/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080214.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, February 14, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 32
Headlines
AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE: Court Certifies Title Insurance Suit
ANNIE'S NATURALS: Recalls Vinaigrette Containing Undeclared Soy
CALIFORNIA: Faces Lawsuit on Special Education Hearings
CARDINAL HEALTH: Court Approves $600M Securities Suit Settlement
EXELON GENERATION: Ill. Procurement Auction Lawsuits Dismissed
EXELON CORP: Ill. Court Amends Dismissal Order in ERISA Lawsuit
EXELON CORP: Ill. Court Stays Proceedings in Savings Plan Suit
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Recalls Gas Clothes Dryers Due to Shock Hazard
GROCERY CHAINS: Supreme Court Gives Salmon Case Go Signal
INTERMIX MEDIA: Calif. Court Dismisses Claims in Securities Suit
INTERMIX MEDIA: Court to Hear Arguments in Appeal of Nixed Suits
JAPAN: Tochigi Farms Trainees Win Suit Over Unpaid Wages
JAPAN AIR: To Pay 194 Flight Attendants JPY48MM in Data Suit
JDS UNIPHASE: Feb. 19 Conference Set for "Zelman" Litigation
JDS UNIPHASE: May 11, 2009 Trial Set for "Central States" Suit
JDS UNIPHASE: Feb. 20 Hearing Set for OCLI Shareholder Suit Deal
JDS UNIPHASE: Feb. 29, 2008 Conference Set for SDL Investor Suit
JDS UNIPHASE: Calif. Court Stays Discovery in ERISA Litigation
MARYLAND: Appeals Court Says County Must Pay $22M in Impact Fees
NETSHOPS: Recalls Table-Chair Sets Posing Lead Paint Hazards
NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES: Wants Securities Suits Dismissed
OHIO: City of Columbus Faces Suit for Breach of Medical Privacy
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Statman Harris Plans ERISA Lawsuit Filing
SANOFI-AVENTIS: Drug-Maker Sued Over Obesity Drug "Zimulti"
STAR GAS: No Hearing Set for Appeals of Decisions in Conn. Suit
SYNCOR INT'L: Defendants Answer Amended Complaint in Calif. Suit
TEXAS: Lawsuit Accuses Half Brothers of "Legal Aid" Ripoffs
WEST MUSIC: Recalls Egg-Shaker Toy Instruments for Choking Risks
WMG ACQUISITION: March 25 Hearing Set on Dismissal of N.Y. Suit
* Eric Schachter Joins Class Admin. Division of A.B. Data, Ltd.
New Securities Fraud Cases
AMERICAN DENTAL: Glancy Binkow Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit
ORION ENERGY: Paskowitz Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
*********
AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE: Court Certifies Title Insurance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit that alleges lender Ameriquest Mortgage Co. of
overcharging for title insurance on home refinancing can proceed
as a class action, a state judge ruled.
Coral Gables lawyer Richard Bennett, Esq., who filed the lawsuit
in Pinellas County in 2006, estimates the class involves about
66,000 Florida residents who refinanced their homes with
Ameriquest from May 19, 2002 through 2006, Miami Herald relates.
The suit claims that instead of charging the lower "reissue
rate" for title insurance on refinancings, Ameriquest collected
the higher rate charged on home purchases.
Mr. Bennett told Miami Herald that the overcharges on the
policies he has reviewed generally have ranged from $200 to $300
per customer. Assuming that range is typical for the class, the
potential damage claims could exceed $13 million.
Miami Herald cites an Ameriquest court filing as stating "the
title company was legally obligated to charge the higher rate"
because copies of the owners' original title policies were not
provided.
Mr. Bennett, however, countered that Ameriquest did not provide
the original policies to the title companies.
Ameriquest, Miami Herald recounts, closed its 229 retail
branches in 2006.
Miami Herald notes that Ameriquest was the only party sued in
the Pinellas County case because it collected the title-
insurance costs from the loan proceeds, which it then sent to
title agents. "We didn't follow the money," Mr. Bennett said.
Title insurance rates in Florida are set by the state, Miami
Herald explains. On a purchase, title insurance costs $5.75 of
every $1,000 for the first $100,000 in value, and $5 per
thousand for the next $900,000. Rates fall further for higher
amounts. For refinancings, the reissue rate is $3.30 per $1,000
for the first $100,000 and $3 per $1,000 for the next $900,000.
Most title companies had routinely not offered the discounted
rate unless customers requested it and presented a copy of their
owners' policy.
The plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard Bennett, Esq.
Bennett & Bennett Law Firm
The Biltmore Hotel
Executive Office Center Suite 360
1200 Anastasia Avenue
Coral Gables, Florida 33134-6340
Phone: (305) 444-5925
Fax: (206) 333-0792
e-mail: Richard@BennettLawMiami.com
Ameriquest Mortgage Co. is one of the United States' leading
wholesale subprime lenders. Ameriquest was founded in 1979, in
Orange County, California, as a bank, Long Beach Savings & Loan.
The bank moved to Orange County in 1991 and was converted to a
pure mortgage lender in 1994, renamed Long Beach Mortgage Co. In
1997, the wholesale part of the business (funding loans made by
independent brokers) was spun off as a publicly traded company,
called Long Beach Mortgage; the retail part of the business was
renamed Ameriquest Capital and remained private.
ANNIE'S NATURALS: Recalls Vinaigrette Containing Undeclared Soy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Annie's Naturals is voluntarily recalling 686 cases of 8 fl oz.
bottles of all-natural Shiitake & Sesame Vinaigrette. The
product could be mislabeled and may contain soy sauce (contains
soy and wheat) and sesame that were not declared on the
ingredient statement. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to soy run the risk of serious allergic reaction if
they consume this product.
There have been no illnesses or injuries reported to date.
Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a physician
immediately.
Affected product was shipped to grocery and natural food stores
in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana,
Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Washington,
between Dec. 20, 2007, and Feb. 6, 2008.
Consumers can most easily identify impacted product by looking
at the product labels -- the front label says Shiitake & Sesame
Vinaigrette, but the back label and ingredient statement say Low
Fat Honey Mustard Vinaigrette. Only dressings with UPC #
0-92325-33319-2 with a Best-By Dates of 02/20/09/1/E and
02/20/09/2/E are affected.
Organic Shiitake & Sesame Vinaigrette, 16 oz. bottles of
Shiitake & Sesame Vinaigrette, and other Annie's Naturals
products are not affected by this recall.
The problem occurred during a product changeover when back
labels for Honey Mustard Vinaigrette were commingled with back
labels for all-natural Shiitake Sesame Vinaigrette. The Honey
Mustard Vinaigrette products were unaffected.
Consumers who have purchased 8 fl oz all natural Shiitake &
Sesame Vinaigrette are urged to return the product to the place
of purchase for a full refund or may call Annie's Naturals
Consumer Relations at 1.800.288.1089 to obtain a coupon for a
free product.
CALIFORNIA: Faces Lawsuit on Special Education Hearings
-------------------------------------------------------
A federal class action was filed with the U.S. District Court
for the District of California on behalf of a Fallbrook family
alleging that state officials who decide disputes between
parents and school districts over special education services are
unqualified, inadequately trained and side with districts too
often, the North County Times reports.
According to NCT, the lawsuit asks the Court to prohibit the
California Department of Education from renewing its $29-million
contract with the state's Office of Administrative Hearings to
provide mediation and due process hearings to resolve conflicts
between school districts and parents. The current contract
expires in June.
The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires
schools that receive federal funding to provide a "free
appropriate public education" to children with disabilities.
Parents and students who believe they are not receiving such an
education can file a complaint with the state and have a due
process hearing.
The nonprofit organization Team of Advocates for Special Kids,
which is not involved with the lawsuit, provides information and
training for parents of special education children about their
rights and responsibilities.
The lawsuit alleges that since the Office of Administrative
Hearings began conducting the due process hearings in 2005,
administrative law judges have ruled completely in favor of
students in only 10% of the 279 hearings that occurred by
Sept. 30, 2007. However, the McGeorge School of Law Special
Education Hearing Office, which conducted the hearings for the
state before 2005, ruled in favor of students about 50% of the
time, the lawsuit alleges.
"They side with the school district all the time," Ellen Dowd,
Esq., the Del Mar-based attorney who filed the lawsuit, said of
the current administrative judges. "They don't know the law."
The lawsuit alleges that administrative judges have issued
written decisions "that are contrary to law, unduly favorable to
school districts, and which deny a free appropriate public
education to disabled students." The lawsuit also asserts a
lack of oversight and management from the state education
department has contributed to the alleged problems.
State officials did not want to give the contract for due
process hearings to the Office of Administrative Hearings in
2005 but did so because of a California Supreme Court decision
that year that said the state had to award contracts to civil
servants instead of private contractors, the lawsuit alleges.
A different state Supreme Court decision last year eliminated
that requirement, the lawsuit contends.
CARDINAL HEALTH: Court Approves $600M Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio gave
final approval to the $600-million settlement of a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed against Cardinal Health,
Inc., according to the company's Feb. 5, 2008 form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 31, 2007.
Since July 2, 2004, purported purchasers of the company's
securities have filed 10 purported class action complaints.
They named the company and certain of its officers and directors
as defendants, asserting claims under the federal securities
laws. The Cardinal Health federal securities actions purport to
be brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's
securities during various periods beginning as early as Oct. 24,
2000, and ending as late as July 26, 2004.
The suits allege, among others, that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a)
of the U.S. Exchange Act by issuing a series of false and
misleading statements concerning the company's financial
results, prospects and condition.
Certain of the complaints also allege violations of Section 11
of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, claiming
material misstatements or omissions in prospectuses issued by
the company in connection with its acquisition of Bindley
Western Industries, Inc. in 2001, and Syncor International Corp.
in 2003.
The alleged misstatements relate to the company's accounting for
recoveries relating to antitrust litigation against vitamin
manufacturers, and to classification of revenue in the company's
Pharmaceutical Distribution business as either operating revenue
or revenue from bulk deliveries to customer warehouses, and
other accounting and business model transition issues, including
reserve accounting.
The alleged misstatements are claimed to have caused an
artificial inflation in the company's stock price during the
proposed class period.
On Dec. 15, 2004, the Cardinal Health federal securities actions
were consolidated into one action captioned, "In re Cardinal
Health, Inc. Federal Securities Litigation." The Pension Fund
Group was then appointed by the court as lead plaintiff in the
consolidated action.
On April 22, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint naming the company, certain current and former
officers and employees and the company's external auditors as
defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and
other unspecified relief against the defendants.
On March 27, 2006, the court granted a motion to dismiss with
respect to the company's external auditors, and a former officer
and denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the company and
the other individual defendants. In December 2006, the parties
stipulated that the case could proceed as a class action with a
class comprised of all persons other than company officers or
directors who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
stock during the class period.
In early 2007, the Company negotiated a proposed memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs' counsel to settle these
actions, including an agreement by the Company to pay
$600 million. On May 2, 2007, the Company's Board of Directors
approved the proposed memorandum of understanding, which
remained subject to approval by the class representatives for
the plaintiffs.
Under the MOU, the Cardinal Health federal securities actions
will be terminated for a payment of $600 million. The Company
transferred the $600 million into an escrow account on May 25,
2007. The Company then entered into a stipulation of settlement
with the plaintiffs' counsel, which stipulation was filed with
the Court on July 27, 2007, and later granted preliminary
approval.
On Nov. 14, 2007, the Court entered a final order approving the
settlement and dismissing all claims asserted in the Cardinal
Health federal securities litigation against the defendants.
The suit is "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 04-CV-575," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor
New York, NY, 10016
Phone: 800-217-1522
e-mail: info@bernlieb.com
Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP
600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza,
San Diego, CA, 92101
Phone: 800.449.4900
e-mail: support@milberg.com
- and -
John R. Climaco, Esq.
Climaco Lefkowitz Peca Wilcox & Garofoli LPA
1228 Euclid Avenue, Suite 900
Cleveland, OH 44115-1891
Phone: 216-621-8484
Fax: 216-771-1632
e-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com
Representing the company are:
John M. Newman, Jr., Esq.
Geoffrey J. Ritts, Esq.
Jones, Day, Reavis, & Pogue
North Point, 901 Lakeside Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44114-1190
Phone: 216-586-3939
e-mail: jmnewman@jonesday.com
gjritts@jonesday.com
EXELON GENERATION: Ill. Procurement Auction Lawsuits Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action filed with an Illinois state court,
which names Exelon Generation Co., a subsidiary of Exelon Corp.,
as a defendant, has been dismissed.
On March 28, 2007, and March 30, 2007, class actions were filed
in Illinois state court against Commonwealth Edison Co. and
Exelon Generation Co. as well as the other suppliers in the
Illinois procurement auction, claiming that the suppliers
manipulated the auction and that the resulting wholesale prices
are unlawfully high.
On Dec. 21, 2007, the defendants' motions to dismiss both cases
was granted, and the time to appeal that order has expired,
according to Exelon Corp.'s Feb. 7, 2008 form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.
Exelon Corp. -- http://www.exeloncorp.com/-- is a utility
services holding company. The Company operates through its
principal subsidiaries: Exelon Generation Co., LLC, Commonwealth
Edison Co., and PECO Energy Co. Generation’s business consists
of its owned and contracted electric generating facilities, its
wholesale energy marketing operations and its retail sales
operations.
EXELON CORP: Ill. Court Amends Dismissal Order in ERISA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
amended its dismissal order in connection to a purported class
action against The Exelon Corp. Cash Balance Pension Plan,
according to Exelon Corp.'s Feb. 7, 2008 form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.
On July 11, 2006, a former employee of Commonwealth Edison Co.
filed the purported class action the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The complaint alleges that the Plan, which covers certain
management employees of Exelon's subsidiaries, calculates lump
sum distributions in a manner that does not comply with ERISA.
The plaintiff seeks compensatory relief from the Plan on behalf
of participants who received lump sum distributions since 2001
and injunctive relief with respect to future lump sum
distributions.
On Aug. 31, 2007, the District Court dismissed the lawsuit in
its entirety. On Dec. 21, 2007, the District Court amended its
order, in part, to allow the plaintiff to file an administrative
claim with the Plan with respect to the calculation of the
portion of his lump sum benefit accrued under the Plans prior
traditional formula.
The suit is "Fry v. Exelon Corp. Cash Balance Pension Plan, Case
No. 1:06-cv-03723," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge William T. Hart.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
George A. Zelcs, Esq.
Korein Tillery
205 N. Michigan Plaza, Suite 1950
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 641-9750
e-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
Representing the defendants is:
William F. Conlon, Esq.
Sidley Austin LLP
One South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 853-7000
e-mail: wconlon@sidley.com
EXELON CORP: Ill. Court Stays Proceedings in Savings Plan Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed against Exelon Corp. Employee Savings Plan,
Plan #003 that is pending with U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, remains stayed, according to
Exelon Corp.'s Feb. 7, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.
On Sept. 11, 2006, five individuals claiming to be participants
in the Exelon Corp. Employee Savings Plan, Plan #003, filed a
putative class action with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.
The complaint names as defendants Exelon, its director of
Employee Benefit Plans and Programs, the Employee Savings Plan
Investment Committee, the Compensation and the Risk Oversight
Committees of Exelon's Board of Directors and members of those
committees.
The complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary
duties under Employee Retirement Income Security Act by, among
other things, permitting fees and expenses to be incurred by the
Savings Plan that allegedly were unreasonable and for purposes
other than to benefit the Savings Plan and participants, and
failing to disclose purported "revenue sharing" arrangements
among the Savings Plan's service providers.
The plaintiffs seek declaratory, equitable and monetary relief
on behalf of the Savings Plan and participants, including
alleged investment losses. On Feb. 21, 2007 the district court
granted the defendants' motion to strike the plaintiffs' claim
for investment losses.
On Feb. 21, 2007, the district court granted the defendants'
motion to strike the plaintiffs' claim for investment losses.
On June 27, 2007, the district court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.
On June 28, 2007, the district court granted the defendants'
motion to stay proceedings in this action pending the outcome of
the forthcoming appeal to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals in another case not involving Exelon.
In that case, an appeal is expected to be taken from the
June 20, 2007 decision of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin, which dismissed with prejudice
substantially similar claims.
The suit is "Loomis et al. v. Exelon Corporation et al., Case
No. 1:06-cv-04900," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge John W. Darrah.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Elizabeth J. Hubertz, Esq.
Schlichter, Bogard & Denton
100 South Fourth Street, Suite 900
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: 314-621-6115
e-mail: ehubertz@uselaws.com
Representing the defendants is:
Anne E. Rea, Esq.
Sidley Austin LLP
One South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 853-7000
e-mail: area@sidley.com
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Recalls Gas Clothes Dryers Due to Shock Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
GE Consumer & Industrial, of Louisville, Ky., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 2,100 GE gas clothes dryers.
The company said a short circuit in the dryer's wiring poses a
shock hazard to consumers with ungrounded dryers. No injuries
have been reported.
The recalled gas dryers are 42 inches tall (back with
backsplash) and 27 inches wide, and were sold in white. GE gas
dryers model number DWXR463GGWW with serial numbers starting
with AM, TL, SL, VL, and ZL are included in this recall. To
find the model and serial numbers, open the dryer door and look
in the upper right corner, in the area that was covered by the
door.
These recalled gas clothes dryers were manufactured in Canada
and were being sold by retail stores, and authorized builder
distributors nationwide from September 2006 through October 2007
for about $440.
Pictures of the recalled gas clothes dryers are found at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08542a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08542b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08542cc.jpg
Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled dryers
immediately, unplug the dryer, and contact GE for further
instructions and to schedule a free, in-home inspection and
repair. GE is directly contacting consumers who purchased the
recalled dryers.
For additional information, contact GE toll-free at (866) 324-
3732 between 8:00 a.m. And 8:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday,
and between 8:00 a.m. And 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, or visit the
firm's Web site: http://geappliances.com
Firm's Media Contact: Kim Freeman at (502) 452-7819 or e-mail:
kim_freeman@ge.com
GROCERY CHAINS: Supreme Court Gives Salmon Case Go Signal
---------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court entered a ruling on Feb. 11, 2008
permitting private citizens to sue grocery stores over
artificially colored salmon that is mislabeled or unlabeled or
otherwise fails to warn shoppers that chemicals have been added
to the fish, the Seattle Post Intelligencer reports.
Seattle Post explains that farmed salmon, which are naturally
gray in color, take on the healthy orange coloring of wild
salmon because fish farmers feed them the chemicals
canthaxanthin and astaxanthin. Consumer groups, the report
notes, are not saying that the coloring additives are harmful,
but that shoppers should be told that chemicals have been added
to the food they are buying.
According to Los Angeles Times, the suits say the use of color
additives should be disclosed on the package's label. The
companies, however, argue that federal law does not require such
disclosures and that Food and Drug Administration labeling rules
precluded lawsuits based on state-law claims.
LA Times relates that justices finally unanimously overturned
previous lower court rulings that dismissed the deceptive-
marketing lawsuits over the fish against the grocery chains.
The defendants include California's largest grocers, including
Albertson's Inc., Safeway Inc., The Kroger Co., Trader Joe's,
Costco Wholesale Corp., Whole Foods Market Inc., Bristol Farms
Inc., Ocean Beauty Seafoods Inc., and various subsidiaries.
The justices, according to Metropolitan News, held that the
federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not preempt deceptive
marketing claims under California's Sherman Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Law because Congress explicitly intended to allow
states to establish their own disclosure requirements and
remedies for violations, and because the plaintiffs' claims were
based on state, rather than federal, law.
"This ruling represents a significant win for consumers," Kevin
Golden, Esq., a lawyer for Center for Food Safety -- a national
public interest group -- told Seattle Post. "It increases
accountability in the food industry . . . and empowers
individual consumers to demand accurate and honest labeling on
the food they feed their families."
Mr. Golden said that while the California action is binding only
under California law, it could be a useful tool to consumer
groups in other states that wanted to strengthen local labeling
laws.
Metropolitan News recounts that the action arose when individual
plaintiffs in Los Angeles, Alameda and Monterey counties filed
suits against the grocery stores alleging that they sold fish
that were fed chemical additives. The plaintiffs claimed that
the stores' failure to disclose the artificial color caused
consumers to believe that the salmon was wild, rather than
farmed, because consumers believe that the color of salmon is an
indication of its origin, quality, freshness, flavor, and other
characteristics. The plaintiffs also claimed that concerns
exist about the potential health risks of consuming the
artificial coloring agents in particular, and farm-raised salmon
in general. Although the chemical additives can occur
naturally, they are manufactured from petrochemicals in order to
be used as additives.
The suits were consolidated, and the plaintiffs in 2004 filed a
coordinated complaint containing causes of action for unfair and
unlawful business acts and practices in violation of the state's
Unfair Competition Law, which includes the Sherman Law; unfair
or deceptive trade practices under the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act; false and misleading advertising; and negligent
misrepresentation.
In proceedings before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Anthony
J. Mohr, the defendants demurred, arguing the Sec. 337 (a) of
the FDCA -- which prohibits private enforcement of the act—
preempted the plaintiffs' state law claims. The defendants also
argued that further consideration of the complaint could
conflict with regulation and enforcement by the FDA or
California's Department of Health Services, and that the
plaintiffs had failed to state a cause of action.
Judge Mohr sustained each of the defendants' demurrers with
leave to amend, but the plaintiffs opted to appeal his decision.
Writing for the Court of Appeal, Justice H. Walter Croskey
agreed with Judge Mohr, affirming his findings that the
plaintiffs' suits were predicated on federal violations and
therefore impliedly preempted. Writing that "Congress made
clear its intention to preclude private enforcement of the
FDCA," Judge Croskey concluded that "a state law private right
of action based on an FDCA violation would frustrate the
purposes of exclusive federal and state governmental prosecution
of the act."
However, in an opinion by Judge Carlos R. Moreno, the Supreme
Court reversed the Court of Appeal's decision and remanded the
matter to the trial court.
Examining the FDCA as a whole, Judge Moreno wrote that the Court
of Appeal's reasoning with respect to the preemptive effect of
Sec. 337(a) was "seriously undermined when section 343-1 is
taken into account." Noting that Sec. 343-1 of the FDCA
"clearly and unmistakably evince[s] Congress' intent to
authorize states to establish laws that are 'identical to'
federal law," Judge Moreno concluded that this was "precisely
what California did in enacting the Sherman Law."
Determining that the plaintiffs' causes of action arose on state
law grounds, Judge Moreno wrote that Section 337(a) did not
preempt their claims. "Section 337 does not apply to the state
law claims presented here," he said. "The statute, by its very
terms, only implicates efforts to enforce federal law. What
section 337 does not do is limit, prohibit, or affect private
claims predicated on state laws."
Judge Moreno was joined in his opinion by Justices Joyce L.
Kennard, Marvin R. Baxter, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Ming W. Chin
and Carol A. Corrigan, and by Sixth District Court of Appeal
Justice Nathan D. Mihara sitting by assignment. Chief Justice
Ronald M. George did not participate in the decision.
The plaintiffs' counsel, Craig R. Spiegel, Esq., of Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro in Seattle praised the decision, saying
that it reflected "longstanding preemption principles," and
showed that "citizens of a state should be able to sue for
losses they have suffered."
However, defense counsel Rex S. Heinke, Esq., of Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld, said that his clients believed that the
court had decided the preemption issue incorrectly. Pointing to
the language of Sec. 337(a), he said "Congress made it clear—no
private enforcement," and indicated that his clients would be
considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Craig R. Spiegel, Esq.
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
1301 Fifth Avenue
Suite 2900
Seattle, WA, 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Fax: (206) 623-0594
e-mail: craig@hbsslaw.com
Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com
Representing the defendants is:
Rex S. Heinke, Esq.
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
2029 Century Park East
Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012
Phone: (310) 229-1030
Fax: (310) 229-1001
e-mail: rheinke@akingump.com
INTERMIX MEDIA: Calif. Court Dismisses Claims in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed certain claims in a purported securities class action
filed against several former officers and directors of Intermix
Media, Inc., an acquisition of News Corp., according to News
Corp.'s Feb. 6, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The suit, captioned "Jim Brown v. Brett C. Brewer, et al.," was
filed on June 14, 2006. It asserts claims for alleged
violations of Section 14a of the U.S. Exchange Act and
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9, as well as
control person liability under Section 20a.
The plaintiff alleges that certain of the defendants
disseminated false and misleading definitive proxy statements on
two occasions:
-- on Dec. 30, 2003 in connection with the shareholder
vote on Jan. 29, 2004 on the election of directors and
ratification of financing transactions with certain
entities of VantagePoint Venture Partners, a former
large stockholder of Intermix; and
-- on Aug. 25, 2005 in connection with the shareholder vote
on the formation of Fox Interactive Media (FIM), a
division of News Corp.
The complaint names as defendants certain VantagePoint-related
entities and members of the Intermix Board who were incumbent on
the dates of the respective proxy statements. Intermix is not
named as a defendant, but has certain indemnity obligations to
the former officer and director defendants in connection with
the suit's claims and allegations.
On Aug. 25, 2006, the plaintiff amended his complaint to add
certain investment banks as defendants. Intermix has certain
indemnity obligations to the investment banks as well. The
complaint was again amended in September 2006 and the defendants
filed motions to dismiss all the claims asserted.
On Feb. 9, 2007, the case was transferred from Judge John F.
Walter to Judge George H. King, the judge assigned to the
derivative action captioned, "LeBoyer v. Greenspan et al." The
suit was transferred on the grounds that it raises substantially
related questions of law and fact as "LeBoyer," and would entail
substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges.
Judge King took the Feb. 26, 2007 hearing date for the dismissal
motions off-calendar. On May 22, 2007, the judge ordered a
combined status conference with the LeBoyer action to occur on
June 11, 2007, at which he ordered the Brown case to be
consolidated with the LeBoyer action. Judge King also directed
the plaintiffs' counsel to file a consolidated amended complaint
setting forth the causes of action in the LeBoyer and Brown
matters and further ordered the parties to file a joint brief
regarding dismissal of the first amended complaint.
In July 2007, the plaintiffs filed the consolidated first
amended complaint. The parties' joint brief on the defendants'
motion to dismiss was filed on Oct. 11, 2007, and was taken
under submission without a hearing.
Subsequently, by order dated Jan. 17, 2008, Judge King granted
the defendants' motion to dismiss the 2003 proxy claims
(concerning VantagePoint transactions) and the 2005 proxy claims
(concerning the FIM Transaction), as well as a claim against the
VantagePoint entities alleging unjust enrichment. The court,
however, found it unnecessary to dismiss the remaining claims,
which are related to the 2005 FIM Transaction, because the
dismissal disposed of those claims.
The suit is "Jim Brown v. Brett C Brewer et al., Case No. 2:06
cv-03731-JFW-SH," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California under Judge John F. Walter with
referral to Judge Stephen J. Hillman.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Christy W. Goodman, Esq.
Goodman Sheridan and Roff
1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1350
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-241-4860
e-mail: cgoodman@gsrllp.com
Representing the defendants are:
Elizabeth A. Moriarty, Esq.
Hogan and Hartson
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310-785-4600
e-mail: eamoriarty@hhlaw.com
Web site: http://www.hhlaw.com
- and -
Stephen M. Knaster, Esq.
Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe
Orrick Building, 405 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-773-5700
Fax: 415-773-5759
Web site: http://www.orrick.com
e-mail: sknaster@orrick.com
INTERMIX MEDIA: Court to Hear Arguments in Appeal of Nixed Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal has yet to hear oral arguments on
the plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of purported class
actions filed against Intermix Media, Inc., which is an
acquisition of News Corp.
On Aug. 26 and Aug. 30, 2005, these purported class actions were
filed with the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles:
-- "Ron Sheppard v. Richard Rosenblatt, et al.," and
-- "John Friedmann v. Intermix Media, Inc. et al."
Both lawsuits named as defendants all of the then incumbent
members of the Intermix Media Board, including Richard
Rosenblatt, Intermix' former chief executive officer, and
certain entities affiliated with VantagePoint Venture Partners,
a former major Intermix stockholder.
The complaints alleged that, in pursuing the transaction whereby
Intermix Media was to be acquired by Fox Interactive, and
approving the related merger agreement, the director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Intermix stockholders by,
among other things, engaging in self-dealing and failing to
obtain the highest price reasonably available for Intermix and
its stockholders.
The complaints further alleged that the merger agreement
resulted from a flawed process and that the defendants tailored
the terms of the merger to advance their own interests. The Fox
Interactive Media Transaction was consummated on Sept. 30, 2005.
The Friedmann and Sheppard lawsuits were subsequently
consolidated and, on Jan. 17, 2006, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed, known as "Intermix Media Shareholder
Litigation."
The plaintiffs in the consolidated action are seeking various
forms of declaratory relief, damages, disgorgement and fees and
costs.
The defendants have filed demurrers seeking dismissal of all
claims in the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation, which were
heard by the court on July 6, 2006.
On Oct. 6, 2006, the court sustained the demurrers without leave
to amend. On Dec. 13, 2006, the court dismissed the complaints
and entered judgment for the defendants.
The plaintiffs in the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation
filed notices of appeal, and subsequently filed respective
opening briefs on appeal in October 2007. The defendants intend
to file opposing briefs on appeal.
The Court of Appeal has not yet heard arguments in the matter,
according to News Corp.'s Feb. 6, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2007.
News Corp. -- http://www.newscorp.com/-- is a diversified
entertainment company with operations in eight industry
segments, including Filmed Entertainment; Television; Cable
Network Programming; Direct Broadcast Satellite Television;
Magazines and Inserts; Newspapers; Book Publishing, and Other.
JAPAN: Tochigi Farms Trainees Win Suit Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Chinese trainees at the Choboen strawberry farm in Tsuga (Japan)
will be receiving a combined JPY30 million in unpaid and
overtime wages after winning a class action suit brought against
a group of strawberry farmers, the Mainichi Daily News reports.
According to the Mainichi Daily, the trouble began when the
Choboen strawberry farm dismissed five Chinese trainees in
December 2007 because of a poor harvest, and attempted to force
them to go back to their home country.
The five joined 10 trainees at six other strawberry farms in
demanding some JPY52.25 million in unpaid wages and overtime
allowances over the past three years.
Under the recent ruling, the strawberry farmers has to reinstate
the five Chinese trainees who were unfairly dismissed.
According to the Ministry of Justice, the farmers have also
acknowledged that they took away some of the trainees' passports
and forced them to save their wages, which, if proved, would
constitute an illegal act, barring the farmers from accepting
future trainees.
The owners of the seven farms have apologized for forcing the
trainees to work for long hours and paying overtime allowances
below the legal minimum, the report says.
JAPAN AIR: To Pay 194 Flight Attendants JPY48MM in Data Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Japan Airlines Corp. agreed to pay JPY48 million in compensation
to 194 former and current flight attendants who alleged that the
airline company, its largest labor union, and five of the
union's executives illegally collected and managed private
information on them the Japan Times reports.
During the hearing on the suit before the Tokyo District Court,
the Times relates, JAL agreed to pay all compensation demanded
to settle the dispute. The airline, however, insisted that its
decision to pay did not constitute an admission of guilt to all
charges leveled by the plaintiffs, including JAL's organized
involvement in collecting private information.
JAL's promise to pay covers the compensation demanded from the
union, its executives and the company. However, union -- Japan
Airlines Worker's Union -- and its executives refused to join in
paying the compensation, and the lawsuit against those parties
will continue, the plaintiffs' lawyers told the Times.
The plaintiffs claimed that JAL and the union systematically
collected about 150 items of private information on 9,000 crew
members, including their personal beliefs, family backgrounds
and medical histories.
The data collection was first revealed by media reports in
February 2007, prompting JAL to punish 25 employees involved by
suspending, reprimanding or cautioning them.
JDS UNIPHASE: Feb. 19 Conference Set for "Zelman" Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
set a Feb. 19, 2008 case management conference for the purported
securities fraud class action titled "Zelman v. JDS Uniphase
Corp., Case No. 02-4656."
The suit was purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of debt securities that were allegedly linked to the
price of the company's common stock.
The Zelman complaint states that an investment bank issued the
debt securities during the period from March 6, 2001, through
July 26, 2001. It names the company and several of its former
officers and directors as defendants for alleged violations of
the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-
5, and seeks unspecified damages.
On Nov. 16, 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, which defendants had not opposed.
Fact discovery in the Zelman litigation is substantially
complete. A case management conference is scheduled for
Feb. 19, 2008, according to the JDS Uniphase Corp.'s Feb. 7,
2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 29, 2007.
The suit is "Zelman v. JDS Uniphase Corp., et al., Case No.
4:02-cv-04656," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Claudia Wilken.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Susan G. Kupfer, Esq.
Glancy & Binkow, LLP
455 Market Street, Suite 1810
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-972-8160
Fax: 415-972-8166
e-mail: skupfer@glancylaw.com
- and -
Ira M. Press, Esq.
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP
830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-371-6600
Fax: 212-751-2540
e-mail: ipress@kmslaw.com
Representing the defendants is:
Holly H. Tambling, Esq.
Morrison & Foerster, LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Phone: 415 268-7000
Fax: 415-268-7522
e-mail: Htambling@mofo.com
JDS UNIPHASE: May 11, 2009 Trial Set for "Central States" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A May 11, 2009 trial is scheduled for the purported securities
fraud class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against JDS Uniphase Corp.
The suit, "Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension
Fund v. JDS Uniphase Corp., No. 07-0584," was filed on Jan. 29,
2007. It is based on allegations similar to those made in "In
re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities Litigation" and asserts
claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and
15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933.
The Central State complaint, which was filed against the Company
and certain of its officials, seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a pension fund that purportedly purchased Company
securities between Oct. 28, 1999, and July 26, 2001, and elected
to opt-out of participation in "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation
Securities Litigation."
On Feb. 14, 2007, the Central States action was deemed related
to "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities Litigation," and
was assigned Judge Claudia Wilken.
A case management conference in the matter is scheduled for
Feb. 19, 2008, and trial is set to begin on May 11, 2009,
according to the JDS Uniphase Corp.'s Feb. 7, 2008 form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 29, 2007.
The suit is "Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas
Pension Fund v. JDS Uniphase Corporation et al., Case No. 4:07-
cv-00584-CW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Claudia Wilken presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
William S. Lerach, Esq.
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-231-1058
Fax: 619-231-7423
e-mail: e_file_sf@lerachlaw.com
Representing the defendants is:
Jordan Eth, Esq.
Morrison & Foerster
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Phone: 415-268-7000
Fax: 415-268-7522
e-mail: jeth@mofo.com
JDS UNIPHASE: Feb. 20 Hearing Set for OCLI Shareholder Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Feb. 20, 2008 final fairness hearing is scheduled for the
settlement of a class action filed by plaintiffs purporting to
represent the former shareholders of The Optical Coating
Laboratory, Inc.
The suit, "Pang v. Dwight, No. 02-231989," which was filed with
the Sonoma Superior Court in California, is asserting that
former directors of the company breached their fiduciary duties
in connection with the events alleged in the securities
litigation against JDS Uniphase Corp. The plaintiffs purport to
represent a class of former shareholders of OCLI who exchanged
their OCLI shares for JDS Uniphase shares when JDS Uniphase
acquired OCLI.
The complaint, which names the former directors of OCLI as
defendants, asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary
duty and breach of the duty of candor, and seeks unspecified
damages.
On March 4, 2007, the parties signed a memorandum of
understanding regarding a settlement of the OCLI action.
The Court has approved the settlement preliminarily, and
scheduled a hearing for final approval on Feb. 20, 2008,
according to JDS Uniphase Corp.'s Feb. 7, 2008 form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 29, 2007.
JDS Uniphase Corp. (JDSU) -- http://www.jdsuniphase.com-- is a
provider of broadband and optical products and solutions. Its
products are used in communications, commercial and consumer
applications, including broadband and optical networks, brand
protection, biotechnology, semiconductor, aerospace and defense.
JDS UNIPHASE: Feb. 29, 2008 Conference Set for SDL Investor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Feb. 29, 2008 case management conference is scheduled for a
class action filed by plaintiffs purporting to represent the
former shareholders of SDL Ltd.
The suit, which was filed with the Sonoma Superior Court in
California, is asserting that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the events alleged in a
securities litigation against JDS Uniphase Corp.
The plaintiffs in the SDL action, "Cook v. Scifres, Master File
No. CV814824," purport to represent a class of former
shareholders of SDL who exchanged their SDL shares for JDS
Uniphase shares when the company acquired SDL. The plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on Nov. 20, 2006.
The complaint names the former directors of SDL as defendants,
asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and breach
of the duty of disclosure, and seeks unspecified damages.
On March 6, 2007, the Court overruled the defendants' demurrer
to that complaint. A case management conference is scheduled
for Feb. 29, 2008, according to the JDS Uniphase Corp.'s Feb. 7,
2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 29, 2007.
JDS Uniphase Corp. (JDSU) -- http://www.jdsuniphase.com-- is a
provider of broadband and optical products and solutions. Its
products are used in communications, commercial and consumer
applications, including broadband and optical networks, brand
protection, biotechnology, semiconductor, aerospace and defense.
JDS UNIPHASE: Calif. Court Stays Discovery in ERISA Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
stayed discovery in a consolidated class action filed against
JDS Uniphase Corp., which is alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, according to the JDS Uniphase
Corp.'s Feb. 7, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 29, 2007.
The consolidated action, "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. ERISA
Litigation, Case No. C-03-4743 WWS (MEJ)," was filed against the
company, certain of its former and current officers and
directors, and certain other current and former company
employees. It was brought on behalf of a purported class of
participants in the 401(k) Plans of the company and Optical
Coating Laboratory, Inc., and the Plans.
On Oct. 31, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
alleges that defendants violated the ERISA by breaching their
fiduciary duties to the Plans and the Plans' participants. The
amended complaint also alleges a purported class period from
Feb. 4, 2000, to the present and seeks an unspecified amount of
damages, restitution, a constructive trust, and other equitable
remedies.
Certain individual defendants' motion to dismiss portions of the
amended complaint was granted with prejudice on June 15, 2006.
The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on June 30,
2006. The defendants asserted counterclaims, asserting breach
of contract, but the Court dismissed those counterclaims in
September 2006.
The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the
named plaintiffs lacked standing. However, the request was
denied by the Court as to plaintiff Douglas Pettit, and the
ruling on the motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff Eric
Carey was deferred.
The ruling on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, on
the other hand, was also deferred. Both sides have taken
discovery.
Following the verdict for defendants in "In re JDS Uniphase
Corporation Securities Litigation," the court in the ERISA
action vacated all existing deadlines, set a schedule for
briefing a summary judgment motion based on collateral estoppel
issues, and stayed discovery pending resolution of that motion.
The opening brief for that motion is due three weeks after entry
of judgment in "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities
Litigation."
The suit is "Pettit v. JDS Uniphase Corp., et al., Case No.
3:03-cv-04743-WWS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge William W.
Schwarzer.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Alan R. Plutzik, Esq.
Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birhaeuser, LLP
2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Phone: 925-945-0200
Fax: (925) 945-8792
e-mail: aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com
- and -
Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: 610-667-7706
Fax: 610-667-7056
e-mail: jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com
Representing the defendants are:
Paul Flum, Esq.
Terri Garland, Esq.
Morrison & Foerster
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415/268-7000
Fax: 415-268-7522
e-mail: paulflum@mofo.com
tgarland@mofo.com
MARYLAND: Appeals Court Says County Must Pay $22M in Impact Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Special Appeals ruled that Anne Arundel County must
refund property owners as much as $22 million in impact fees
because it failed to expand school and road capacity in some
districts as required by law, Hometown Annapolis reports.
In addition, the report notes, the Appeals Court sent the case
back to the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court to gather more
evidence and make actual computations of the amount of damages
owed to the plaintiffs.
Hometown Annapolis explains that at issue in the lawsuit are
impact fees that Anne Arundel County collected from 1987 through
1996 but never used to expand schools and highways in the
district where the parcels of land are located. The lawsuit has
been certified as a class action.
The 53-page Court of Special Appeals opinion, written by retired
Judge Lawrence F. Rodowsky, opened by calling the matter "the
latest battle in the war that has been raging for almost seven
years."
John R. Greiber, Esq., attorney for Odenton-area homeowners and
developers who brought the case, told Hometown Annapolis that
people who own homes built during the specified years will be
entitled to share in the recovery.
Mr. Greiber said the recovery totals about $12.3 million for
fees that were collected but not used properly. On top of that,
he said the law provided for about $8 million in interest on the
money, plus another $2 million for interest the judgment earned
since the county appealed, for a total of about $22.3 million.
Mr. Greiber estimated that between 20,000 and 40,000 property
owners will share in the award.
Attorneys, the report notes, will get 30% of the final judgment.
However, Jonathan Hodgson, Esq., who represents Anne Arundel
County, called Mr. Greiber's valuation of the case as
"nonsense." He said their preliminary calculations based on the
opinion would require the county to pay the plaintiffs about
$2 million plus some incidental interest."
The plaintiffs, the report notes, claimed that the county
improperly spent as much as $5.5 million in impact fees to
remodel Park Elementary School in Brooklyn Park and South Shore
Elementary School in Crownsville, but failed to expand the
schools' capacities.
According to Hometown Annapolis, the county spent money on
trailers, or "relocatable classrooms." However, the Appeals
Court said trailers did not meet the requirements for
infrastructure because they were not permanent structures, and
can be moved to locations outside the impact-fee district where
the money was raised.
Also, among the road projects at issue are sections of East West
Boulevard in Severna Park that were paid for with money
collected in other districts.
Case Background
The case was filed with the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court on
Feb. 21, 2001. The court initially heard the case and entered
judgment against the county for $4,719,359, according to the
Court of Special Appeals' opinion, plus 5% interest beginning on
the date of each fee's initial payment, which brought the total
to about $11 million. The Circuit Court also awarded attorneys'
fees for the developers and homeowners, equal to 30% of the
total recovery.
The Court of Special Appeals opinion explained impact fees as
"Development impact fees are a source of municipal revenue in
addition to, and different from, usage fees, benefit
assessments, and property taxes."
Local jurisdictions use these fees instead of issuing additional
bonds or levying more taxes.
Impact fees shift the cost of capital improvements, such as
schools and roads, "to the new residents who create the need for
them," Judge Rodowsky wrote, and are collected before the
improvements are built. Unlike revenues raised from taxes,
impact fees must be committed to building infrastructure within
six years of being collected. Otherwise, the money must be
refunded to the current property owner.
Anne Arundel County began imposing the fees in 1987, according
to the opinion.
The county has paid at least $500,000 for the services, sources
said. Mr. Greiber said that the case has been "seven years and
7,000 pages of exhibits," and that it has been nasty at times.
Mr. Greiber said he has filed another case, on behalf of owners
of property who have paid impact fees since the dates covered by
this opinion.
The plaintiffs are represented by:
John R. Greiber, Esq.
Greiber & Scheibe
11 Hull Ave.
Annapolis, MD 21401
Phone: (410) 269-0050
The defendant is represented by:
Jonathan A. Hodgson, Esq.
1819 Bay Ridge Avenue
Suite 220
Annapolis, MD 21403
Phone: (410) 263-4454
Fax: (410) 263-6785
NETSHOPS: Recalls Table-Chair Sets Posing Lead Paint Hazards
------------------------------------------------------------
Netshops, of Omaha, Neb., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 50 children's
table and chair sets.
The company said the surface paint on the children's table and
chair sets contains excessive levels of lead, violating the
federal lead paint standard. No injuries have been reported.
The recalled table and chair sets are natural colored. The
table is either round or rectangular, has a shelf under the
table and includes two chairs. Model number ALZ024-3 or ALZ023-
3 is printed on the packaging.
These recalled table and chair sets were manufactured in China
and were being sold by Netshops.com from November 2007 through
December 2007 for between $100 and $130.
Pictures of the recalled table and chair sets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08543a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08543b.jpg
Consumers are advised to immediately take the table and chair
set away from children. Netshops is offering consumers a full
refund. Netshops has directly contacted consumers who purchased
the table and chair sets.
For additional information, contact Netshops toll-free at (866)
558-9485 between 9:00 a.m. And 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.netshops.com/
NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES: Wants Securities Suits Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc., and certain individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities fraud class
action with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2008 form 10-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Initially, Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St.
Louis filed the suit on June 19, 2007, under the caption,
"Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis v.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc."
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and
certain of its officers and directors violated federal
securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading
statements regarding the progress toward U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approval and the potential for market success of
indiplon in the 15 mg dosage unit.
On June 26, 2007, a second purported class action with similar
allegations was filed with the same court. That case was,
"Gopal Batra, Ph.D. v. Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc."
On Oct. 16, 2007, both purported class action lawsuits were
consolidated into one action under the caption, "In re
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. Securities Litigation, 07-cv-1111-
IEG-RBB."
The court also selected a lead plaintiff, who filed a
consolidated amended complaint, which is now the operative
complaint in the litigation. The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the company and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws by making allegedly
false and misleading statements regarding the progress toward
FDA approval and the potential for market success of indiplon in
the 15mg dosage unit.
On January 11, 2008, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Briefing on the
dismissal motion is expected to be completed in March 2008, and
a hearing on the motion is currently scheduled for April 7,
2008.
The suit is "In re Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. Securities
Litigation, 07-cv-1111-IEG-RBB," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California under Judge Irma
E. Gonzalez.
OHIO: City of Columbus Faces Suit for Breach of Medical Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Columbus, Ohio, faces a class action that was filed
by police radio dispatchers who accuse the city of illegally
requiring them to disclose detailed medical information to
supervisors to justify taking sick leave.
The lawsuit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on Dec. 4, 2007, and was brought on
behalf of three former, and two current radio operators. The
plaintiffs in the matter are:
-- Carrie Best;
-- Cheri Bowman;
-- Lisa Lee;
-- Paula Lee; and
-- Teresa Ruby.
The case stems from the police department's efforts to crack
down on employees who abuse sick-leave policies. The defendants
named in the complaint are:
-- The City of Columbus, Ohio;
-- Gary Dunlap;
-- Gary Thatcher;
-- James Jackson;
-- Larry Yates;
-- Mark Valentino; and
-- Mitchell Brown.
According to the lawsuit, in an effort to curb abuse, the city
erroneously labeled the plaintiffs as sick-leave abusers and
then, in an effort to rein them in, required workers to send
medical notes up the chain of command to their supervisor.
The policy is described by the plaintiffs' attorney, Michael
DeWitt, Esq., as being illegal. He pointed out, "This
information goes up the chain of command," but adds, "[i]t
doesn't just go up to the benefits department, which can have
this information."
The plaintiffs are alleging that the city's actions violate a
number of federal laws and constitutional amendments, from the
Family and Medical Leave Act to the First, Fifth and 14th
amendments to the Constitution. The plaintiffs are alleging
that they were wrongly disciplined and defamed.
The suit is "Lee et al v. The City of Columbus, Ohio et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-01230-GLF-NMK," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Gregory L. Frost
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Michael W. DeWitt, Esq
Chorpenning Good & Pandora Co LPA
585 South Front Street, Suite 250
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: 614-469-1301
Fax: 614-469-0122
e-mail: mdewitt@cgmlpa.com
Michael Garth Moore, Esq.
585 S. Front Street, Suite 250
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: 614-443-0554
e-mail: mike@mgmoorelaw.com
Representing the defendants is:
Pamela J. Gordon, Esq.
City of Columbus
90 West Broad Street, Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: (614) 645-7385
Fax: (614) 645-6949
e-mail: pjgordon@columbus.gov
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Statman Harris Plans ERISA Lawsuit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action Cincinnati law firm of Statman, Harris &
Eyrich, LLC is investigating Regions Financial Corporation
(NYSE:RF) for potential violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 relating to the Regions Financial
Corporation 401(k) Plan.
This investigation focuses on whether Plan fiduciaries breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to prudently manage the Plan's
assets by, among others:
(a) offering Regions stock as a Plan investment option,
(b) permitting the Plan to invest in Regions stock when it
was imprudent to do so, and
(c) encouraging that the Plan invest in Regions stock while
withholding or concealing material business or
financial information from the Plan's participants and
beneficiaries.
Current and former employees of Regions Financial Corporation
who currently hold Regions stock in the Regions Financial
Corporation 401(k) Plan may have a claim to recover losses in
their retirement investment.
For more information, contact:
Jeffrey P. Harris, Esq.
Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC
441 Vine Street, Suite 3700
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Phone: (513) 621-2666 or (888) 876-7881
e-mail: jharris@statmanharris.com
SANOFI-AVENTIS: Drug-Maker Sued Over Obesity Drug "Zimulti"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi-Aventis is facing a class-action complaint alleging that
the company hid data concerning adverse events associated with
their obesity medication Zimulti, Scott Kappes of
InjuryBoard.com reports.
According to the complaint, the French company allegedly
concealed data showing Zimulti's propensity to cause depression.
Zimulti has also been shown to increase suicidal ideation and
action in some cases, the report says.
In a statement, Reich & Binstock said FDA scientists provided an
analysis of 13 studies which showed that 26% of patients taking
the recommended dose of Zimulti had psychiatric side effects, as
compared to 14% of those patients who received a placebo.
Additionally, studies showed that the drug also doubled cases of
anxiety, depression, and other mood disorders when compared to
placebo.
In June 2007, the FDA unanimously decided that Zimulti could not
be recommended for approval in the U.S.; however, the drug can
be purchased through online pharmacies based in other countries.
For more information, contact:
Reich & Binstock
4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77027
Phone: (713) 622-7271 or (800) 622-7271 (Toll Free)
Fax: (713) 623-8724
STAR GAS: No Hearing Set for Appeals of Decisions in Conn. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on oral arguments in connection with the plaintiffs'
appeals regarding certain rulings made in a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed against Star Gas Partners,
L.P., has not yet been scheduled, according to the company's
Feb. 7, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.
On or about Oct. 21, 2004, a purported class action on behalf of
a purported class of unitholders was filed against the Company,
and various subsidiaries and officers and directors of the
company with the U.S. District Court of the District of
Connecticut. The suit is "Carter v. Star Gas Partners, L.P., et
al., No. 3:04-cv-01766-IBA."
Subsequently, 16 additional class action complaints, alleging
the same or substantially similar claims, were filed with the
same district court. The class actions were consolidated into
one consolidated amended complaint.
On Sept. 23, 2005, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim
under the federal securities laws and failure to satisfy the
applicable pleading requirements of the PSLRA, and the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, in July 2006, the Court favored
with the defendants and dismissed the consolidated amended
complaint in its entirety.
On Sept. 7, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration and requested to have the court's judgment of
dismissal altered and reopened. They also sought leave to file
a second consolidated amended complaint. On Oct. 20, 2006, the
defendants filed their memorandum of law in opposition to the
plaintiffs' Post-Judgment Motion.
On March 22, 2007, the Court issued an order denying the
Plaintiffs' Post-Judgment Motion.
However, on April 3, 2007, the Star Gas Defendants filed a
Motion for a Mandatory Rule 11 Inquiry and fee shifting which
seeks recovery of their legal fees pursuant to the PSLRA. This
motion was opposed by the plaintiffs.
On April 20, 2007, class plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the Court of Appeals for the Second Court of Judge Arterton's
decisions dismissing the amended complaint and denying the
Plaintiffs' Post-Judgment Motion.
Subsequent to the filing of the notice of appeal, the class
plaintiffs stipulated to the dismissal of the appeal as against:
-- Hanseatic Americas, Inc.,
-- Paul Biddelman,
-- A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.,
-- RBC Dain Rauscher Inc.,
-- UBS Investment Bank, and
-- Audrey Sevin.
On July 6, 2007, the class plaintiffs filed their brief on
appeal. The Star Gas Defendants' opposition brief was due on
Aug. 21, 2007, and the class plaintiffs' reply brief was due on
Sept. 11, 2007. Oral argument on the appeal has not yet been
scheduled.
In the interim, discovery in the matter remains stayed pursuant
to the mandatory stay provisions of the PSLRA.
The suit is "In re Star Gas Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:04-cv-01766-JBA," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Janet Bond Arterton.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Jonathan F. Andres, Esq.
Green Schaaf & Jacobson, P.C.
7733 Forsyth, Suite 700
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone: 314-862-6800
Fax: 314-862-1606
e-mail: andres@stlouislaw.com
- and -
David L. Belt, Esq.
Jacobs, Grudberg, Belt, Dow & Katz, P.C.
350 Orange St., P.O. Box 606
New Haven, CT 06503-0606
Phone: 203-772-3100
Fax: 203-772-1691
e-mail: dbelt@jacobslaw.com
Representing the defendants are:
Terence J. Gallagher, III, Esq.
Day, Berry & Howard
One Canterbury Green
Stamford, CT 06901-2047
Phone: 203-977-7300
Fax: 203-977-7301
e-mail: tjgallagher@dbh.com
- and -
Elizabeth K. Andrews, Esq.
Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn
205 Church St., P.O. Box 1936
New Haven, CT 06509-1910
Phone: 203-784-8200
Fax: 203-777-1181
e-mail: eandrews@tylercooper.com
SYNCOR INT'L: Defendants Answer Amended Complaint in Calif. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Syncor International Corp., along with other defendants, filed
an answer to the third amended consolidated complaint in a
consolidated securities fraud class action filed against the
company.
Initially, several purported class actions were filed against
the company and certain of its officers and directors, asserting
claims under the federal securities laws.
The actions were all filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, where they were later
consolidated into a single proceeding referred to as "In re
Syncor International Corp. Securities Litigation."
The federal securities suits purport to be brought on behalf of
all purchasers of Syncor shares during various periods,
beginning as early as March 30, 2000, and ending as late as
Nov. 5, 2002.
The actions allege, among other things, that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange
Act by issuing a series of press releases and public filings
disclosing significant sales growth in Syncor's international
business, but omitting mention of certain allegedly improper
payments to Syncor's foreign customers, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Syncor shares.
The lead plaintiff filed the third amended consolidated
complaint on Dec. 29, 2004. Syncor filed a motion to dismiss
the third amended consolidated complaint on Jan. 31, 2005.
On April 15, 2005, the court granted the motion to dismiss with
prejudice. The lead plaintiff has appealed this decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On June 12, 2007, the Ninth Circuit entered an order reversing,
in part, the District Court's dismissal of the plaintiffs'
claims and remanding the case to the District Court.
Specifically, the order reversed the dismissal of the claims
against Syncor and certain individual defendants, including its
former Chairman and CEO, and affirmed the dismissal of all other
defendants.
Syncor then filed a petition for rehearing, which was later
denied by the court.
On Jan. 17, 2008, the defendants filed an answer to the third
amended consolidated complaint, according to Cardinal Health,
Inc.'s Feb. 5, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The suit is "Richard Bowe, et al. v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al.,
Case No. 2:02-cv-08560-LGB-RC," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Lourdes G.
Baird presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
Provost Umphrey Law Firm
3232 McKinney Ave, Ste. 700
Dallas, TX 75204
Phone: 214-744-3000
Web site: http://www.provostumphrey.com
- and -
Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
Shapiro Grace Haber & Urmy
75 State St.
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: 617-439-3939
Representing the defendants are:
Daniel S. Floyd, Esq.
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
333 S. Grand Ave., 45th Fl.
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Phone: 213-229-7000
e-mail: dfloyd@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Robert F. LeMoine, Esq.
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
300 S. Grand Ave., Ste. 3400
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3144
Phone: 213-687-5000
e-mail: lacefax@skadden.com
TEXAS: Lawsuit Accuses Half Brothers of "Legal Aid" Ripoffs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Half-brothers Kendrick White and Derrick Brown are facing a
class-action complaint in Bexar County (Texas) Court for
ripping-off poor immigrants by falsely presenting themselves as
lawyers for "Legal Aid of Texas," CourtHouse News Service
reports.
The lawsuit seeks money damages and restitution from defendants
who prey on vulnerable Texas residents who meet federal poverty
guidelines.
Thirteen named plaintiffs claim that the brothers, both of one
Tree, Colo., allegedly run their frauds under these corporate
names:
-- National Document Preparation Services,
-- National Paralegal Service,
-- Legal Aid National Paralegal Services Division,
-- Legal Aid National Services,
-- The Lans Corp.,
-- Legal Aide Divorce Services,
-- Ed Brown Mgmt., Legal Aid Service/Brownmgmt. Inc.,
-- Legal Support Services Corp., and
-- Legal Aid Support Services, of Denver and Littleton,
Colo., and Austin.
The complaint asserts that the defendants falsely portray
themselves to be the "legal aid" of Texas. They falsely held
themselves out to be legitimate legal professionals that provide
free or low-cost civil legal services to low-income individuals
in Texas. The defendants are not attorneys, do not employ
attorneys, and are not registered to do business in Texas in any
form.
Each plaintiff allegedly paid money to the defendants for legal
services that were promised but not delivered.
The plaintiffs request for the following relief:
-- actual damages and related costs, exemplary damages, and
pain and suffering within the jurisdictional limits of
the court;
-- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by
law;
-- court costs; and
-- such other relief, both at law and in equity, both
general and special, to which the plaintiffs may be
justly and legally entitled.
The suit is "Gloria Robles at al. v. Kendrick White et al., Case
No. 2008CI01979," filed with the Bexar County (Texas) Court.
Representing plaintiffs are:
Cynthia M. Dyar
Texas Riogrande Legal Aid, Inc.
316 S. Closner
Edinburg, Texas 78504
Phone: (956) 393-6203
Fax: (956) 383-4688
Raul Noriega
Texas Riogrande Legal Aid, Inc.
1111 N. Main Ave.
San Antonio, TX 78212
Phone: (210) 212-3734
Fax: (210) 212-3774
- and -
Tracey Whitley
Texas Riogrande Legal Aid, Inc.
4920 N. IH-35
Austin, TX 78751
Phone: (512) 374-2700
Fax: (512) 447-3940
WEST MUSIC: Recalls Egg-Shaker Toy Instruments for Choking Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
West Music Company, of Coralville, Iowa, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
5,500 transparent toy egg shakers.
The company said the end cap can detach from the egg shaker and
allow the small beads to spill out, posing choking/aspiration
hazards to young children.
West Music has received a report of the end cap detaching. No
injuries have been reported.
This recall involves clear, plastic egg-shaped instruments with
various color beads inside. The beads inside the shaker
instrument come in five colors: red, white, green, dark blue and
aqua. "Basic Beat" and "Jumbo Egg Crystal" is printed on a
label attached to the plastic bag packaging. Model numbers
"BB5102" and "202212" are printed on the side of the label.
These recalled toy instruments were manufactured in China and
were being sold at West Music stores in Iowa and Illinois, West
Music catalog http://www.westmusic.comand at West Music exhibit
booths nationwide from October 2006 through December 2007 for
about $2.
Picture of the recalled toy instruments is found at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08188.jpg
Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled egg
shakers from young children and contact West Music for a free
replacement product.
For additional information, contact West Music at (800) 397-9378
between 8:00 a.m. And 4:00 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or e-
mail: rcousins@westmusic.com
WMG ACQUISITION: March 25 Hearing Set on Dismissal of N.Y. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A March 25, 2008 hearing is set for a motion that seeks for the
dismissal of a consolidated class action in New York over the
pricing of digital music downloads, which named WMG Acquisition
Corp., a subsidiary of Warner Music Group Corp., as one of the
defendants.
More than 30 putative class actions concerning the pricing of
digital music downloads have been filed. On Aug. 15, 2006, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated these
actions for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.
The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007,
alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay the release
of their content for digital distribution, inflate their pricing
of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. It seeks
unspecified compensatory, statutory, and treble damages.
All defendants, including the Company, filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint on July 30, 2007. The motion
is scheduled for argument on March 25, 2008 and the Court’s
determination of the issues raised by the motion is expected
shortly afterwards, according to the company's Feb. 7, 2008 form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.
Warner Music Group Corp. -- http://www.wmg.com-- is a music
content company that classifies its business interests into two
areas: Recorded Music and Music Publishing. The Recorded Music
business produces revenue through the marketing, sale and
licensing of recorded music in various physical (such as compact
disc's, cassettes, long playings and digital versatile discs)
and digital (such as downloads and ringtones) formats.
* Eric Schachter Joins Class Admin. Division of A.B. Data, Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Benjamin, Co-Managing Director of A.B. Data, Ltd. (A.B.
Data) announced, "Eric Schachter, Esq., has joined the Company
as Account Executive. We are excited to welcome Mr. Schachter
to A.B. Data and look forward to his contributions to providing
unparalleled service in class action administration to our
clients."
Prior to joining A.B. Data, Mr. Schachter was an associate at
Labaton Sucharow LLP, where he concentrated his practice in the
area of securities class action litigation. He played a primary
role in In re El Paso Corporation Securities Litigation, which
resulted in a $285 million settlement for the class. Most
recently, he was actively involved in In re St. Paul Travelers
Securities Litigation II that created (subject to final approval
by the Court) a $77 million recovery for the class.
Mr. Schachter earned a B.A. from Syracuse University in 2000 and
a J.D. from the Hofstra University School of Law in 2005.
During law school, Mr. Schachter clerked for Nassau County Court
of Claims Justice Victor M. Ort. He is admitted to practice in
New York as well as the United States District Courts for the
Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.
For more information, contact:
Eric Schachter, Esq.
Account Executive
4057 North Wilson Drive
Milwaukee, WI 53211
Phone: (414) 963-3235
e-mail: Eric.Schachter@abdata.com
Web site: http://abdatalawserve.com
- and -
Jerry Benjamin
Co-Managing Director
8050 North Port Washington Road
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53217
Phone: (414) 963-6451
e-mail: yitz@abdata.com
Web site: http://abdatalawserve.com
New Securities Fraud Cases
AMERICAN DENTAL: Glancy Binkow Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a Class Action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
American Dental Partners, Inc. between Aug. 10, 2005, and
Dec. 13, 2007, inclusive.
The Complaint charges ADPI and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, Plaintiff claims that Defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's business, operations and
financial performance caused ADPI's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.
ADPI provides non-clinical business services to
multidisciplinary dental group practices, including
organizational planning and development, recruiting, retention,
training programs, quality assurance initiatives, and facilities
development and management, in selected markets throughout the
United States.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants failed to disclose that the Company's financial
results were obtained by wrongful conduct -- as determined by
the jury in a lawsuit filed by Minneapolis-St. Paul-based Park
Dental Group against ADPI and the Company's PDHC, Ltd.
subsidiary (the "PDG Litigation").
This was contrary to defendants' representations that ADPI's
revenue and earnings were legitimately obtained and accrued
according to generally accepted accounting practices. As a
result, defendants' Class Period statements concerning ADPI's
operations and financial performance were materially false and
misleading.
On Dec. 12, 2007, the jury in the PDG Litigation found PDHC
liable for breach of its Service Agreement with Park Dental
Group and awarded compensatory damages totaling in excess of $88
million. The jury found ADPI liable for the tortious
interference with contract and prospective advantage, and also
awarded punitive damages of $42 million against PDHC and ADPI.
The jury conclusively found that ADPI and its subsidiary had
engaged in unlawful conduct in its relationship with Park Dental
Group. Thus, the Company received revenues and income which
were the product of this unlawful conduct. These revenues were
material to the Company's business and a significant part of the
revenues it publicly reported in its quarterly and annual
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
After the announcement of the initial jury verdict, ADPI's stock
plummeted, dropping from $19.70 per share on Dec. 11, 2007, to
close at $14.34 on Dec. 12, 2007, and falling further after the
announcement of the punitive damages award, to close at $4.62
per share on Dec. 13, 2007.
The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class
members.
Interested parties may move the court no later than March 31,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
e-mail: info@glancylaw.com
Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com
ORION ENERGY: Paskowitz Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paskowitz & Associates commenced a Class Action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or
acquired the common shares of Orion Energy Systems, Inc. from
the date of the Initial Public Offering on Dec. 18, 2007,
through Feb. 6, 2008.
With respect to the IPO, Orion realized over $78 million in
proceeds, while Chief Executive Officer Neal R. Verfuerth
("Verfuerth") and family sold 600,000 shares for proceeds of
approximately $7 million.
On Feb. 6, 2008, just weeks after its IPO, Orion revealed news
concerning the Company which completely surprised analysts and
investors, and caused the stock to drop approximately 43%, to a
price of $8.51 per share.
Orion is a manufacturer of efficient lighting and energy systems
to businesses.
The Prospectus for its IPO described a Company that was quickly
growing revenues from existing product lines, and briefly
described product line extensions. After the close of trading
on Feb. 6, 2008, Orion revealed that revenues in its current
fiscal quarter would decline as the Company took aggressive
measures to promote a "new business model," a change in focus
that is alleged not to have been adequately disclosed or
described in the IPO Prospectus. During the Feb. 6, 2008
conference call, Orion executives, including Verfuerth, appeared
unable to explain to the satisfaction of securities analysts
this surprising news about the business model change on the
heels of the IPO, or its impact on revenues.
The complaint charges Orion, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters who sponsored the IPO with
violation of the federal securities laws by issuing a
Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with the IPO
which was materially false or misleading due to omissions. The
law generally imposes strict liability on defendants responsible
for a materially false Registration Statement and Prospectus,
including for purchases made in the open market after the IPO;
no fraud need be proved to recover.
Interested parties may move the court no later than April 11,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Laurence Paskowitz, Esq.
Paskowitz & Associates
Toll Free: 1-800-705-9529
*********
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, Janice Mendoza, Freya Natasha Dy, and
Peter Chapman, 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 * * *