/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080130.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, January 30, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 21 Headlines CYBERSOURCE CORP: Ill. Judge Nixes PaylinX Share Options Lawsuit EXCELSIOR PRIVATE: Still Faces Md. Suit Over Trading Practices FLORIDA: Residents File Lawsuit Over “Save Our Homes” Statute FLORIDA: Lawyer Wants Pet License Fee Declared Unconstitutional GENCORP INC: Continues to Face Vinyl Chloride Toxic Tort Suits GLASS INDUSTRY: Six Firms Accused of Flat Glass Price Fixing GREENPOINT MORTGAGE: Faces Cal. Suit Over Alleged Discrimination HTC USA: HTC Smartphone Owners Claim Units Lack Driver Support ISILON SYSTEMS: Firms Face Suit Over Company's Stock Performance KENTUCKY: $62M Category Award Paid in Covington Sex Abuse Case LG SOURCING: Recalls Torchiere Lamps Due to Fire Hazard MAX & ERMA’S: Reaches Settlement in Pa. FCRA Violations Lawsuit MINNESOTA: $126M Noise Pollution Suit Settlement Cleared NATIONAL BEEF: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Boxed Beef Suit OHIO: Faces Suit Over New Requirements in Sex Offender Registry RAZORGATOR INC: Faces Mich. Suit Over Pricey Celebrity Tickets RR DONNELLEY: Recalls Blocks Due to Lead Paint Standard Breach SPRINT NEXTEL: Kans. Court Refuses to Dismiss New Jersey's Suit SYMS CORP: Investor Files Lawsuit Over Plan to Deregister Shares TIBCO SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit TYSON FOODS: Settles Del. Shareholder Lawsuit for $4.5 Million UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI: Awards Scholarships to Settle Lawsuit USBC: Bowling Alley Owner Files Suit in Pa. Over Game Changes * Milberg Weiss' Hired Plaintiff Gets Two Years Probation Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases AMERICAN DENTAL: Abbey Spanier Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit SHORETEL INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit ********* CYBERSOURCE CORP: Ill. Judge Nixes PaylinX Share Options Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Daniel Stack of the Madison County Circuit Court in Illinois granted a request by Cybersource Corp. to dismiss a purported class action filed against the company by a former employee of PaylinX, according to a report by Steve Gonzalez and Steve Korris of The St. Clair Record. The ruling comes more than a year after the judge took under advisement the defense motion for summary judgment. Case Background In 2000, PaylinX agreed to merge into Cybersource, a public company that helps businesses process payment transactions over the Internet. Under the merger, PaylinX share options would turn into an option to buy shares of Cybersource. Half the Cybersource shares would accelerate or vest when the merger closed. It closed Sept. 18, 2000, with company stock at $10.75. But, at the stock conversion in November 2000, it had dwindled to $1.85. In 2002, attorney John Hoffman of Korein Tillery filed a lawsuit on behalf of Brian Wilgus, a test engineer for PaylinX, claiming that a delay in converting stock prevented Mr. Wilgus and others from immediately exercising their options. Also, Mr. Hoffman claimed that the company failed to establish necessary E-trade accounts. The suit proposed a class action on behalf of about 75 former PaylinX employees at Cybersource. Judge Phillip Kardis certified the suit in 2004. He retired in 2005 and the case was assigned to Judge Stack in 2006. CyberSource attorney Alan Goldstein had asked whether Mr. Wilgus did in fact exercise his option, and if he did, he did not suffer from the share price drop between Sept. 18 and Oct. 20, 2000 because a "blackout" on that period to prevent illegal insider trading was in place. Mr. Goldstein contended that because of the blackout, no one at Cybersource who owned company stock could sell shares, while the share price was dropping from $10.75 to less than $6.50 between Sept. 18 and Oct. 20, 2000. At a Dec. 7, 2006 hearing, he asked the judge to grant summary judgment for lack of any issue of fact. Judge Stack took it under advisement. On Jan. 22, Judge Stack ruled that there were no genuine issues of material fact for which any evidence could be produced in the case. For more details, contact: John Hoffman, Esq. Korein Tillery, LLC, Gateway on the Mall 701 Market Street, Suite 300 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 241-4844 Fax: (314) 588-7036 - and - Alan K. Goldstein, Esq. Goldstein and Price, L.C. One Memorial Drive, Suite 1000 St. Louis, MO 63102-2449 Phone: (314) 421-0710 Fax: (314) 421-2832 and (314) 421-6150 EXCELSIOR PRIVATE: Still Faces Md. Suit Over Trading Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Excelsior Private Equity Fund II, Inc., (Managing Investment Adviser) continues to face a consolidated lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The Managing Investment Adviser, certain of its affiliates, and others were named in five class actions, which allege that the defendants allowed certain parties to engage in illegal and improper mutual fund trading practices, which allegedly caused financial injury to the shareholders of certain mutual funds managed by Excelsior. Each suit seeks unspecified monetary damages and related equitable relief. The class actions were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland for coordinated and consolidated pre-trial proceedings. The cases now fall under the title, "In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, MDL-1586." In November 2005, the Maryland court dismissed many of the plaintiffs' claims in both the fund shareholder class action. Several affiliates of the former Managing Investment Adviser and individual defendants have also been dismissed. Plaintiffs’ claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and under Section 36(b) and 48(a) of the 1940 Act, however, have not been dismissed. The company provided no development in the matter in its Jan. 25, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007. FLORIDA: Residents File Lawsuit Over “Save Our Homes” Statute ------------------------------------------------------------- Florida residents filed a purported class action against the state claiming that a law limiting property taxes for long-time homeowners discriminates against more recent arrivals. The suit was by Robert C. Bruner, Deborah Plitnick and Stanley C. Chamberlin in Leon County Circuit Court on Nov. 21, 2007. The plaintiffs are represented by Doug Lyons, Esq., who brought the case on behalf of residents of Florida who migrated to this state within the last four years and became homesteaders with diluted tax shelter benefits compared to old time homesteaders. The suit is directed a a state law known as “Save Our Homes.” It is an amendment to the state constitution intended to prevent skyrocketing property values and related high tax burden. The amendment is still subject to the approval of voters. If it takes effect, someone who moves to the state to purchase a house stands to pay property taxes as much as three times higher than a Florida resident who qualifies for the tax cap. That difference, according the suit violates the Equal Protection Clause contained in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it discriminates against newcomers. Thus, the plaintiffs are contending that the law and the amendment take away their constitutional rights. They claim that the existing “Save Our Homes” cap on the taxable value of a home should be invalidated,and needs to be replaced with a more equitable system that doesn't discriminate against newcomers. The plaintiffs are also asking a judge to stop the implementation of Amendment 1, if voters approve it, because it worsens the inequities. The case is the second of two class actions underway in Florida over “Save Our Homes” statute. The first case was brought by Alabama residents, and constitutionally challenges “Save Our Homes” on behalf of all non-residents of Florida who own residences in the state. This action was filed by Jerome K. Lanning, and is consequently referred to as the Lanning case. It was also filed in Leon County Circuit Court (Class Action Reporter, March 1, 2007). Copies of the two complaints are available free of charge at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?277f For more details, contact: Douglas S. Lyons, Esq. Lyons and Farrar, P.A. 325 N. Calhoun St. Tallahassee, FL 32303 Phone: (850) 222-8811 - and - William C. Owen, Esq. William C. Owen, LLC 241 Pinewood Dr. Tallahassee, FL 32303 Phone: (850) 513-0600 FLORIDA: Lawyer Wants Pet License Fee Declared Unconstitutional --------------------------------------------------------------- A Destin attorney filed a lawsuit claiming that Okaloosa County's ordinance that required dog and cat owners in the county to pay a $10 license fee discriminates against pet owners, Dusty Ricketts of The Northwest Florida Daily News reports. The suit was filed by Tom Hoffer, with the law firm of Matthews & Hawkins. According to the report, Okaloosa commissioners voted earlier this month to allow the Panhandle Animal Welfare Society to collect rabies vaccination information from veterinarians in order to collect the annual fees. Mr. Hoffer said the county ordinance levies a tax on him that is not an ad valorem tax. Since the fee is a non-ad valorem tax he should receive a benefit that others do not, but this is not so under the circumstance. Mr. Hoffe seeks to have the ordinance declared unconstitutional and to have the county pay his attorney fees and $10 in damages so he can get his license fee returned. The law firm is researching the issue to see if they can meet the requirements to file a class action, according to the report. A class action could compel the county to return all the money it has collected from the license fees since they were implemented in 1992. GENCORP INC: Continues to Face Vinyl Chloride Toxic Tort Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- GenCorp, Inc. continues to face toxic tort suits over alleged exposure to vinyl chloride (VC), including one that is seeking class certification. Between the early 1950s and 1985, the company produced polyvinyl chloride (PVC) resin at its former Ashtabula, Ohio facility. PVC is one of the most common forms of plastic currently on the market. VC, which is now listed as a known carcinogen by several governmental agencies, is a building block compound of PVC. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has strictly regulated workplace exposure to VC since 1974. Since the mid-1990s, the Company has been named in numerous cases involving alleged exposure to VC. In the majority of such cases, the Company is alleged to be a “supplier/manufacturer” of PVC and/or a civil co-conspirator with other VC and PVC manufacturers as a result of membership in a trade association. Plaintiffs generally allege that the Company and other defendants suppressed information about the carcinogenic risk of VC to industry workers, and placed VC or PVC into commerce without sufficient warnings. A few of these cases alleged VC exposure through various aerosol consumer products, in that VC had been used as an aerosol propellant during the 1960s. Defendants in these “aerosol” cases included numerous consumer product manufacturers, as well as the more than 30 chemical manufacturers. The Company used VC internally, but never supplied VC for aerosol or any other use. Of the cases that have been filed, the majority have been dismissed or settled on terms favorable to the Company. There were three vinyl chloride cases pending against the Company as of Nov. 30, 2007, all involving employees at VC or PVC facilities owned or operated by others. One of the pending cases is an action seeking class certification and a medical monitoring program for former employees at a PVC facility in New Jersey. The company provided no development in the matter in its Jan. 25, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2007. GenCorp Inc. -- http://www.gencorp.com/-- is a technology-based manufacturer of aerospace and defense systems with a real estate business segment that includes activities related to the entitlement, sale, and leasing of its excess real estate assets. GLASS INDUSTRY: Six Firms Accused of Flat Glass Price Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------ Six corporations are accused of fixing and manipulating the price of flat glass through bogus $300 per truckload "energy surcharges" since October 2000, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Plaintiff Diversified Glass Services filed the suit against: -- Pilkington North America, -- Nippon Sheet Glass, -- AGC Group, -- Asahi Glass Co., -- Saint-Gobain Corp., -- Saint-Gobain SA, and -- Guardian Glass Corp. It claims St. Gobain has admitted it participated in the "price fixing cartel" and has set aside EUR650 million to pay for it. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 25, 2008, according to glassBYTEs. Diversified Glass is represented by Andrew Morganti and Peter Safirstein of Milberg Weiss LLP in New York, along with Merrill Davidoff, Eric Cramer and Michael Dell'Angelo of Berger Montague LLP in Philadelphia. GREENPOINT MORTGAGE: Faces Cal. Suit Over Alleged Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Greenpoint Mortgage Funding is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California alleging it discriminates against and overcharges minority homebuyers, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Jorge Salazar is seeking redress for racially discriminatory lending practices under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 USC Section 1691 et seq. (ECOA), the Fair Housing Act, 42 USC Section 3601 et seq. (FHA), and the Civil Rights Act, 42 USC Sections 1981 and 1982. The complaint alleges Greenpoint has engaged in both intentional and disparate impact discrimination through its development and implementation of a specific, identifiable and uniform credit pricing system, that provides financial incentives to its loan officers, authorized mortgage brokers and correspondent lenders to make subjective decisions to increase interest rates and charge additional fees and costs to minority borrowers. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all minorities who entered into residential mortgage loan contracts that were originated, financed or purchased by defendant and who were subject to defendant's points, fees, yield spread premiums and other charges. He wants the court to rule on: (a) the nature and scope of defendant's policies and procedures concerning the assessment of yield spread premiums and other discretionary fees on mortgage loans it funds; (b) whether defendant discriminated against class members by charging them higher interest, fees, and costs than defendant charge similarly situated non-minority borrowers; (c) whether defendant's intent in its discriminatory policies and procedures was racially motivated; (d) whether defendant can articulate any legitimate non- discriminatory reason for its polices and procedures; (e) whether defendant and its subsidiaries are creditors under the ECOA because, in the ordinary course of business, they participate in the decision of whether or not to extend credit to consumers; (f) whether defendant's policies and procedures regarding yield spread premiums and other discretionary fees have a disparate impact on minority borrowers; (g) whether defendant has any business justification for its policies and procedures; (h) whether there is a less discriminatory alternative to these policies and procedures; (i) whether defendant devised and deployed a scheme or common course of conduct that acted to deceive plaintiff and class members; (j) whether the court can enter declaratory and injunctive relief; and (k) the proper measure of disgorgement or monetary relief. Plaintiff requests: -- an order determining that the action is a proper class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- a judgment awarding plaintiff and the class costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs; -- a judgment granting extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity, including rescission, restitution, reformation, attaching, impounding, or imposing a constructive trust upon, or otherwise restricting, the proceeds of defendant's ill-gotten funds to ensure that plaintiff and class members have an effective remedy; -- a judgment awarding plaintiff and the class compensatory damages according to proof; -- a judgment awarding punitive damages to plaintiff and the class; -- a judgment granting declaratory and injunctive relief and all relief that flows from such injunctive and declaratory relief; -- a judgment awarding pre-judgment interest to plaintiff and the class; and -- a judgment or other order granting such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper including, but not limited to, recessionary relief and information. The suit is "Jorge Salazar et al. v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., Case No. 08V 0155," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Representing plaintiffs are: John J. Stoia Jr., Esq. Theodore J. Pintar, Esq. Leslie E. Hurst, Esq. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 - and - Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. Wendy J. Harrison, ESq. 2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: (602) 274-1100 Fax: (602) 274-1199 HTC USA: HTC Smartphone Owners Claim Units Lack Driver Support -------------------------------------------------------------- A Web site http://HTCClassAction.orghas been set up to spread awareness about problems with recent HTC Smartphones and PocketPCs and gather information for a possible class action. According to the site, HTC neglected to include the necessary drivers needed for its latest SmartPhone and PocketPC devices to come to their full potential. Those affected are all HTC devices based on the MSM7200 and MSM7500 chipsets from Qualcomm. The site states: None of these devices seem to use the hardware acceleration provided by it's ATi Imageon based technology, or the QTV or Q3Dimension technologies. These devices include, but are not necessarily limited to: * HTC TyTN II (MSM7200) * HTC Touch Dual (MSM7200) * HTC Touch Cruise (MSM7200 * HTC Wings (MSM7200). * HTC Titan (MSM7500), * HTC Vogue (MSM7500), * HTC Libra (MSM7500), * HTC Iris (MSM7500) ISILON SYSTEMS: Firms Face Suit Over Company's Stock Performance ---------------------------------------------------------------- Venture capital firms Atlas Venture, Madrona Venture Group, and Sequoia Capital were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit over the stock performance of Isilon Systems, Inc., PE Week reports. In the last quarter of 2007, the Class Action Reporter reported that Isilon Systems has been the subject of several purported securities fraud class actions filed by various law firms in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The law firms filing the lawsuits against Isilon are: -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 5, 2007); -- Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 17, 2007); and -- Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2007). The complaints charge Isilon and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. The complaints allege that on Dec. 14, 2006, Isilon completed its IPO of 8.9 million shares at $13.00 per share (including 590,717 shares sold as part of an over-allotment) for net proceeds of approximately $105.7 million, pursuant to the Registration Statement. The Registration Statement failed to disclose the truth about Isilon’s business operations, finances, business metrics, and future business and financial prospects. Due to defendants’ positive, but false statements in the Registration Statement, Isilon’s stock immediately soared – its shares closing up over 77% on its first day of trading in the best debut of a technology IPO in more than six years. Isilon’s stock continued to climb, closing as high as $27.37 per share on December 29, 2006. Then on Oct. 3, 2007, after the market closed, Isilon announced disappointing preliminary results for its third quarter 2007. On this news, Isilon’s stock price collapsed from $7 per share on October 3, 2007 to close at $5.66 per share on October 4, 2007 –- a decline of over 19% on volume of 3 million shares (over five times the average previous trading volume for the stock). This closing price represented an all-time trading low for Isilon. According to the complaints, the true facts, which were omitted from the Registration Statement or were known by certain of the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were: -- the Company was not on track, nor would it be able, to reach profitability by the second half of 2007; -- the Company’s clustered storage solutions did not provide a competitively differentiated business model which would enable the Company to effectively compete against the dominant players in the traditional storage market; -- the Company’s past results were not indicative of its future operations, including the amount of revenue it derived from its large customers, such as the Eastman Kodak Company, the Company’s ability to continue to sustain quarter over quarter revenue growth, and its ability to manage its cost structure; and -- despite being able to grow and significantly diversify its overall customer base, the Company would remain highly dependent upon Kodak. Given that the clustered network attached storage market in which the Company operates is a highly competitive, high-growth emerging market, the Company had no reasonable basis to make projections about its 2007 results. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Isilon common stock during the Class Period. Isilon Systems, Inc. -- http://www.isilon.com/-- is a provider of clustered storage systems for digital content. The Company has designed and developed its clustered storage systems specifically to address the needs of storing and managing digital content. KENTUCKY: $62M Category Award Paid in Covington Sex Abuse Case -------------------------------------------------------------- The Class Counsel in the suit "Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington, Case No. 03-CI-00181," makes this status report to all Class Members on Jan. 28: All Category Awards and all Extraordinary Injury Fund (EIF) awards have now been made by the Special Masters, except for awards that may result from award decisions that are on appeal. 100% of the Category Awards made to date have been paid. The total amount paid to class members for Category awards is $62,881,500.00. The total amount of EIF awards to date is $16,200,000.00. The EIF awards have not yet been paid. The Special Masters have considered 400 claims in this case. One claim was dismissed by the Court because it was filed too late without a valid reason. To date, the Special Masters have made 243 awards and have denied 157 claims. There have been 106 appeals of Category Award decisions to the Appeals Special Master, who has decided 100 of those appeals. The Appeals Special Master reversed 14 of the Special Masters' decisions and remanded those cases to them for awards, which were made. Those awards are included in the total 243 awards. There have been 27 appeals of the Appeals Special Master's decisions to the Boone Circuit Court. To date, the Court has decided 11 appeals. The Special Masters have considered all 178 class members who received awards in Categories 3 and 4 for EIF awards. They made EIF awards to 78 class members and denied awards to 100 class members. To date, there have been 36 appeals of EIF award decisions, which are all pending before the Appeals Special Master. It is possible that additional awards may be made if award decisions are reversed on appeal by the Appeals Special Master or by the Court. As all claimants were advised, the settlement originally included of $25,000,000.00 in Senior Unsubordinated Notes from Catholic Mutual Insurance entities. In April 2007, Catholic Mutual made a scheduled payment of $5,000,000.00 on these Notes. A second payment of $5,000,000.00 is due in April 2008. In addition,most awards to persons who were abused during a time period covered by Catholic Mutual Insurance are subject to reinsurance policies held by Catholic Mutual. When these awards were paid, Catholic Mutual applied for reinsurance proceeds. Reinsurance proceeds began to be received in January 2008 and are being deposited into the settlement funds to reduce the amount of the Notes. It is expected that a substantial percentage of the EIF awards will be paid in February due to the receipt of additional Catholic Mutual reinsurance proceeds during January and February 2008, which will retire a portion of the Notes in the settlement fund. The Settlement Agreement requires that 5% of the total settlement be reserved for the Counseling Fund, which has been and continues to pay for mental health treatment of abuse victims, and that 5% be reserved for the Minors Fund, which is set aside for claims by persons born after October 21, 1980. There are sufficient assets in the Settlement Funds to pay all awards and to fully fund the Counseling and Minors Funds. During the course of the settlement, an independent CPA auditing firm, Clark, Schaefer & Hackett Co., located in Cincinnati, Ohio, has periodically made audit tests of the procedures used in the settlement and of the numerous transactions that have taken place through US Bank. The audit firm has approved all actions to date and has submitted written reports to the Court and to the Settlement Master. The Settlement Master has submitted 15 written reports to the Court between May 5, 2006 and January 23, 2008, approximately every 45 days. These reports are filed in the public record and set forth detailed information on the status of each settlement escrow fund and of the claims and appeals process to date. When all appeals have been resolved and all awards have been paid, the independent auditor and the Settlement Master will make a final detailed report to the Court describing exactly what occured in the settlement process of this case. Pursuant to Court Order, no class members or claimants in this case has been or will be identified in the public record. Each class member will receive a copy of the final report. The timing of the final report will depend on the processing of the pending appeals and the payment of EIF awards. The suit was filed in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Boone Circuit Court. LG SOURCING: Recalls Torchiere Lamps Due to Fire Hazard ------------------------------------------------------- L G Sourcing, Inc., of North Wilkesboro, N.C., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 90,000 Portfolio Incandescent Torchiere Lamps. The company said a short circuit in the lamps' wiring can pose a fire hazard to consumers. L G Sourcing has received two reports of lamp fires. No injuries have been reported. The recalled lamp has a black steel frame and a bowl-shaped light fixture. The item number 179878 is printed on the packaging and the bottom of the base of the lamp. Only lamps sold between March 2005 and October 2007 with UL listing number E246506 are included in the recall. Lamps marked “ETL listed” are not included in the recall. These recalle lamps were manufactured by Field Smart Lighting Co. Ltd., of China and were being sold at Lowe's retail stores nationwide from March 2005 through October 2007 for about $17. Picture of the recalled torchiere lamps can be found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08159.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled lamps and return them to any Lowe's retail outlet to receive a refund. For additional information, contact L G Sourcing toll-free at (866) 916-7233 anytime or visit http://www.lowes.com MAX & ERMA’S: Reaches Settlement in Pa. FCRA Violations Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Max & Erma's Restaurants, Inc. settled a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania that is alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The suit was filed on March 2007. FCRA provides in part that expiration dates may not be printed on credit or debit card receipts given to customers. FCRA imposes significant penalties upon violators of these rules and regulations where the violation is deemed to have been willful. Otherwise, damages are limited to actual losses incurred by the cardholder and attorneys fees. On Oct. 23, 2007, the company reached a settlement with the plaintiff, which was subsequently approved by the court as a class settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, the company is required to distribute 225,000 vouchers to credit card users at the eighteen restaurants that printed expiration dates on credit card receipts during the period of the violation. The vouchers are to be distributed between Dec. 2, 2007 and Feb. 1, 2008. Each voucher contains two coupons for $4.00 off any purchase at a Max & Erma’s restaurant between Dec. 2, 2007 and Feb. 20, 2008, and between Jan. 21, 2008 and Feb. 20, 2008, respectively. The suit is “Klingensmith v. Max & Erma's Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-00318-JFC-LPL,” filed in the U.S District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Joy Flowers Conti, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Carlson Lynch P.O. Box 367 231 Melville Lane Sewickley, PA 15143 Phone: (412) 749-1677 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com Representing the defendants is: Paul J. Atencio, Esq. Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 600 Grant Street USX Tower, Suite 2900 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 803-1170 E-mail: pjatencio@mdwcg.com MINNESOTA: $126M Noise Pollution Suit Settlement Cleared -------------------------------------------------------- Hennepin County District Judge Stephen Aldrich approved a settlement of a class action that sought relief from airport noise, the Star Tribune reports. The approval is the final hurdle in the $216 million settlement of a similar class action brought by the cities of Minneapolis, Richfield and Eagan together with the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority. The Federal Aviation Administration has already approved the settlement (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2007). The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) board voted on Oct. 15 to approve it. The cities' lawsuit 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. 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. NATIONAL BEEF: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Boxed Beef Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's 2006 ruling in the matter, “Schumacher v. Tyson Foods, et al.,” which names National Beef Packing Company, the beef processor owned by U.S. Premium Beef, LLC, as a defendant, DowJones Select reports. The three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's 2006 ruling in favor of the ranchers, who had said in their lawsuit that large meat packing companies underpaid producers for live cattle. The ranchers had claimed that the packers knew or should have known of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's error. On July 1, 2002, a lawsuit was filed against: -- Farmland National Beef Packing Co., L.P. (FNBPC or the predecessor to NBP [National Beef Packing Company LLC]), -- ConAgra Beef Co., -- Tyson Foods, Inc., and -- Excel Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota seeking certification of a class of all persons who sold cattle to the defendants for cash, or on a basis affected by the cash price for cattle, during the period from April 2, 2001 through May 11, 2001 and for some period up to two weeks thereafter. The case was filed by three named plaintiffs on behalf of a putative nationwide class that plaintiffs estimate is comprised of hundreds or thousands of members. The complaint alleged that the defendants, in violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, knowingly used, without correction or disclosure, incorrect and misleading boxed beef price information generated by the U.S.D.A. to purchase cattle offered for sale by the plaintiffs at a price substantially lower than was justified by the actual and correct price of boxed beef during this period. Plaintiffs also sought recovery against all defendants under a theory of unjust enrichment. The case was certified as a class-action matter in June of 2004. The plaintiffs claimed damages against FNBPC in the amount of approximately $4.5 million plus prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and court costs. The claim is subject to reduction in an unknown amount by the number of class members who have opted out of the class. Trial began March 31, 2006. On April 13, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in favor of FNBPC but against the other defendants. The other defendants have filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The appeal was argued on Nov. 14, 2007. The appeals court recently ruled that the ranchers produced no evidence that the packers intentionally violated the Packers and Stockyards Act by manipulating or controlling, or attempting to manipulate or control, cattle prices. To prove a violation, a plaintiff must show that a packer intentionally committed unlawful conduct, the panel said in its ruling. "Therefore, the district court erred when it instructed the jury that a showing of intent was not required and reversal of the district court is necessary," the judges said. The suit is “Schumacher, et al. v. IBP, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-01027-CBK,” filed in the U.S. District Court of South Dakota under Judge Charles B. Kornmann. Representing the plaintiffs are: Elizabeth J. Anderson, Esq. David F. Herr, Esq. Maslon, Edelman, Borman & Brand 3300 Wells Fargo Center, 90 S. 7th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140 Phone: (612) 672-8200 Fax: (612) 672-8397 Representing the defendants are: William H. Baumgartner, Jr., Esq. Sidley Austin LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 853-7000 Fax: (312) 853-7036 E-mail: wbaumgartner@sidley.com - and - Patrick E. Brookhouser, Jr., Esq. McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC LLO 1601 Dodge St., Suite 3700, First Natl. Tower Omaha, NE 68102-1627 Phone: (402) 341-3070 Fax: (402) 341-0216 OHIO: Faces Suit Over New Requirements in Sex Offender Registry --------------------------------------------------------------- The Ohio Justice and Policy Center filed a purported class action against the State of Ohio, claiming that new requirements, which forces sex offenders to register their names, and addresses on a public registry for longer than originally told, is unconstitutional, Sharon Coolidge of The Cincinnati Enquirer reports. The local legal watchdog group filed the suit in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court on behalf of convicted sex offender Jerome Sewell and another unnamed female sex offender. They are seeking to stop the reclassification under the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act. The law takes effect Jan. 1 and will affect nearly one third of the state’s 25,000 sex offenders. Approximately 250 sex offenders in Hamilton County have filed individual complaints. The purported class action seeks to make a single claim on behalf of all Hamilton County sex offenders, according to the report. The case will be heard next month by Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Ethna Cooper. For more details, contact: Margie Slagle, Esq. Ohio Justice & Policy Center 215 E. 9th St., Suite 601 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Phone: 513-421-1108 Fax: 513-562-3200 E-mail: contact@ohiojpc.org Web site: http://www.ohiojpc.org/ RAZORGATOR INC: Faces Mich. Suit Over Pricey Celebrity Tickets -------------------------------------------------------------- RazorGator, Inc., Tickco Premium Seating and Preferred Ticket.com are facing a class-action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan accusing it of cheating plaintiffs of $95,000 worth of entertainment at a Rolling Stones concert and celebrity parties, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff E&M Properties claims the defendants charged it: -- $52,800 for two tickets to a Stones show in Las Vegas; -- $11,550 for Maxim party tickets; -- $13,475 for Stones party tickets; -- $9,350 for a party with Christina Aguilera; and -- $8,250 for Playboy party tickets and they did not get what was promised, and had to pay another $5,000 at the parties. Plaintiffs say the defendants overcharged and failed to deliver all year in 2007. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) and (b)(3) on behalf of all persons who: (1) purchased tickets from these defendants at artificially inflated prices for events from Jan. 1, 2007 through Dec. 31, 2007; and (2) received tickets whose quality were substantially less than what was represented to them by the defendants. Plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants are properly within the jurisdiction of this court; (b) whether defendants and their co-conspirators were associated-in-fact as an enterprise as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 1961(4); (c) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 1961(5); (d) whether the conduct of the defendants and their co- conspirators violates 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c); (e) whether defendants and their co-conspirators committed RICO predicate acts or conspired to violate the RICO statute; (f) whether defendants fraudulently concealed their conduct; (g) whether defendants were unjustly enriched; (h) whether plaintiff and the class suffered an injury to their property caused by the conduct of the defendants and their con-conspirators; (i) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to damages; and (j) the appropriate measure of damages and other relief. Plaintiffs requests: -- certification that the action may be maintained as a class action; -- award plaintiff and the class restitutionary and/or compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial; -- award plaintiff and the class treble damages in an amount to be determined at trial; -- award plaintiff and the class the costs of this litigation, including attorneys' fees and expenses; and -- such other and further relief as may be just and proper under the circumstances. The suit is E&M Properties, Inc. et al. v. RazorGator, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-10377," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Judge Nancy G. Edmunds, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Robert D. Sheehan, Esq. Sheehan Assoc. 1460 Walton Boulevard, Suite 222 Rochester Hills, MI 48309 Phone: 248-650-5366 Fax: 248-650-5368 E-mail: SheehanLawyers@aol.com RR DONNELLEY: Recalls Blocks Due to Lead Paint Standard Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- RR Donnelley, of Chicago, Ill., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 18,000 ESI-R Screening Materials distributed by Pearson Learning Group, and Pearson Early Learning, of Upper Saddle River, N.J. The company said the surface paint on the green wooden blocks contains excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No injuries have been reported. The green wooden blocks are part of the ESI-R Screening Materials, educational materials used by schools to assess young children. The items include 10 green wooden blocks, a plastic yellow car, an 8-ft. white cloth ribbon, 10 black and white printed cards with shapes, a red rubber ball, and a blue plastic button. These recalled educational assessment blocks were manufactured in China and were being sold at Pearson distributes to schools, examiners, and educators nationwide via sales representatives, catalogs, and the firm's Web sites: http://www.pearsonschool.com and http://www.pearsonlearning.com,from January 2003 through November 2007 for about $23. The materials are part of a larger ESI-R kit that sold for about $120. Pictures of recalled educational assessment blocks can be found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08539a.jpgand http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08539b.jpg Purchasers are advised to immediately stop using the blocks in the ESI-R Screening Materials. RR Donnelley will provide free replacement materials and instructions for returning the recalled product. RR Donnelley is directly contacting purchasers and posting information on its Web site. For additional information, contact RR Donnelley toll-free at (888) 988-2940 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.rrdonnelley.com/ESI-R-Recall SPRINT NEXTEL: Kans. Court Refuses to Dismiss New Jersey's Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas refused to dismiss a class action filed by the State of New Jersey against Sprint Nextel Corp., Dan Margolies of The Kansas City Star reports. In setting the stage for a possible trial, Judge John W. Lungstrum issued a ruling this month, which stated that the state’s allegations were sufficient to withstand motions filed by Sprint, its board of directors and its former top two executives, William T. Esrey and Ronald T. LeMay, to throw out the case. The lawsuit filed on February 2003 alleges that Sprint and its board of directors knew as early as March 2001 that it was highly unlikely that then-Chief Executive William T. Esrey and then-President Ronald T. LeMay would be able to continue running Sprint (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 15, 2004). That was because Sprint and the board supposedly knew that personal tax shelters of the kind that Messrs. Esrey and LeMay had bought from Ernst & Young, Sprint’s auditor at the time, were under investigation by the Internal Revenue Service and that the pair faced potential tax liabilities totaling more than $100 million. The suit contends that Sprint should have disclosed to investors that the two men's continued employment was in serious doubt because they faced imminent financial ruin. It seeks to recover damages on behalf of investors who bought shares of Sprint’s FON or PCS stock on the open market from March 1, 2001, through Jan. 29, 2003. Then and now, Sprint and the other defendants had asked Judge Lungstrum to rule in their favor based on the complaint alone, arguing that it failed to state facts showing an intention to deceive or defraud. However, in denying their most recent motions, Judge Lungstrum found that the allegations in New Jersey’s complaint “permit an inference” that the defendants knew of the devastating tax liabilities faced by Messrs. Esrey and LeMay when they issued the statements concerning their long-term employment, knew that the IRS might find their tax shelters invalid, and knew that Messrs. Esrey’s and LeMay’s continuing ability to lead Sprint was “in grave doubt.” With the decision, the parties in the five-year-old case are only now beginning to take depositions. No trial date has been set. The suit is “State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment, et al. v. Sprint Corporation et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-02071-JWL- JPO,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, Judge John W. Lungstrum, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Thomas R. Buchanan, Esq. McDowell, Rice, Smith & Buchanan, PC 605 West 47th Street, Suite 350 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: 816-753-5400/960-7388 Fax: 816-753-9996 E-mail: tbuchanan@mcdowellrice.com - and - Katrina Blumenkrants Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas LLC Two Gateway Center - 12th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: 973-623-3000 Fax: 973-623-0858 Representing the defendants are: Chad C. Beaver, Esq. Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP KC 1000 Walnut, Suite 1400 Kansas City, MO 64106-2140 Phone: 816-474-8100 Fax: 816-474-3216 E-mail: cbeaver@spencerfane.com - and - Joselyn R. Treadway Verschelden, Esq. Rouse Hendricks German May PC One Petticoat Lane Bldg. 1010 Walnut St., Ste. 400 Kansas City, MO 64106 Phone: 816-471-7700 Fax: 816-471-2221 E-mail: joselynv@rhgm.com SYMS CORP: Investor Files Lawsuit Over Plan to Deregister Shares ---------------------------------------------------------------- Syms Corp. faces a purported class action that was filed by an investor planning to deregister the company's shares under federal securities laws, James Covert of The New York Post reports. A week after delisting from the New York Stock Exchange, a New Jersey-based investor filed a lawsuit -- seeking class-action status -- that accuses the Secaucus, N.J.-based clothing chain of "self-dealing" as it moves to deregister its shares and as a result avoid financial disclosures to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The company has said the disclosures, which are required under Sarbanes-Oxley accounting rules, are costly and time-consuming. However, the suit, alleges that Syms' estimate that it will save $750,000 a year by going dark is "inflated." It contends that the figure "pales in comparison" to the $100 million in market capitalization lost since Syms announced on Dec. 21, 2007 its intention to delist and deregister its shares. The suit alleges “The going-dark plan was conceived and approved . . . without any safeguards to protect the interest of Syms minority shareholders.” Syms Corp. -- http://www.syms.com-- operates a chain of off- price retail stores located throughout the U.S. in the Northeastern and Middle Atlantic regions, and in the Midwest, Southeast and Southwest. Each Syms store offers a range of in- season merchandise bearing designer or brand name labels for men, women and children. TIBCO SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs are still appealing a dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California of a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against TIBCO Software, Inc. In May 2005, three purported shareholder class action complaints were filed against the company and several of its officers: -- "Guzzetti v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-02373-SBA," filed on June 10, 2006; -- "Bernheim v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-02205-SBA," filed on May 31, 2005; and -- "Siegall v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No. 4:05- cv-02146-SBA," filed on May 25, 2005. Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of purchasers of the company's common stock from Sept. 21, 2004 through March 1, 2005. The complaints generally allege that the company made false or misleading statements concerning its operating results, its business and internal controls, and the integration of Staffware and seek unspecified monetary damages. It charges the defendants with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages. The actions were consolidated and in September 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the litigation with prejudice. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal. The company reported no development in the matter in its Jan. 25, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 30, 2007. The suit is "Lance Siegall, et al. v. Tibco Software, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-02146," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Elizabeth Pei Lin, Esq. Milberg Weiss LLP One California Plaza 300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213/617-1200 Fax: 213/617-1975 E-mail: elin@milbergweiss.com Representing the defendants are: Douglas John Clark, Esq. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Phone: 650/493-9300 Fax: 650/565-5100 E-mail: dclark@wsgr.com TYSON FOODS: Settles Del. Shareholder Lawsuit for $4.5 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- Former Tyson Foods Inc. CEO Don Tyson and a partnership that owns Tyson Foods shares agreed to pay $4.5 million to settle a suit over stock options before the court suit comes to trial, Roy Harris of CFO.com reports. On Jan. 12, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated two previously filed lawsuits, "Amalgamated Bank v. Tyson" and "Meyer v. Tyson," and captioned the consolidated action "In re Tyson Foods, Inc. Consolidated Shareholder's Litigation." The consolidated complaint names as defendants the Tyson Limited Partnership and certain present and former directors of the company. The company is also named as a nominal defendant, with no relief sought against it. The lawsuit contains five derivative claims alleging the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by: -- approving consulting contracts for Don Tyson and Robert Peterson in 2001 and for Don Tyson in 2004 (Count I); -- approving and inadequately disclosing certain "other compensation" paid to Tyson executives from 2001 to 2003 (Count II); -- approving certain option grants to certain officers and directors with alleged knowledge the company was about to make announcements that would cause the stock price to increase (Count III); -- approving and not adequately disclosing various related- party transactions from 2001 to 2004 that plaintiffs allege were unfair to the company (Count IV); and -- making inadequate disclosures that resulted in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission consent decree (Count V). The consolidated complaint asserts three additional derivative claims for: -- breach of the 1997 settlement agreement in "Herbets v. Tyson, et al., No. 14231 (Del. Ch.)" (Count VI); -- civil contempt of the court's order and final judgment in "Herbets v. Tyson" (Count VII); and -- unjust enrichment regarding the benefits obtained by the defendants through the various transactions challenged in the consolidated complaint (Count IX). The consolidated complaint also makes a putative class action claim that the company's 2004 proxy statement contained misrepresentations regarding certain executive compensation (Count VIII). On March 2, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs' filed a response on May 8, 2006, and defendants filed a reply brief on June 9, 2006. On Feb. 6, 2007, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion, including dismissing in whole the claims pertaining to the consulting contracts, contempt of the court’s final order in “Herbets v. Tyson, et al.,” and the putative class action claim, and dismissing in part certain of plaintiffs' claims regarding the approval and disclosure of executive compensation and the related-party transactions, but declining to dismiss the remaining claims. On May 16, 2007 the outside director defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding the count dealing with option grants. The court denied the outside directors motion on Aug. 15, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 4, 2008). In refusing to dismiss the case on Aug. 15, Chancellor William B. Chandler III ruled that Tyson's board had acted with "disloyalty that could not have arisen from a good faith business judgment" in its position on spring-loading the options. Spring-loading of options, as distinct from backdating, is the dating of strike prices ahead of expected favorable company news so that the value of issued shares likely will rise. To settle the two-year-old derivative case, titled In Re Tyson Foods Inc., the company also agreed to "implement or continue certain governance measures," including establishing a nominating committee, appointing a new independent director, and limiting related-party transactions that Tyson LP, Don Tyson, his family members, or Tyson Foods executives have with the company. The former CEO and Tyson LP, identified as the company's largest holder, will make the payment, with no other defendant participating, according to the Springdale, Ark.-based food producer. While shareholder contentions about the design of the stock options will not be adjudicated — and claims against the defendants will be dismissed — an attorney for the plaintiffs tells CFO.com that "getting senior officers to write checks back to a company, where it's not covered by insurance, is a big deal." That outcome, along with governance changes being agreed to by Tyson Foods, add more significance to a case already rife with it. "This case provided two huge pro-shareholder rulings early on in (Tyson Foods's) motion to dismiss part of the case," Stuart Grant, whose Delaware firm Grant & Eisenhofer represented plaintiffs, told CFO.com. Tyson Foods, Inc. -- http://www.tyson.com/-- produces, distributes and markets chicken, beef, pork, prepared foods and related allied products. UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI: Awards Scholarships to Settle Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The University of Missouri system is accepting applications for a scholarship created by a 2005 legal settlement. The scholarship fund was created after St. Louis attorney Robert Herman filed a class action lawsuit against the UM system. The system has awarded scholarships funded by the settlement since 2006. The lawsuit alleged that the university's "educational fees" violated an 1872 Missouri law that prohibited the collection of tuition from Missouri residents. Since 1986, the UM system has collected educational fees from students. In 2002, UM system spokesman David Russell -- now UM system chief of staff -- said that educational fees are different from tuition because Missouri students' education is subsidized from the state, and that tuition refers to the entire cost of a student's education. The law was changed in 2001 to allow the system to collect educational fees. The lawsuit could have cost the UM system up to $450 million, but the two sides reached an agreement that would create a $10 million scholarship fund. Since then, the fund has grown to more than $13 million. According to the text of the settlement, the money in the fund must be used for Tuition Settlement Scholarships until the 25th anniversary of the fund's establishment. The scholarships can go to students who attended any of the UM system campuses between January 1995 and August 2001 as undergraduates and residents of Missouri. The students must have been between 16 and 25 years old when they attended the university. Tuition Settlement Scholarship coordinator Carolyn Allen said the system had expected more applications for the scholarship than they received. "We initially thought from records and data that there would be about 4,000," Allen said. "We didn't get that high number." In 2006 the system awarded 1,875 scholarships, Allen said. Last year, it awarded 1,727 scholarships totaling $938,771. Of that, almost 42 percent went to students who attended MU. As a result, the amount of each award has increased each year. In 2006, the first year the scholarship was offered, each qualifying student received $500, Allen said. In 2007, that amount increased to $515. This year, the scholarships are being awarded in the amount of $530. Qualifying students' spouses and children are also eligible. Allen said most of the scholarships awarded so far have gone to students who are still enrolled at a UM system campus, but that more will likely be awarded when qualifying students' children reach college age. "As their children become eligible, then we should see an influx of applicants at that point," she said. "We're kind of at a dormant stage right now." At that time, she said, applicants would need to provide proof of relationship to a qualified student. Spouses need to provide proof that they are married to a qualified student with a copy of their marriage license. She said some students' adopted children who are college-aged could apply for the scholarships. Allen said she sends reminder e-mails to enrolled students who are eligible for the scholarship. She said that as she receives inquiries about the scholarships, she adds new applicants to her reminder list. The scholarships can be used for any UM system education, including undergraduate or graduate studies at any UM system campus and MU Extension programs. USBC: Bowling Alley Owner Files Suit in Pa. Over Game Changes ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Bowling Congress (USBC) faces a federal class action in Pennsylvania that accuses it of conspiring to make the game easier to attract more casual bowlers, John Hilton and Dale Heberlig of The Carlisle Sentinel reports. The suit was filed by Shippensburg Park Lanes, a bowling alley owned by James Salisbury, who claims that the alleged conspiracy puts his business at a competitive disadvantage. Jimbo Bowling Group Inc., Ms. Salisbury’s incorporated business name, filed the class-action complaint. He is represented by attorney J. Chad Moore, Esq. Asked for details about the case, Mr. Moore explains to The Carlisle Sentinel via e-mail: “The suit is an attempt to address two main issues. The first is the lane certification process, the second is the integrity of the game itself and the long-term viability of the bowling business, particularly for independent proprietors.” The suit was brought the suit on behalf of anyone owning a bowling center between 1980 and 2007. It is asking for restitution of defendant’s wrongful profits, revenues, and benefits. For more details, contact: J. Chad Moore Attorney at Law 270 Market St. Millersburg, PA Phone: (717) 692-5533 * Milberg Weiss' Hired Plaintiff Gets Two Years Probation --------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge John F. Walter sentenced retired attorney Seymour Lazar to six months home detention and two years probation for his role in plaintiff kickback scheme orchestrated by Milberg Weiss, AP reports. He also was fined $600,000. Mr. Lazar, who is now 80 years old, pleaded guilty in a plaintiff kickback scheme in October. He admitted to obstruction of justice, subscribing to a false tax return and making a false declaration to the court. Federal prosecutors have said Mr. Lazar was paid about $2.6 million to be a professional plaintiff and help Milberg Weiss in its lawsuits. Mr. Lazar has already repaid $1.5 million of the money, the report said. Judge Walter said Mr. Lazar could have faced up to 18 years in federal prison, but his infirmity made him unsuitable for prison, according to the report. Mr. Lazar was the first of seven people who pleaded guilty in the case to be sentenced. Three of those who pled guilty were former Milberg Weiss partners William Lerach, Steven Schulman and David Bershad. Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- January 29-30, 2008 CONSUMER FINANCE CLASS ACTIONS AND LITIGATION American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 February 7-8, 2008 DAMAGES IN EMPLOYMENT CASES ALI-ABA Washington, DC Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 February 11-12, 2008 MEALEY'S REINSURANCE LITIGATION AND ARBITRATION CONFERENCE Mealey's Seminars The Westin, Washington, DC Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 14-16, 2008 LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS ALI-ABA San Diego Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 February 27-28, 2008 MANAGING COMPLEX LITIGATION American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 February 28-29, 2008 FOOD-BORNE ILLNESS LITIGATION American Conference Institute Scottsdale, Arizona Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 March 27-28, 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL AND TOXIC TORT LITIGATION ALI-ABA Scottsdale, Arizona Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 April 9-12, 2008 MEALEY'S 15TH ANNUAL INSURANCE INSOLVENCY & REINSURANCE Mealey's Seminars The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, Arizona Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 10-11, 2008 MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR Mass Torts Made Perfect Wynn, Las Vegas Contact: 1-800-320-2227 May 1-2, 2008 SECURITIES LITIGATION: PLANNING AND STRATEGIES ALI-ABA Boston, Massachusetts Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 May 29-31, 2008 MASS LITIGATION ALI-ABA Charleston, South Carolina Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 June 25-28, 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION ALI-ABA Boulder, Colorado Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 July 10-11, 2008 CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES Practising Law Institute New York Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu July 30, 2008 MANAGING COMPLEX FEDERAL LITIGATION: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO NEW DEVELOPMENTS, PROCEDURES, & STRATEGIES Practising Law Institute Chicago, Illinois Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu October 23-24, 2008 MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR Mass Torts Made Perfect Bellagio, Las Vegas Contact: 1-800-320-2227 * Online Teleconferences ------------------------ February 7, 2008 MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR PRODUCT RECALLS Mealey's Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 13, 2008 LEXISNEXIS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: WEATHERING MASS TORT AND CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS & NEGOTIATIONS Mealey's Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 27, 2008 MEALEY'S ASBESTOS GASKETS TELECONFERENCE: EXPOSURE AND STATE OF THE ART Mealey's Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 16, 2008 CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN BUSINESS LITIGATION American Bar Association Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 24TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2006) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2007) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 COMPLEX LITIGATION CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 DIRECT AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERTS 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 MOTIONS TO COMPEL 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: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2006) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2007) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 ________________________________________________________________ The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. New Securities Fraud Cases AMERICAN DENTAL: Abbey Spanier Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or acquired securities of American Dental Partners, Inc. between August 10, 2005 and December 13, 2007 inclusive. ADPI is a leading provider of business services to multidisciplinary dental group practices in selected markets throughout the United States. Park Dental Group ("PDG") located in Minneapolis-St. Paul area, was one of the dental groups who had a long-term contract agreement with ADPI, and provided ADPI with significant revenue. Indeed, PDG accounted for 29 percent of ADPI's consolidated net revenue in 2006. The business relationship between ADPI and PDG worked well for a number of years, but disputes arose in 2004. In February 2006, PDG sued ADPI and its subsidiary. On December 12, 2007, in connection with the lawsuit a jury found ADPI and/or its subsidiary liable for breach of contract, breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference with contract and prospective advantage. The jury awarded PDG $88 million to compensate it for the injuries caused it by ADPI and its subsidiary and punitive damages of $42 million. After the announcement of the jury verdict, ADPI's stock plummeted from $19.70 a share on December 11, 2007 to $14.34 on December 12, 2007, to $4.62 on December 13, 2007 after the announcement of the punitive damage award. The complaint charges ADPI and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period thereby artificially inflating the price of ADPI shares. More specifically, the complaint alleges that ADPI financial statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and misleading because defendants knew that a substantial amount of ADPI's revenue and earnings were obtained by conduct, which was wrongful and tortuous as, found by a jury on December 12, 2007. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired ADPI securities during the Class Period. Interested parties may move the court no later than March 31, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. Susan Lee Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP 212 East 39th Street New York, New York 10016 Phone: (212) 889-3700 Toll Free: 1-800-889-3701 E-mail: slee@abbeyspanier.com or nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com Website: http://www.abbeygardy.com SHORETEL INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of common stock of ShoreTel, Inc. pursuant or traceable to the Company's July 3, 2007 Initial Public Offering. The Complaint charges ShoreTel and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. ShoreTel is a provider of unified communications solutions, enabling companies to integrate all communications--voice, data, messaging--with their business processes. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that ShoreTel knew that it would be unable to compete with other companies offering similar products and services and would therefore be unable to attract a sufficient amount of new customers to maintain revenue levels and projections; (2) that the Company knew that demand for its service was waning due to an increase in alternative technology and that it would be unable to attract a sufficient number of new customers, as most consumers who desired such voice-integrated services were already customers of ShoreTel or of a competitor; (3) that the Company had excess inventory due to a decline in new demand for its products; (4) that the Company had prematurely stuffed its distribution networks, while at the same time, pulling sales forward into earlier periods; (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's Registration Statement was false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 3, 2007, the Company conducted its IPO. In connection with its IPO, the Company filed a Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively referred to as the "Registration Statement") with the SEC. The IPO was a financial success for the Company, as it raised over $75 million by selling 7.9 million shares of stock to the public at a price of $9.50 per share. On January 7, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it announced that its revenue for the second quarter would be in the range of $29.7 to $30.7 million, far lower than its previous expectation of $32 to $35 million, and significantly lower than analysts had predicted. In response to this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $7.06 per share, or 54 percent, to close on January 7, 2008 at $6.02 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than March 17, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com ********* 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 2008. 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 * * *