternative, seeks rescissory damages, in each case taking into account the $1.27 per share in Company stock paid in the MK Merger to the minority stockholders of MK Resources who did not seek appraisal. The parties have entered into a settlement agreement to settle these lawsuits for complete releases and a dismissal with prejudice in exchange for an aggregate settlement payment by the Company of approximately $13,800,000, including a payment in the appraisal proceeding of approximately $5,000,000 that the appraisal petitioners would have received (based on the value at the merger date of Company shares issued in the merger) had they participated in the MK Merger. The settlement agreement has been approved by the Chancery Court and the payment is expected to be made during the fourth quarter of 2007 after the Chancery Court's opinion becomes final and binding. Leucadia National Corp. -- http://www.leucadia.com/-- is a diversified holding company engaged in a variety of businesses, including manufacturing, real estate activities, medical product development, winery operations, and residual banking and lending activities that are in run-off. Its segments include Manufacturing, Domestic Real Estate, Medical Product Development and Other Operations. LIVE NATION: Cal. Antitrust Suit Stayed on Certification Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California extended its stay of all proceedings in a consolidated antitrust lawsuit filed against Live Nation, Inc. pending developments on a motion to appeal a certification of the suit. The suit alleges anti-competitive practices for concert promotion services by the company caused artificially high- ticket prices. Originally, the company is a defendant in 22 putative class actions filed by different named plaintiffs in various U.S. District Courts throughout the country. The claims made in these actions are substantially similar to claims made in the "Heerwagen v. Clear Channel Comm., et al., Case No. 2:02-cv-04503-JES," except that the geographic markets alleged are statewide or more local in nature, and the members of the putative classes are limited to individuals who purchased tickets to concerts in the relevant geographic markets alleged. The company filed its answers in all actions, and it has denied liability. On Dec. 5, 2005, the company filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the above-listed actions and any similar ones commenced in the future to a single federal district court for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. On April 17, 2006, the Panel granted the company's motion and ordered the consolidation and transfer of the actions to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On June 4, 2007, the Court conducted a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On June 25, 2007, the Court entered an Order to stay all proceedings in the case pending the Court’s ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On Oct. 22, 2007, the Court ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor, granting the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and certifying a class in the Chicago, New England, New York/New Jersey, Colorado and Southern California regional markets. On Nov. 5, 2007, the Company filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from Order Granting Class Certification with the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. At a status conference conducted on Nov. 5, 2007, the U.S. District Court extended its stay of all proceedings pending further developments in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. For more details, contact: [Plaintiffs] Steve W. Berman, Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro 1301 5th Ave., Ste. 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com [Defendants] Paul Chalmers, Esq. Paul Chalmers Law Offices Two Lafayette Centre, 1133 21st Street NW #405 New York, NY 920036 Phone: 202-772-1834 [Defendants] Sara B. Ciarelli, Esq. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati 12 East, 49th Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-999-5859 - and - Renata Hesse, Esq. Renata Hesse Law Offices Two Lafayette Centre, 1133 21st Street, NW, #405 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-772-1834 MASTERCARD INT'L: Agrees to Settle Currency Conversion Fee Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Berger & Montague, P.C. and Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins LLP, Co-Lead and Co-Class Counsel for the plaintiffs in the "In re Foreign Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation (MDL 1409)” class action, announced that parties to the suit had reached a $336,000,000 settlement. The settlement will benefit people and entities who were Visa-, Mastercard- and Diners Club-branded Credit and Debit/ATM Cardholders who made made a foreign transaction between Feb. 1, 1996 and Nov. 8, 2006. The settlement applies to those persons or entities even if they did not make a foreign transaction, and they will benefit from it. The lawsuit claims that Visa, MasterCard, their member banks, and Diners Club conspired to set and hide the price of foreign transactions (including fees, typically 1-3%) in violation of federal and state law, and that Visa and MasterCard inflated their base exchange rates before applying these fees. The Defendants are: -- Visa, -- MasterCard, -- Bank of America, -- Bank One/First USA, -- Chase, -- Citibank, -- Diners Club, -- HSBC/Household, -- MBNA and Washington Mutual/Providian The defendants deny the claims. Settlement Terms The settlement provides $336,000,000 to pay claims, the costs of administering the settlement and notice, and court-awarded attorneys' fees (up to 27.5% of the estimated $313,000,000 expected to remain in the settlement fund after deducting costs for administration and notice, plus interest and expenses) and awards for the class representatives. The Defendants also agree to certain disclosure-related practices. If approved, the settlement will bind class members. If persons and entities are eligible to make a claim and do not opt out, they will release all claims related to any foreign transaction, or the subject matters of the lawsuit, against the Defendants, the member banks, and related entities and individuals. Claims in other cases involving foreign transactions will also be extinguished, but they can still make a claim here, if eligible for a refund. Settlement agreements have also been signed in some of these other cases. These agreements include payment of fees and expenses to attorneys, some of whom have represented the Plaintiff in “Schwartz v. Visa (CA).” These payments will not reduce the $336,000,000 settlement. Class members do not need to go to court but may if they want to. Class members may also hire an attorney, at their own cost, if they want to. The court hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement is on March 31, 2008 at 11:00 a.m. at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY, 10007-1581. If class members plan to go, they are advised to check with the court to confirm the time and date. All class members who made a foreign transaction with a Visa, MasterCard, or Diners Club credit or debit/ATM card between February 1, 1996 and November 8, 2006 are eligible for a refund. The amount of the refund will depend on which claim form is chosen, the amount of total claims, the dollar value of the claim, the bank that issued their card, and the amount of money available to pay claims. Class members might only get a partial refund. Class members also have other options. They may: -- Object. Class members must file a written objection and proof of class membership with the court. They do not have to go to court or hire an attorney. But can if they want to, at their own cost. The deadline is February 14, 2008. -- Opt out. If class members are eligible for a refund from the settlement but do not want one, and they want to keep their right to sue for money, they must opt out by sending the opt-out form letter (available at: http://www.ccfsettlement.com,or by calling: 1-800-945- 9890) to: P. O. Box 280, Philadelphia, PA 19105. If they opt out, they cannot get money from the settlement. Class members cannot opt out of the part of the settlement involving agreed disclosure-related practices. The deadline is February 14, 2008. For more information, visit: http://www.ccfsettlement.com. For recorded information, call: 1-800-945-9890. To ask for a refund, class members must file a claim for a refund online at: http://www.ccfsettlement.com.Or file by mail (get a claim form at http://www.ccfsettlement.com,or by calling 1-800-945-9890). The deadline is May 30, 2008. Case Background A number of federal putative class actions that allege, among other things, violations of federal antitrust laws based on the asserted one percent currency conversion "fee," were filed against: -- MasterCard International, Inc., -- Visa U.S.A., Inc., -- Visa International Corp., -- several member banks including: * Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., * Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., * Bank of America, N.A. (USA), * MBNA, and * Citicorp Diners Club Inc. Pursuant to an order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the federal complaints were consolidated in MDL No. 1409 before Judge William H. Pauley III in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In January 2002, the federal plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint adding MBNA Corp. and MBNA America Bank, N.A. as defendants. This pleading asserted two theories of antitrust conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act: -- an alleged "inter-association" conspiracy among MasterCard (together with its members), Visa (together with its members) and Diners Club to fix currency conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of "no less than 1% of the transaction amount and frequently more;" and -- two alleged "intra-association" conspiracies, whereby each of Visa and MasterCard is claimed separately to have conspired with its members to fix currency conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of "no less than 1% of the transaction amount" and "to facilitate and encourage institution-and collection-of second tier currency conversion surcharges." The MDL Complaint also asserted that the alleged currency conversion "fees" have not been disclosed as required by the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z. On July 20, 2006, MasterCard and the other defendants in the MDL action entered into agreements settling the MDL action and related matters. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, MasterCard has paid $72,480 to be used for defendants' settlement fund to settle the MDL action. On Nov. 8, 2006, Judge William H. Pauley, III, granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreements. The settlement agreements were subject to final approval by Judge Pauley, and resolution of all appeals. The suit is "In Re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, Master Docket No. 1:01-md-1409," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge William H. Pauley, III. Representing the plaintiffs are: David J. Bershad, Esq. Michael Morris Buchman, Esq. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 594-5300 and 212-946-9387 Fax: 212-868-1229 E-mail: mbuchman@milbergweiss.com Christopher Burke, Esq. Amelia F. Burroughs, Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins, LLP Suite 1800, 600 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 - and - Sheldon V. Burman, Esq. Law Offices of Sheldon V. Burman, PC 110 East 59th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 935-1600 MEDQUIST INC: Jan. 28 Conference Set for N.J. Labor Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- A Jan. 10, 2008 status conference is set for the consolidated labor lawsuit “Myers et al. v. MedQuist, Inc., et al. Case No. 1:05-cv-04608-JBS-AMD,“ which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Hoffmann Putative Class Action A putative class action was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The action, entitled, “Brigitte Hoffmann, et al. v. MedQuist, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-CV-3452,” was filed with the Court on Nov. 29, 2004 against the company and certain current and former officials, purportedly on behalf of an alleged class of current and former employees and statutory workers, who are or were compensated on a “per line” basis for medical transcription services from Jan. 1, 1998 to the time of the filing of the complaint. The complaint specifically alleged that defendants systematically and wrongfully underpaid the Class Members during the Class Period. The complaint asserted the following causes of action: fraud, breach of contract, demand for accounting, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, conversion, negligence, negligent supervision, and RICO violations. Plaintiffs sought unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution. On Dec. 1, 2005, the Hoffmann matter was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On Jan. 12, 2006, the Court ordered this case consolidated with the Myers Putative Class Action discussed below. Force Putative Class Action A putative class action entitled, “Force v. MedQuist Inc. and MedQuist Transcriptions, Ltd., Case No. 05-cv-2608-WSD,” was filed against the company on Oct. 11, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The action was brought on behalf of a putative class of current and former employees who claim they are or were compensated on a “per line” basis for medical transcription services but were allegedly underpaid due to the actions of defendants. The named plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and for an accounting. Upon stipulation and consent of the parties, on Feb. 17, 2006, the Force matter was ordered transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Subsequently, on April 4, 2006, the parties entered into a stipulation and consent order whereby the Force matter was consolidated with the Myers Putative Class Action discussed below, and the consolidated amended complaint filed in the Myers action on Jan. 31, 2006 was deemed to supersede the original complaint filed in the Force matter. Myers Putative Class Action A putative class action entitled, “Myers, et al. v. MedQuist Inc. and MedQuist Transcriptions, Ltd., Case No. 05-cv-4608 (JBS),” was filed against the company on Sept. 22, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The action was brought on behalf of a putative class of the company's employee and independent contractor transcriptionists who claim that they contracted with the company to be paid on a 65 character line, but were allegedly underpaid due to intentional miscounting of the number of characters and lines transcribed. The named plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and request an accounting. The allegations contained in the Myers case are substantially similar to those contained in the Hoffmann and Force putative class actions and, as detailed above, the three actions have now been consolidated. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Jan. 31, 2006. In the consolidated amended complaint, the named plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and demand an accounting. On March 7, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss all claims in the consolidated amended complaint. The motion was fully briefed and argued on Aug. 7, 2006. The Court denied the motion on Dec. 21, 2006. On Jan. 19, 2007, the company filed an answer denying the mutual allegations pleaded in the consolidated amended complaint. The parties are now proceeding with discovery. The deadline to complete pretrial fact discovery is Oct. 30, 2007. On Oct. 11, 2007, the Court entered a Scheduling Order, ordering plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification not later than Dec. 14, 2007 and setting a deadline of Jan. 14, 2008, for the conclusion of factual discovery. A further status conference is set for Jan. 10, 2008, according the company's Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is “Myers et al. v. MedQuist, Inc., et al. Case No. 1:05-cv-04608-JBS-AMD,“ filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Jerome B. Simandle with referral to Judge Ann Marie Donio. Representing the plaintiffs are: Laura A. Feldman, Esq. Feldman & Pinto 1604 Locust Street, 2R Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 546-2604 Fax: (215) 546-9904 E-mail: lfeldman@feldmanpinto.com - and - Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq. Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLC 8 Kings Highway West Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Phone: (856) 795-9002 E-mail: donna@trrlaw.com Representing the defendant is: Marc J. Gross Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis, LLP 75 Livingston Avenue, Suite 301 Roseland, NJ 07068-3701 Phone: (973) 535-1600 Fax: (973) 577-1785 E-mail: mgross@greenbaumlaw.com MEDQUIST INC: N.J. Court OKs $7.8M Securities Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted final approval to a proposed settlement of the putative shareholder class action, “William Steiner v. MedQuist, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-05487-JBS.” The original complaint filed on Nov. 8, 2004 asserted claims under Sections 10 (b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Lead Plaintiff Greater Pennsylvania Pension Fund subsequently, on Nov. 15, 2005, filed the operative second amended complaint, which asserts these same causes of action for violation of the federal securities laws, and alleges that such violations occurred from April 23, 2002, through Nov. 2, 2004. The second amended complaint names MedQuist and several former officers of the company as defendants. On March 23, 2007, MedQuist entered into a memorandum of understanding with lead plaintiff in which it agreed to pay $7.75 million to settle all claims, throughout the class period, against all defendants in the action. On May 16, 2007, the Court issued an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice. The Court conducted a final approval hearing and approved the settlement on Aug. 15, 2007. The suit is “Steiner v. MedQuist, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv- 05487-JBS-JBR,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Jerome B. Simandle with referral to Judge Joel B. Rosen. Representing the plaintiffs is: Nicole M. Acchione, Esq. Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLP 8 Kings Highway West Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Phone: (856) 795-9002 E-mail: nicolem@trrlaw.com Representing the defendant is: James S. Richter, Esq. Winston & Strawn, LLP The Legal Center, One Riverfront Plaza, 7th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 621-2230 E-mail: jrichter@winston.com MINNESOTA: FAA Approves $126M Settlement of Noise Pollution Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Federal Aviation Administration has signed off on the $126 million settlement in a noise mitigation lawsuit brought by the cities of Minneapolis, Richfield and Eagan together with the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority, according to Steve Brandt of Minneapolis Star Tribune. The Class Action Reporter reported on Nov. 6, 2007 that the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) board voted on Oct. 15 to approve the settlement. The cities' lawsuit -- and a separate class action brought by residents around the airport -- stemmed from disagreements over the amount of mitigation appropriate in the 60 to 64 DNL contours, which are outside the federal standard for noise mitigation. According to the report, the approval by the Federal Aviation Administration is one of two hurdles that the settlement must clear for the noise program to begin. The other is approval by those involved in a separate class-action lawsuit that sought similar noise relief. A court hearing on that matter is scheduled for Jan. 15 in Hennepin County District Court. The Proposed Agreement Under the proposed settlement agreement, the MAC would provide mitigation to homes in the 60 to 64 DNL contours. Mitigation activities would vary based on noise contour, with homes in the most noise-impacted contours eligible for more extensive mitigation than those in less impacted areas. Multi-family dwellings (those with more than three living units) would receive less extensive mitigation than single-family homes. The total cost to MAC is uncertain until the program is complete, but it is estimated the proposal could cost as much as $130 million to implement. Four separate residential noise mitigation programs are included in the agreement. Costs depicted in each of the four programs are in 2007 dollars and will be adjusted annually for inflation according to the Consumer Price Index: (a) Single-family Homes in the Projected 2007 Mitigated 63-64 DNL Noise Contours The approximately 432 homes in the most noise-impacted contours would be eligible to receive the same level of noise mitigation provided in the 65 DNL contour and greater. The program is designed to achieve five decibels of noise reduction on average. Depending on the improvements needed to reduce interior noise sufficiently, modifications could include: central air conditioning; exterior and storm window repair or replacement; prime door and storm door repair or replacement; wall and attic insulation; baffling of roof vents and chimney treatment. Construction would be scheduled for completion by December 31, 2009. (b) Single-family Homes in the Projected 2007 Mitigated 60-62 Noise Contours Owners of the approximately 5,344 homes in less noise-impacted areas would be eligible for one of two mitigation packages: 1.) The estimated 3,421 homes that did not have central air conditioning as of September 1, 2007 could receive it. In addition, homeowners would get up to $4,000 (including installation costs) in other noise mitigation products and services they could choose from a menu provided by the MAC. 2.) Owners of homes that already had central air conditioning installed as of September 1, 2007 or who choose not to receive central air conditioning would be eligible for up to $14,000 (including installation costs) of noise mitigation products and services they could choose from a menu provided by the MAC. Categories of products on the menu will include: (i) exterior and storm window repair or replacement; (ii) prime door and storm door repair or replacement; (iii) wall and attic insulation; (iv) baffling of roof vents and chimney treatment. Construction is scheduled for completion by December 1, 2012. (c) Multi-family homes in the projected 2007 mitigated 60-64 DNL Contours Any of the approximately 1,931 multi-family units in the projected 2007 mitigated 60-64 DNL contours that do not have air conditioning would receive through-the-wall or equivalent permanently installed air conditioners. The MAC also will install an acoustical cover for each air conditioner in the multi-family units. Installation is scheduled to be complete by December 1, 2010. (d) $7 Million Total for Opt-Out and 2005 Mitigated Single- family Homes Single-family homes whose owners opted out of the already completed MAC noise-mitigation program but that now have new owners would be eligible to "opt in" and receive noise mitigation. If the total cost to MAC of opt-in mitigation is less than $7 million, any remaining monies would be used to reimburse owners of the approximately 1,835 single-family homes in the 2005 Mitigated 60-64 DNL contours for purchase and installation of products included on a menu provided by the MAC. The amount each homeowner receives will be determined by subtracting dollars spent for the opt-in program from the total $7 million budget and dividing the remainder among the total number of single-family homes within the 2005 60-64 DNL contours. The MAC would begin to issue reimbursements by March 1, 2010 and would complete them by July 31, 2014. The total the MAC will spend on the opt-out and 2005 program all together is capped at $7 million. The MAC would also pay the cities $2.5 million in attorney's fees. Owners of single-family homes participating in the program who sell the home within two years of receiving mitigation could be required to reimburse the MAC for twenty-five percent of the cost of providing the mitigation, up to a maximum of $3,500 per home. People can identify where their home sits in relation to the 2007 noise contours through the MAC's noise program Web site, http://www.macnoise.com/maps. MISSISSIPPI MUTUAL: Mass. Lawsuit Accuses Insurer of Racial Bias ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mississippi Mutual Farm Bureau Insurance Co., its affiliates and associates are facing a class-action complaint filed Nov. 28, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, accusing them of racially discriminating against black policyholders by charging them more than similarly situated white people, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Sixteen named plaintiffs claim the Farm Bureau profits unjustly through deceptive and fraudulent "race-based pricing" of property and auto insurance. This is a class action seeking redress for a scheme of racial discrimination and deceptive and wrongful practices by Farm Bureau relating to the marketing, sale, formation and administration of certain insurance policies. Plaintiffs bring this as a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 on behalf of all African American persons who have (or had at the time of the time policies' termination) an ownership interest in one or more policies issued, serviced or administered by Farm Bureau. They want the court to rule on: (a) whether Farm Bureau discriminated against the class members by charging them more in premiums for their insurance policies than similarly situated Caucasians; (b) whether Farm Bureau discriminated against the class members by offering substandard products compared to similarly situated Caucasians; (c) whether Farm Bureau's intent in its discriminatory policies and practices was racially motivated; (d) whether Farm Bureau maintained a corporate policy to sell its policies on a discriminatory basis by concealing from the plaintiffs and class members that the policies were not sold under the same terms and conditions as those offered to similarly situated Caucasians; (e) whether Farm Bureau trained or directed that its agents conceal or not disclose Farm Bureau's discriminatory in the sale and servicing of the policies; (f) whether Farm Bureau devised and deployed a scheme or common course of conduct which acted to defraud or deceive plaintiffs and the class members and/or extracted by taking advantage of its position of superior knowledge and otherwise; (g) whether Farm Bureau systematically failed to disclose to plaintiffs and the class members material information such as the actual basis on which premiums would be calculated; (h) whether Farm Bureau systematically discriminated against class members and engaged in a deceptive scheme and common course of conduct in targeting a vulnerable and unsophisticated segment of the population and its membership for the sale of policies; (i) whether Farm Bureau has a fiduciary duty to plaintiffs and the class members and/or owes them to duty to disclose the material facts detailed in the complaint; (j) whether plaintiffs and the class members are entitled to specific performance, injunctive relief and/or other equitable relief against Farm Bureau; (k) whether plaintiffs and the class members are entitled to an award of punitive damages against Farm Bureau; and (l) whether plaintiffs and the class members have sustained damages and the proper measure of those damages. Plaintiffs demand judgment and orders as follows: -- an order determining that the action is a proper class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- awarding plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial for the wrongful acts complained of; -- awarding plaintiffs their costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs; -- granting extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity, including rescission, reformation, attaching, impounding or imposing a constructive trust upon, or otherwise restricting, the proceeds of Farm Bureau's ill-gotten funds to ensure plaintiffs and the class members have an effective remedy; -- granting the declaratory and injunctive relief sought; and -- granting such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. The suit is "Thelma Gamblin et al. v. Mississippi Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 3:07CV698HTW-LRA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. Representing plaintiffs are: Mark T. McLeod Mitchell H. Tyner, Sr. Tyner Law Firm, PA 5750 I-55 North Jackson, MS 39211 Phone: (601) 957-1113 ext. 102 Fax: (601) 957-6554 E-mail: mmcleod@tynerLawFirm.com or mtyner@tynerLawFirm.com MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.M. HMO Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- New Mexico pharmacies and pharmacists are appealing the dismissal of a purported class action filed in the Second Judicial District Court, State of New Mexico against Molina Healthcare, Inc.'s New Mexico health management organization, among others. The lawsuit, “Starko, Inc., et al. v. NMHSD, et al., No. CV-97- 06599,” was originally filed in August 1997 against the New Mexico Human Services Department (NMHSD). In February 2001, the plaintiffs named HMOs participating in the New Mexico Medicaid program as defendants, including the predecessor of the company's New Mexico HMO. The plaintiffs assert that NMHSD and the defendant HMOs failed to pay pharmacy dispensing fees under an alleged New Mexico statutory mandate. Discovery is currently underway. On July 10, 2007, the court dismissed all damages claims against Molina Healthcare of New Mexico, leaving only a pending action for injunctive and declaratory relief. On Aug. 15, 2007, the court held a hearing on the motion of Molina Healthcare of New Mexico to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. At that hearing, the court dismissed all remaining claims against Molina Healthcare of New Mexico. The plaintiffs have filed a Notice of Appeal of the court’s dismissal orders, according to the company's Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Molina Healthcare, Inc. -- http://www.molinahealthcare.com/-- is a multi-state managed care organization participating exclusively in government-sponsored healthcare programs for low- income persons, such as the Medicaid program and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Responds to Amended Securities Suit in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Monster Worldwide, Inc. has filed an answer to an amended complaint in a securities class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On or about March 15, 2007, a putative securities shareholder class action was filed by Middlesex County Retirement System against the Company and certain former employees in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit was designated as “In re Monster Worldwide Securities Litigation, 07 Civ. 2237 (S.D.N.Y.) (JSR).” The suit seeks an indeterminate amount of damages on behalf of all persons or entities, other than defendants, who purchased or acquired the securities of the Company from May 6, 2005 until June 9, 2006. On July 9, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the securities class action asserting claims against the Company, Andrew McKelvey and Myron Olesnyckyj based on an alleged violation of Section 10(b) the Exchange Act and against the individual defendants based on an alleged violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On Sept. 11, 2007, the Company filed an Answer to the amended complaint. The suit is “In Re: Monster Worldwide, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-02237,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Jed S. Rakoff. Representing the plaintiffs are: Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP 100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY, 10017 Phone: 212-907-0700 Fax: 212-818-0477 E-mail: info@labaton.com - and - Goldman, Scarlato & Karon. P.C. 101 West Elm Street, Suite 360 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: 484.342.0700 or 888.668.4130 Fax: 484.342.0701 E-mail: info@gsk-law.com NATIONSCREDIT FINANCIAL: Mortgage Loan Discount Suit Revived ------------------------------------------------------------ The Fifth Appellate Court has reversed a dismissal by Madison County Circuit Judge Lola Maddox of a suit filed by the Lakin Law Firm against Nationscredit Financial Services, Ann Knef of The Madison St. Clair Record reports. Madison County Circuit Judge Lola Maddox dismissed a purported class action filed against Nationscredit Financial Services by Gary Treadway over a mortgage loan made by his mother (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7, 2007). Mr. Treadway, as special representative of the estate of his mother, Juanita Treadway, filed the suit last year. He claimed his mother paid a discount fee in order to reduce the interest on a mortgage, but did not receive the privilege from Nationscredit. The company removed the suit to the U.S. District Court in East St. Louis, arguing that a plaintiff must bring a claim based on the charging of interest in federal court under the National Banking Act. But the district court found that the National Banking Act did not apply, and so remanded the suit. Nationscredit attorney Joe Whyte of Edwardsville moved in October 2006 for the dismissal of the suit, which the court heard on April 27. On July 10, Judge Maddox said Mr. Treadway did not allege that Nationscredit made fraudulent representations to his mother. In the report by Ms. Knef, it stated that Justice Stephen Spomer -- in an opinion for a three-judge panel -- wrote that the circuit court dismissed the case on the basis that it was "completely" preempted by the National Bank Act. "The circuit court also relied on Dannewitz v. EquiCredit Corp. of America, 362 Ill. App. 3d 82 (2005), in making its finding that the instant cause is preempted by the National Bank Act," Judge Spomer wrote. "In so holding, the court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that because the loans at issue were made by a nonnational bank and subsequently purchased by a national bank, the National Bank Act did not apply. "We find neither of the decisions relied upon by the trial court determinative of the issue at hand," he wrote. Judge Spomer remanded the case to Madison County. NEENAH PAPER: Still Faces Retirees' Suit After Terrace Bay Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Neenah Paper, Inc. (NPI) continues to face a purported class action in Canada over the alleged wrongful reduction and/or elimination of certain retiree benefits following a transfer of operations. On Dec. 21, 2006, certain retirees of Neenah Paper Company of Canada (NPCC) brought a proposed class action against the NPCC, NPI, and Kimberly-Clark Inc. alleging the wrongful reduction and/or elimination of certain retiree benefits following Neenah Canada’s transfer of the Terrace Bay pulp and woodlands operations to Terrace Bay Pulp Inc. and Eagle Logging Inc. The plaintiffs allege that the Company and Neenah Canada have breached a contract to provide benefits, breached their fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs and have made negligent misrepresentations regarding retiree benefits. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages for the value of the loss of retiree medical and health benefits (and/or reinstatement of the reduced/eliminated benefits), plus punitive damages in the amount of $5.0 million Canadian dollars. The purported class has not been certified. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Neenah Paper, Inc. -- http://www.neenah.com-- is a North American producer of fine papers and technical products. Neenah also produces bleached kraft market pulp in Canada, where the Company owns approximately one million acres of timberlands and has rights to harvest wood of approximately 4.8 million acres of other timberlands. OAKLEY INC: Dec. 13 Hearing Set for Shareholder Suit Over Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Dec. 13, 2007 hearing is set for a purported shareholder class action pending against Oakley, Inc. in the California state court in connection to an agreement and plan of merger, dated June 20, 2007, by and among Luxottica Group S.p.A., Norma Acquisition Corp. and the company. On June 26, 2007, Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan filed a purported class action complaint, Case No. 07CC01306, in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, on behalf of itself and all other shareholders of Oakley except those named as defendants and any person, firm, trust, corporation or other entity related to or affiliated with any defendant, against Oakley and each of its directors. The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants violated their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, candor and independence by entering into a transaction without engaging in a fair and reasonable sale process, insofar as they engaged in self-dealing and obtained for themselves personal benefits, including personal financial benefits not shared equally by Oakley’s other stockholders and failed to make proper, timely disclosures to Oakley’s shareholders concerning the merger. It seeks, among other things, to -- class-action status; -- enjoin the defendants from consummating the proposed merger, unless and until the Company adopts and implements a fair sales process; -- declare that the merger agreement was entered into in breach of defendant’s fiduciary duties and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable; -- rescind, to the extent already implemented, the proposed merger; and -- award plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees. On July 30 and July 31, 2007, Defendants filed demurrers to the complaint. On Aug. 30, 2007, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrers and granted plaintiff 15 days’ leave to amend. On Sept. 14, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, seeking the same relief as the original complaint. The amended complaint contains similar allegations as the original complaint and also adds allegations for breach of fiduciary duty based on a purported failure to disclose certain information in the Company’s preliminary proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Sept. 7, 2007 in connection with the Merger. On Oct. 9, 2007, Defendants filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, which is currently scheduled to be heard by the Superior Court on Dec. 13, 2007. Oakley, Inc. -- http://oakley.com/-- is engaged in the design, development, manufacture, distribution and worldwide marketing of consumer products, including eyewear (sunglasses, prescription eyewear, goggles and electronically enabled eyewear), apparel, footwear, watches and accessories. It sells its products to retail accounts, through Oakley-owned O Stores, Vaults, through more than 100 mall-based sunglass specialty stores in the U.S, and through a mix of independent distributors and licensees in more than 100 countries. OAKLEY INC: Continues to Face FCRA Violations Lawsuit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Oakley, Inc. still faces a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The complaint was filed on Jan. 11, 2007, and is related to the inclusion of credit card expiration dates on sales receipts. It has not been granted class-action status. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is “Stephanie Leowardy v. Oakley Inc et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-00053-CJC-AN,” filed in the the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Cormac J. Carney with referral to Judge Arthur Nakazato. Representing the plaintiff is: James Mark Moore, Esq. Spiro Moss Barness 11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: 310-235-2468 E-mail: mark@spiromoss.com Representing the defendants is: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Call Jensen and Ferrell 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 949-717-3000 E-mail: sferrell@calljensen.com OLD DOMINION: Faces Suits Over Fuel Surcharges in LTL Shipments --------------------------------------------------------------- Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., along with other less-than- truckload (LTL) carriers, face a purported class action that accuses it and other LTLs of conspiring throughout four years or more to fix fuel surcharges on LTL shipments. On July 30, 2007, Farm Water Technological Services, Inc. d/b/a Water Tech, and C.B.J.T. d/b/a Agricultural Supply, on behalf of themselves and other plaintiffs, filed a putative class action against the Company and 10 other companies engaged in the LTL trucking business in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Named defendants in that complaint are: -- Arkansas Best Corp., -- Averitt Express, -- Con-Way, Inc., -- Fedex Corp., -- Jevic Transportation, Inc., -- Sun Capital Partners IV, LLC, -- New England Motor Freight, Inc., -- R+L Carriers, Inc., -- Saia, Inc., -- United Parcel Service, Inc., -- YRC Worldwide Inc., -- Old Dominion Motor Freight, Inc. Farm Water, doing business as Water Tech, and its subsidiary CBJT, doing business as Agricultural Supply contend that the practice dates back to 2003 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29, 2007). They charge that the carriers agreed to impose identical or nearly identical surcharges by linking them to diesel fuel prices published by the U.S. Department of Energy and by listing surcharges on their websites to communicate pricing. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchase LTL service directly to defendants or their unnamed co-conspirators from July 30, 2003 through the conclusion of the trial in this matter (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 2, 2007). The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a combination and conspiracy among themselves to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize fuel surcharges imposed for LTL services sold in the United States; (b) the identity of participants in the conspiracy; (c) the duration of the conspiracy alleged in this complaint and the nature and character of the acts performed by defendants and their co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy; (d) whether the alleged conspiracy violated Section of the Sherman Act; (e) whether the conduct of defendants and their co- conspirators, as alleged in the complaint, caused injury to the business and property plaintiffs and other members of the classes; (f) the effect of defendants' conspiracy on the prices of LTL services sold in the United States during the class period; and (g) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by plaintiffs and other members of the damages class. Plaintiffs pray that: -- the court determines that this action may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- the contract, combination or conspiracy, and the acts done in furtherance thereof by defendants and their co- conspirators, b adjudged to have been in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1; -- judgment be entered for plaintiffs and members of the damages class against defendants for three times the amount of damages sustained by plaintiffs and the damages class as allowed by law, together with the costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees; -- defendants and their affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors, partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to ac on their behalf, be permanently enjoined and restrained from, in any manner: (i) continuing, maintaining or renewing the contract, combination or conspiracy alleged, or from engaging in any other contract, combination or conspiracy having a similar purpose or effect, and from adopting or following any practice, plan, program or device having a similar purpose or effect; and (ii) communicating or causing to be communicated to any other person engaged in the manufacture, distribution or sale of any product except to the extent necessary in connection with a bona fide sales transaction between the parties to such communications; and -- plaintiffs and members of the class have such other, further and different relief as the case may require and the court may deem just and proper under the circumstances. Since the filing of the above suit, other plaintiffs have filed similar cases in various courts across the nation. Under federal court rules, the courts will likely consolidate these cases into a single proceeding. The company reported no development in the case at its Nov. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007 The suit is “Farm Water Technological Services, Inc. et al. v. Arkansas Best Corp. et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-01389-BEN-RBB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, under Judge Roger T. Benitez, with referral to Judge Ruben B. Brooks. Representing plaintiffs are: Christopher M. Burke Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-3301 Patrick J. Coughlin Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415)288-4545 Fax: (415)288-4534 E-mail: patc@lerachlaw.com - and - Jeffrey Todd Thomas Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1400 Irvine, CA 92614-8557 Phone: (949)451-3967 Fax: (949)475-4670 E-mail: jtthomas@gibsondunn.com SAILING (U.S.) INT'L: Recalls Pacifiers Due to Choking Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- Sailing (U.S.) International Corp., of Hackensack, N.J., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about about 8,000 of flashing pacifiers or 2-in-1 flashing pacifiers with whistle necklaces The company said the nipple can detach from the base, posing a choking hazard to young children. No incidents/injuries have been reported. The recalled pacifier necklace has a 28-inch multicolored cord with a 3- inch plastic pacifier that comes in assorted colors. A hole at the tip of the nipple is used as a blow hole for the whistle. The pacifier handle operates as the on-off button for the flashing light on both pacifiers. "Flashing Pacifier" or "2-in-1 Flashing Pacifier with Whistle Necklace" is printed on the packaging of the pacifiers. The pacifiers were made in China and sold at various retail stores nationwide during the month of June 2007 for about $5 per dozen. Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the pacifiers and return them to the store where purchased to receive a full refund or discard the pacifiers. For additional information, contact Sailing (U.S.) International Corp. at (800) 643-6134 between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.sailingusintl.com. To see this recall on CPSC's web site, including pictures of the recalled product, please go to: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08099.html STONE ENERGY: Continues to Face Shareholder Lawsuit in Louisiana ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stone Energy Corp. continues to face a derivative action that was filed in the 15th Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafayette, Louisiana by Gregory Sakhno, according the company's Nov. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit named the company as a nominal defendant. David Welch, Kenneth Beer, Peter Canty, James Prince, James Stone, John Laborde, Peter Barker, George Christmas, Richard Pattarozzi, David Voelker, Raymond Gary, B.J. Duplantis and Robert Bernhard were named as defendants in the action. It alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets against all defendants, and claims of unjust enrichment and insider selling against certain individual defendants. On April 22, 2006, the complaint in the action was amended to also be a class action brought on behalf of shareholders of the company. In addition to the above mentioned claims, the amended State Court derivative action complaint purported to allege breaches of fiduciary duty by the director defendants in connection with the then proposed merger transaction with Plains Exploration and Production Co., and seeks an order enjoining the director defendants from entering into the then proposed transaction with Plains. Stone Energy Corp. -- http://www.stoneenergy.com/-- is an independent oil and gas company engaged in the acquisition and subsequent exploration, development, operation and production of oil and gas properties located in the conventional shelf of the Gulf of Mexico, the deep shelf of the Gulf of Mexico, the deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico, Rocky Mountain Basins and the Williston Basin. TOBACCO LITIGATION: $1.2B Escrow Funds Released to Philip Morris ---------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris USA, the U.S. tobacco subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc. confirmed that it received $1.2 billion in funds held in an escrow account under the bond stipulation in the Engle smoking and health class action in Florida. PM USA also said it will immediately seek the discharge of a $100 million appeal bond in the same case. Case Background Trial began in July 1998 in “Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,” a case filed in May 1994, and pending in Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida, in which a class consisting of Florida residents, or their survivors, alleges diseases or medical conditions caused by their alleged “addiction” to cigarettes. The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, seeking actual damages and punitive damages in excess of $100 billion each and the creation of a medical fund to compensate individuals for future health-care costs. $145 Billion Damages Award On July 7, 1999, the jury found against RJR Tobacco, B&W and the other cigarette-manufacturer defendants in the initial phase, which included common issues related to certain elements of liability, general causation and a potential award of, or entitlement to, punitive damages. The second phase of the trial, which consisted of the claims of three of the named class representatives, began on November 1, 1999. On April 7, 2000, the jury returned a verdict against all the defendants. It awarded plaintiff Mary Farnan $2.85 million, the estate of plaintiff Angie Della Vecchia $4.023 million and plaintiff Frank Amodeo $5.831 million. The trial court also ordered the jury in the second phase of the trial to determine punitive damages, if any, on a class-wide basis. On July 14, 2000, the jury returned a punitive damages verdict in favor of the “Florida class” of approximately $145 billion against all the defendants, with approximately $36.3 billion and $17.6 billion being assigned to RJR Tobacco and B&W, respectively. Reversal of Trial Court’s Judgment On November 6, 2000, the trial judge denied all post-trial motions and entered judgment. In November 2000, RJR Tobacco and B&W posted appeal bonds in the amount of $100 million each and initiated the appeals process. On May 21, 2003, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s final judgment and remanded the case to the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court with instructions to decertify the class. Florida Supreme Court Review The class appealed, and the Florida Supreme Court accepted the case on May 12, 2004. On July 6, 2006, the court issued its decision. The court affirmed the dismissal of the punitive damages award and decertified the class, on a going-forward basis. The court preserved a number of class-wide findings from Phase I of the trial, including that cigarettes can cause certain diseases, that nicotine is addictive and that defendants placed defective and unreasonably dangerous cigarettes on the market, and authorized former class members to avail themselves of those findings under certain conditions in individual lawsuits, provided they commence those lawsuits within one year of the date the court’s decision becomes final. The court specified that the class is confined to those Florida citizen residents who suffered or died from smoking-related illnesses that “manifested” themselves on or before November 21, 1996 and that were caused by an addiction to cigarettes. In addition, the court reinstated the compensatory damages awards of $2.85 million to Mary Farnan and $4.023 million to Angie Della Vecchia, but ruled that the claims of Frank Amodeo were barred by the statute of limitations. Finally, the court reversed the Third District Court of Appeal’s 2003 ruling that class counsel’s improper statements during trial required reversal. Rehearing Motion On August 7, 2006, RJR Tobacco and the other defendants filed a rehearing motion arguing, among other things, that the findings from the Engle trial are not sufficiently specific to serve as the basis for further proceedings and that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision denied defendants due process. On the same day, the plaintiffs also filed a rehearing motion arguing that some smokers who became sick after November 21, 1996, and who are therefore not class members, should nevertheless have the statute of limitations tolled since they may have refrained from filing suit earlier in the mistaken belief that they were Engle class members. Supreme Court’s Revised Opinion On December 21, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court withdrew its July 6, 2006, decision and issued a revised opinion, in which it set aside the jury’s findings of a conspiracy to misrepresent and clarified that the Engle jury’s finding on express warranty were preserved for use by eligible plaintiffs. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ motion and confirmed that the class was limited to those individuals who developed alleged smoking-related illnesses that manifested themselves on or before November 21, 1996. The court issued its mandate on January 11, 2007, which began the one-year period for former class members to file individual lawsuits. Afterwards, defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. On Oct. 1, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal against the Florida Supreme Court's ruling. Companies named in the lawsuit include Philip Morris USA, a unit of Altria Group Inc., Brown and Williamson Holdings Inc., a unit of British American Tobacco PLC, Lorillard Tobacco Co., a unit of Loews Corp.; and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a unit of Reynolds American Inc. UNITED STATES: Health Dept. Accused of Seizing Medicare Money ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Dept. of Health & Human Services is facing a class-action complaint filed Nov. 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, accusing it of seizing money from Medicare and Medicaid service providers, under a "clandestine policy" that violates federal law and the Constitution, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Also named as defendants are Trailblazer Health Enterprises and Tricenturion Inc. This is a civil action alleging violation of the U.S. Constitution by federal employees. It concerns violation of the statutory prohibition on recoupment of Medicare overpayments during a pending administrative appeal. Named plaintiff William Janacek brings this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2) on behalf of healthcare providers participating in the Medicare program whose Constitutional right to Due Process of Law has been violated by defendants who have ignored the Congressional directive and violated the prohibition by illegally recouping Medicare payments and applying them to reduce contested overpayments. He wants the court to rule on: (a) whether the provider has filed an administrative appeal of Medicare overpayments which are pending a decision on resoncideration; (b) whether defendants have violated 42 USC Section 1395ddd by recouping Medicare overpayments prior to "the date the decision on the reconsideration has been rendered" in the administrative appeal; and (c) whether defendants are recouping Medicare overpayments contrary to the statutory prohibition in 42 USC Section 1395ddd under a clandestine policy and with deliberate indifference to the rights of the provider. Plaintiff requests that he be granted the following relief: -- damages; -- exemplary and punitive damages; -- issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunctive relief from the acts, conduct and omissions described; -- a declaration that defendants and unknown and unnamed officials, employees, and agents are acting without lawful authority and ultra vires and have illegally recouped payments in violation of 42 USC Section 1395ddd from plaintiff and other similarly situated healthcare providers participating in the Medicare program; -- costs of suit and recovery of reasonable attorneys' fees; and -- such other and further relief, both at law and at equity, to which plaintiff may show themselves to be justly entitled. The suit is "William Janacek et al v. Michael O. Leavitt et al., Case No. 307CV1996 G," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Representing plaintiffs is: Mark S. Kennedy 12225 Greenville Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75243 Phone: (972) 479-8755 Fax: (972) 479-8756 E-mail: markskennedylaw@msn.com VERIZON WIRELESS: Faces Fraud Suit Over GPS in BlackBerries ----------------------------------------------------------- Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless is facing a class- action complaint filed Nov. 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging it defrauded customers by selling them BlackBerry 8830 Smartphones and misrepresenting them as having built-in, functional GPS systems, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Verizon and co-defendant Cellco Partnership allegedly disabled the GPS system, then charged plaintiffs $240 to partially restore only some of the functions they had disabled, the suit claims. Named plaintiff Teresa Wyatt brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all persons in California (and such other states as the court may find appropriate) who purchased one or more BlackBerry 8830 Smartphones from Verizon Wireless and/or its authorized retailers. She wants the court to rule on: (a) whether Verizon should be enjoined and required to make appropriate disclosures of the existence and consequences of having tampered with and altered the BlackBerry 8830 Smartphone by disabling the GPS; (b) whether Verizon misrepresented and/or concealed that the BlackBerry 8830 smartphones they advertised, distributed and/or sold had the GPS disabled and the manner in which they were disabled; (c) whether Verizon represented that the BlackBerry 8830 Smartphones had characteristics uses and/or benefits which they did not have; (d) whether Verizon represented that the BlackBerry 8830 Smartphones it advertised, distributed and/or sold were new, brand-name BlackBerry 8830s and in original condition when, in fact, they had been altered; (e) whether Verizon inserted an unconscionable provision in its contacts; (f) whether Verizon should be enjoined to restore the BlackBerry 8830s Smartphones by re-activating the built-in GPS; (g) whether Verizon should be enjoined tampering with, altering and/or disabling the GPS on BlackBerry 8830 Smartphones; (h) whether Verizon's representations stating BlackBerry 8830 Smartphone has built-in GPS are false, misleading and/or likely to deceive or otherwise constitute a violation of California law; (i) whether Verizon's offering the blackBerry 8830 as new when it has in fact been altered is fales, misleading and/or likely to deceive or otherwise constitutes a violation of California law; (j) whether Verizon failed to disclose other necessary material facts in order to make its statements not misleading for want of disclosure of such omitted facts; (k) whether prohibiting use of a GPS service other than Verizon's fee-based proprietary GPS service, VZ Navigator, constitutes a violation of California law; (l) whether requiring subscription to Verizon's fee-based proprietary GPS software, VZ Navigator, in order to reactive the built-in GPS in the BlackBerry 8830 Smartphones or restore them to their original condition is a violation of California law; (m) why and when Verizon began to disable the GPS for the BlackBerry 8830; (n) whether Verizon has improperly failed to notify actual and potential buyers of the true facts; (o) whether the gravity of the harm attributable to Verizon's conduct, as alleged, is outweighed by any benefits attributable thereto; (p) the amount of revenues and profits Verizon received or saved and/or the amount of monies or other obligations imposed on or lost by plaintiffs as a result of such wrongdoing; and (q) whether plaintiffs are entitled to statutory, actual or exemplary damages, rescission or equitable relief and the appropriate measure of such relief. Plaintiff prays for judgment and relief as follows: -- an order certifying that the action may be maintained as a class action and that appointing plaintiff and her counsel as class representative; -- compensatory damages and restitution in an amount to be proven at trial, including any damages or restitution as may be provided for by statute; -- punitive damages per class member on an individual basis; -- a temporary, preliminary and/or permanent order providing for equitable and injunctive relief, including, but not limited to, an order of the court prohibiting Verizon from refusing to immediately cease all acts of unfair competition and enjoining Verizon from continuing to conduct business via the illegal acts or practices as alleged, refusing to engage in a corrective advertising and information campaign regarding their policies, and imposing an asset freeze or constructive trust over all illegally obtained monies; -- an order requiring disgorgement and/or imposing a constructive trust upon defendants' ill gotten monies and freezing defendants' assets and requiring defendants to pay restitution to plaintiff and all members of the class and to restore to the class all funds acquired by means of any act or practice declared by the court to be an unlawful, fraudulent or unfair business act or practice, a violation of laws, statutes or regulations, or constituting unfair competition or false, untrue, deceptive or misleading advertising; -- reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to CCP.Sec. 1021.5, Cal.Civ.Code Sec. 1780(d), Cal.Civ.Code SEc. 1794 and/or any other statute or authority authorizing an award of attorneys' fees and costs; -- costs of this suit; and -- other relief that the court deems just and proper. The suit is "Teresa Wyatt et al v. Cellco Partnership," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Representing plaintiffs are: Jordan M. Cohen Roy E. LaFrancis, Jr. The Cohen Law Firm 10650 Treena Street, Suite 203 San Diego, California 92131 Phone: 858-689-4736 Fax: 858-689-9278 E-mail: jcohen@thecohenlawfirm.net or rlafrancis@thecohenlawfirm.net XETHANOL CORP: Settles Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- Xethanol Corp. agreed in principle on Nov. 28, 2007 to settle the suit “In Re Xethanol Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-10234-HB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On Oct. 23, 2006, a purported class action was filed by Milton Ariail against Xethanol Corp., Lawrence S. Bellone, Christopher d'Arnaud- Taylor and Jeffery S. Langberg (Civil Action No. 06- 10234). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company and the individual defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's operations, management and internal controls in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The individual defendants, Lawrence S. Bellone, Christopher d'Arnaud-Taylor and Jeffery S. Langberg, are respectively the company's chief financial officer and a member of its board of directors; a member of its board of directors and its former chairman, president and chief executive officer; and a former member of its board of directors. Plaintiff sought, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period between Jan. 31, 2006 and April 8, 2006. Six nearly identical class actions complaints were thereafter filed in the same court, all of which have been consolidated into one action, “In re Xethanol Corporation Securities Litigation, 06 Civ. 10234 (HB) (S.D.N.Y.)” The plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint on March 23, 2007. The recent settlement agreement was reached during a mediation overseen by a retired United States District Court Judge in West Palm Beach, Florida, and attended by counsel for plaintiffs, counsel for the company and the individual defendants and counsel for the company's insurance carriers. The agreement remains subject to final negotiated writings executed by the parties and approval by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit is “In Re Xethanol Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-10234-HB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Harold Baer. Representing the plaintiffs is: Kim Elaine Miller, Esq. Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC 12 East 41st Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 696-3730 Fax: (504) 455-1498 E-mail: kimmiller225@yahoo.com Representing the defendant is: Katherine Blackwood Harrison, Esq. Paduano & Weintraub LLP 1251 Avenue of The Americas, 9th Floor New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 785-9100 Fax: (212)-785-9099 (fax) E-mail: kh@pwlawyers.com Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- 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 February 14-16, 2008 LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS ALI-ABA San Diego 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 October 23-24, 2008 Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar Mass Torts Made Perfect Bellagio, Las Vegas Contact: 1-800-320-2227 * Online Teleconferences ------------------------ 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 ********* 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 * * *