/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080306.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, March 6, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 47
Headlines
ADECCO SA: Appeals Court Dismissal Order Final and Effective
AETNA INC: Eating Disorders Coverage Denial Suit in NJ Proceeds
AIRBORNE HEALTH: Settles False Advertising Lawsuit for $23 MM
AVERY DENNISON: Appeals Ruling in UPM-MACtac Merger Suit in Pa.
AVERY DENNISON: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Label Stock
BELL EXPRESSVU: Suit Could Test Legality of Telecom Late Fees
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 3
E.I. DUPONT: Still Faces PFOA Contamination Suits in W.Va., N.J.
E.I. DUPONT: Canada Teflon Suit Status Ruling Expected This Year
E.I. DUPONT: Iowa Court to Rule on Teflon Suits' Status in 2008
EQUIFAX INC: Discovery Ongoing in CCRA Violations Suit in Calif.
FANNIE MAE: D.C. Court Mulls Dismissal of G-Fees Antitrust Suit
FANNIE MAE: Continues to Face Consolidated D.C. Securities Suit
FANNIE MAE: D.C. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss ERISA Litigation
FANNIE MAE: Tex. Court Mulls Dismissal of Borrowers' Litigation
FRIENDLY'S: Class Action Status Denial in Waiters' Suit Upheld
GAYLORD GAS: Violated MI Consumer Protection Act, Judge Says
GAYLORD GAS: Propane Overpricing Suit Adds Petoskey as Defendant
GEORGETTE KLINGER: Employees Sue for Their Day 'At the Spa'
GMH COMMUNITIES: Fairness Settlement Hearing Set on April 25
GREAT-WEST LIFECO: Judge Gives Policyholder Lawsuit Go-Ahead
KAWASAKI MOTORS: Recalls Off-Road Motorcycles for Frame Failure
LDR INDUSTRIES: Recalls Gas Connectors for Fire, Explosion Risk
MATTEL INC: Faces Consolidated Product Liability Suit in Calif.
MATTEL INC: Faces Suits in Canada Over Lead Contaminated Toys
MEDICAL WEST: Faces Suit Over Fraudulent Collection Practice
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls ATVs Due to Risk of Injury to Riders
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Discovery Ongoing in Mutual Funds Lawsuits
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Consolidated CA Stockbrokers' Suit
RADIOSHACK CORP: CA Court Denies Review Petition in "Brookler"
TELLABS INC: Appeals Court Remands Securities Suit Back to Ill.
TELLABS INC: Oct. 20 Trial Scheduled for "Brieger" Litigation
TENET HEALTHCARE: Still Faces Labor Violations Suits in Calif.
TENET HEALTHCARE: La. Hospitals Face Medical Malpractice Suits
TEXAS: Faces Lawsuit Over 2003 Tort Reform Act
TRAVELERS COS: Supreme Court Denies Writ of Certiorari Petition
TRAVELERS COS: Claims Dismissal in N.J. Antitrust Suit Appealed
UNITED KINGDOM: Australians Sue British Gov't Over Nuclear Tests
UNITED STATES: 25 Florida Muslims Sue Over Stalled Citizenship
VERITAS SOFTWARE: Calif. Court Approves $35M Securities Deal
New Securities Fraud Cases
SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Murray Frank Files Securities Suit in Calif.
SUNOPTA INC: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
SWISS REINSURANCE: Howard Smith Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
TELETECH HOLDINGS: Johnson & Perkinson Files Securities Lawsuit
*********
ADECCO SA: Appeals Court Dismissal Order Final and Effective
------------------------------------------------------------
After plaintiffs in the amended securities fraud suit -- filed
against Adecco S.A. and certain of its current and former
directors and officers -- did not make use of their right to
appeal to the U.S. Federal Supreme Court, the suit has finally
been dismissed, the company said in a statement.
Several lawsuits were filed against Adecco early in 2004 after
the Company revealed it would delay the announcement of its
audited results for 2003. In a statement, the Company said the
reasons for the delay in completion of the audit are:
(1) the identification of material weaknesses in internal
controls in the Company's North American operations of
Adecco Staffing;
(2) the resolution of possible accounting, control and
compliance issues in the Company's operations in
certain countries; and
(3) the completion of the Company's efforts to address
these matters and determine their effect on the
Company's consolidated financial statements.
On this news, Adecco's stock price dropped from a close of
$16.93 on January 9, 2004 to below $10 per share.
In a consolidated amended complaint the plaintiffs claimed
Adecco, and four named executives, knew and hid the fact that
millions of dollars in the company's accounts receivable were
uncollectible and improperly recorded in its reports of bad-debt
reserves.
Early in 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California dismissed the complaint with prejudice
and without further leave to amend, and directed that judgment
be entered in favor of the defendant (Class Action Reporter,
April 6, 2006 ).
In Nov. 2007, the appeals court affirmed the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California's summary dismissal of
the amended securities fraud suit, ruling the plaintiffs had
failed to prove their case (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 6,
2007).
In its decision, the appeals court affirmed a California
district judge's decision to toss the lawsuit with prejudice for
its inadequate showing of claims that the company and its
executives scammed investors by understating its bad debts.
Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling earlier in 2007 in
Tellabs Inc. v Makor Issues & Rights Ltd, the circuit judges
found the shareholders' allegations were insufficient to satisfy
the heightened pleading standards of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.
Recently, the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit from November 2007, confirming the decision of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, became final and effective, after the plaintiffs did
not make use of their right to appeal to the US Federal Supreme
Court.
Adecco S.A. -- http://www.adecco.com/-- is registered in
Switzerland. It offers Human Resource services worldwide.
AETNA INC: Eating Disorders Coverage Denial Suit in NJ Proceeds
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit over Aetna Inc.'s denial of coverage for
people with eating disorders may proceed under the federal
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, a New Jersey
federal judge has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Faith S. Hochberg in Newark denied Aetna's
motion to dismiss the suit. The company argued that the
coverage dispute should be handled by the New Jersey Department
of Banking & Insurance or its own internal appeals procedures.
Bruce Nagel, Esq., of Nagel Rice in Roseland, N.J., an attorney
representing the plaintiffs, said the ruling is "significant
because it is the first time in the country that a federal court
has ruled that there was a bona fide claim and that the
insurance company's internal appeals procedure does not trump
the claim."
Mr. Nagel said he will try the case to ensure coverage for
hundreds of families with children suffering from eating
disorders, such as anorexia and bulimia.
In favorable rulings for Aetna, however, Judge Hochberg
dismissed the plaintiffs' claim under the New Jersey Mental
Health Parity Law and their claims for punitive damages as pre-
empted by ERISA.
Attempts to get comment from Aetna were unsuccessful.
When people successfully sue under ERISA, they only receive the
value of the benefit denied. However, treating anorexia in an
inpatient facility, for example, costs more than $1,000 a day
"so this ruling is quite significant," said Mr. Nagel.
The decision, he said, applies to other pending class actions,
including one he said he has pending against Horizon Blue Cross
Blue Shield of New Jersey that's also before Judge Hochberg
(BestWire, Nov. 10, 2006).
According to the Feb. 26 opinion, Francis DeVito and Jeff
Meiskin are New Jersey residents covered by insurance policies
by Aetna governed by ERISA. Both have daughters who suffered
from eating disorders and both sought coverage for treatment of
their daughters' eating disorders under their policies. Mr.
DeVito sought coverage, which, on at least one occasion, Aetna
denied as "not medically necessary."
Mr. Meiskin was provided benefits for treatment of his
daughter's eating disorders, but coverage was cut off when it
exceeded the contractual limitations for coverage of "non-
biologically based mental illnesses."
They claim Aetna improperly denied coverage by wrongly
classifying the eating disorders as non-biologically based
mental illness and as a result, Aetna breached its insurance
contracts and violated its fiduciary duties.
The court noted the definition of BBMI in both policies
substantially tracks the definitions found in New Jersey's
parity law, but that it doesn't define non-BBMI. That law said
it means a "mental or nervous condition that is caused by a
biological disorder of the brain and results in a clinically
significant or psychological syndrome or pattern that
substantially limits the functioning of the person with the
illness, including but not limited to, schizophrenia,
schizoaffective disorder, major depressive disorder, bipolar
disorder, paranoia and other psychotic disorders, obsessive-
compulsive disorder, panic disorder and pervasive development
disorder or autism."
Aetna argued that a law extending parity law coverage to eating
disorders, passed the New Jersey Senate and is pending before
the New Jersey Assembly. But Judge Hochberg rejected it.
"In both the DeVito policy and the Meiskin policy, Aetna
promises to 'cover treatment of biologically-based mental
illness or alcohol abuse the same way we would for any other
illness,'" she wrote. "Both policies define BBMI and provide a
non-exhaustive list of examples. The policies are therefore
silent on whether plaintiffs eating disorders are or are not
BBMIs."
Based in Hartford, Conn., Aetna Inc. provides health insurance
products and related services, including medical, pharmacy,
dental, behavioral health, group life, long-term care and
disability plans, and medical management capabilities primarily
in the U.S.
AIRBORNE HEALTH: Settles False Advertising Lawsuit for $23 MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit, which alleged that Airborne Health,
Inc. provided false advertising for the benefits of their
product, has been settled for $23 million.
The lawsuit alleges that Airborne Health falsely advertised
certain therapeutic properties, including the ability to cure or
prevent the common cold, when marketing products under the
Airborne brand name, as listed below.
The company denies any wrongdoing or illegal conduct but have
agreed to settle the litigation. The company claimed that their
product provided the ability to cure or prevent the common cold
as well as other therapeutic benefits.
There is very little proof that the product works, leaving many
customers to believe that they are paying money for a placebo.
On November 29, 2007, the District Court for the Central
District of California entered an order preliminarily approving
the proposed Settlement.
Airborne lawsuit as well as the Airborne settlement have caused
the company to refund money back to customers who believed the
product worked for them. The company is also going to recall its
product.
Deadline to file for exclusions is on May 12, 2008. Deadline to
file for objections is on May 19, 2008.
The Court has scheduled a hearing on June 16, 2008 at 10:00 am,
to consider final approval of the Settlement.
Consumers seeking Airborne refunds for purchases of the product
can write to:
Airborne Class Action Settlement Administrator
PO Box 1897
Faribault, MN 55021-7152
Phone: 1-888-952-9080
Airborne settlement on the net:
http://www.AirborneHealthSettlement.com
The suit is "Wilson v. Airborne, Inc. et al., Case No. EDC V07-
770 VAP (OPx)," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.
AVERY DENNISON: Appeals Ruling in UPM-MACtac Merger Suit in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avery Dennison Corp. is appealing a decision by the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania that
granted class-action status to the lawsuit, "Sentry Business
Products, Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp., et al., Case No. 3:03-
cv-01999-TIV."
The plaintiffs in the purported class action filed against Avery
Dennison in relation to a proposed merger of UPM-Kymmene and the
Morgan Adhesives (MACtac) division of Bemis Co., Inc., moved to
lift discovery stay in the case. UPM is a supplier of paper to
Avery Dennison.
On April 24, 2003, Sentry Business Products, Inc. filed the
purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania against the company, UPM, Bemis, and
certain of their subsidiaries seeking treble damages and other
relief for alleged unlawful competitive practices. Ten similar
complaints were filed in various federal district courts.
In November 2003, the cases were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and
consolidated for pretrial purposes.
On Jan. 21, 2004, plaintiff Pamco Tape & Label voluntarily
dismissed its complaint, leaving a total of 10 named plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on Feb. 16, 2004,
which the company answered in March 2004.
On April 14, 2004, the court separated the proceedings as to
class certification and merits discovery, and limited the
initial phase of discovery to the issue of the appropriateness
of class certification.
On Jan. 4, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The
company then filed an answer to the amended complaint. In March
2007, the court heard oral argument on the issue of the
appropriateness of class certification.
On Aug. 28, 2007, the plaintiffs moved to lift the discovery
stay, which the Company opposed.
On Nov.19, 2007, the court certified a class consisting of all
direct purchasers of paper-based label stock from the defendants
during the period from Jan. 1, 1996, to July 25, 2003.
The Company filed a petition to appeal this decision on Dec. 4,
2007. The Company's petition is still pending.
The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007.
The suit is "Sentry Business Products, Inc. v. Avery Dennison
Corp., et al., Case No. 3:03-cv-01999-TIV," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Judge
Thomas I. Vanaskie presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Stewart M. Weltman, Esq. (sweltman@cmht.com)
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
39 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 312-357-0370
Representing the company are:
Joshua N. Holian, Esq. (joshua.holian@lw.com)
J. Thomas Rosch, Esq. (Tom.Rosch@lw.com)
Latham & Watkins LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 1900
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-646-8343
Fax: 415-395-8095
AVERY DENNISON: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Label Stock
-----------------------------------------------------------
Avery Dennison Corp., UPM-Kymmene and UPM's subsidiary,
Raflatac, still face several class actions filed on behalf of
indirect purchasers of label stock in various state courts.
On May 21, 2003, The Harman Press filed with the Superior Court
for the County of Los Angeles, California, a purported class
action on behalf of indirect purchasers of label stock. The
suit asks treble damages and other relief for alleged unlawful
competitive practices.
Three similar complaints were filed with various California
courts. In November 2003, on petition from the parties, the
California Judicial Council ordered the cases coordinated for
pretrial purposes.
The cases were assigned to a coordination trial judge in the
Superior Court for San Francisco County on March 30, 2004.
On Jan. 21, 2005, American International Distribution Corp.
filed a purported class action on behalf of indirect purchasers
with the Superior Court for Chittenden County, Vermont.
Similar actions were then filed by Richard Wrobel, on Feb. 16,
2005, in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas; and by
Chad and Terry Muzzey, on Feb. 16, 2005, with the District Court
of Scotts Bluff County, Nebraska.
On Feb. 17, 2005, Judy Benson filed a purported multi-state
class action on behalf of indirect purchasers in the Circuit
Court for Cocke County, Tennessee.
These cases remain stayed pending the outcome of class
certification proceedings in the federal actions.
The company reported no development in these matters in its
Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007.
Avery Dennison Corp. -- http://www.averydennison.com-- is
engaged in the production of pressure-sensitive materials,
office products and a variety of tickets, tags, labels and other
converted products. It also manufactures and sells a variety of
office products, and other converted products and other items
not involving pressure-sensitive components, such as binders,
organizing systems, markers, fasteners, business forms, as well
as tickets, tags, and imprinting equipment for retail and
apparel manufacturers.
BELL EXPRESSVU: Suit Could Test Legality of Telecom Late Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on Feb. 18, 2008, a lawsuit
against Bell ExpressVu was certified as a class action by
Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Perell. The lawsuit, filed
by Ontario resident Peter De Wolf on behalf of Bell ExpressVu's
1.7 million customers nationwide, alleges that the company
charges excessive administrative fees for clients' failure to
pay their bills on time.
According to National Post, the class action lawsuit against
ExpressVu could determine whether the allegedly excessive late
fees and other "administrative" fees are legal.
National Post says that nearly a decade after the Supreme Court
of Canada ruled that late fee levies must comply with the
maximum interest rate allowed by the Criminal Code, phone,
cable, wireless and satellite companies may still be imposing
improper charges. The hundreds of millions of dollars raised
from late fees each year are generally levied before a
customer's monthly billing period has expired and could lead to
an "effective" annual interest rate in excess of the 60%
permitted by law.
"Even if it's in a contract, if it's illegal, it's not
enforceable," Toronto lawyer Laura Young, who is representing
one of the subscribers, said.
National Post recounts that late fee rates, and whether they
comply with the Criminal Code, have been the subject of Supreme
Court rulings in 1998 and 2004, after a class-action lawsuit was
filed against Consumers' Gas (now En-bridge Inc.), by Gord
Garland, a Toronto economist. The late charge of 5%, which was
imposed at the time by Ontario utilities, resulted in an
effective interest rate that did not drop below 60% until more
than 37 days after the due date. The Supreme Court ruled
unanimously that Consumers' received an "unjust enrichment" from
illegal late penalties, and the energy board finally ordered
utilities in Ontario to reduce late fees to a monthly charge of
1.5%.
Utilities now generally require payment within 19 days of the
invoice date, which is issued after the customer has received
the gas or electricity for a standard billing period, the report
relates. In contrast, it is common for wireless, cable and
satellite companies to bill customers before the service is
provided.
National Post cites for example a bill dated on the 15th of the
month, which will run from the 16th to the 15th of the following
month. If payment is not received in full by the end of this
period, a company will immediately impose a 1.5% or 2% late fee.
The 1.5% charge results in an effective interest rate of more
than 60% if the customer pays the bill within 12 days of the due
date, according to Ed Furman, a professor in the mathematics and
statistics department at York University who did the
calculations for the National Post. If the charge is 2%, the
illegal rate continues for 16 days after the due date.
It would be "very simple" for companies to change their billing
practices to charge a daily interest rate late fee, Prof. Furman
said, so that someone who is a few days overdue pays less than
someone a few weeks late.
The report points out that, as a result of the Supreme Court
rulings in the Garland case, many companies have instead changed
the wording of their bills. Charges are now stated as being due
"in full" from the first date on an invoice, even though
customers do not receive the bill until about a week later.
In its 1998 decision, the Supreme Court accepted that the
effective interest rate calculations should be determined as of
the due date and not a month earlier when the invoice is issued.
The question of "when the clock starts running" on a customer's
bill, will be "key" in determining if current late fees comply
with the Criminal Code interest rate rules, Ms. Young said.
The focus of the class action against ExpressVu though, is an
additional "administrative fee" of $25 that is imposed on late
customers who have still not paid their bill 30 days after the
initial 2% late fee has been levied.
The ExpressVu class action resumes on April 15, when ExpressVu
will be asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit.
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 3
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York will hold a hearing at 3:00 p.m., on June 3, 2008, for
the $10.5-million settlement of a securities class action
against Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. for the implementation of
certain corporate governance provisions, Standford Securities
reports.
The shareholder class action was filed on Feb. 17, 2006, against
the company and individuals Gerald M. Glenn, Robert B. Jordan,
and Richard E. Goodrich with the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York entitled, "Welmon v.
Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. NV, et al. (No. 06 CV 1283)."
The complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's securities from March 9, 2005, through Feb. 3, 2006,
and were damaged thereby.
The action asserts claims under the U.S. securities laws in
connection with various public statements made by the defendants
during the class period and alleges, among other things, that
the company misapplied percentage-of-completion accounting and
did not follow its publicly stated revenue recognition policies.
On July 5, 2006, a single Consolidated Amended Complaint was
filed in the Welmon action in the Southern District of New York
consolidating all previously filed actions.
The company and the individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Complaint, which was denied by the Court.
On March 2, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and the company and the individual defendants
filed an opposition to class certification on April 2, 2007
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 7, 2007).
In Feb., Spector Roseman, Milberg Weiss, and Cohen Milstein
announced the Proposed Settlement of the Securities Class Action
Lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, Feb 18, 2008).
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, the above-captioned action has been
certified as a class action and that a settlement for $10.5
million and CB&I' s implementation of certain corporate
governance provisions has been proposed.
Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on May 8, 2008.
Deadline to file claims is on June 26, 2008.
The suit is "Wayne Welmon, et al. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co.
NV, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01283-JES," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
John E. Sprizzo.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Robert M. Roseman, Esq. (rroseman@srk-law.com)
Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 496-0300
Barry A. Weprin, Esq. (bweprin@milbergweiss.com)
Milberg Weiss LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza
New York, NY 10119-0165
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
- and -
Mark S. Willis, Esq. (mwillis@cmht.com)
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 500, West Tower
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 408-4600
To contact the Claims Administrator:
Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. Securities Litigation
Settlement
c/o Complete Claim Solutions, LLC
Claims Administrator
Post Office Box 24789
West Palm Beach, FL 33416
Phone: (877) 567-4298
Web site:
http://www.chicagobridgesecuritiessettlement.com
E.I. DUPONT: Still Faces PFOA Contamination Suits in W.Va., N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. continues to face several purported
class action suits in West Virginia and New Jersey over
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) releases from certain of its
plants.
PFOA is a synthetic chemical that does not occur naturally in
the environment. PFOA is sometimes called "C8." Companies use
PFOA to make fluoropolymers, substances with special properties
that have thousands of important manufacturing and industrial
applications.
The suits were filed in the second quarter of 2006 as purported
class actions. One of these cases was filed with the West
Virginia state court on behalf of customers of the Parkersburg
City Water District, but was removed, on DuPont's request, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia.
The other two purported class actions were filed in New Jersey.
One was filed with the federal court on behalf of individuals
who allegedly drank water contaminated by releases from DuPont's
Chambers Works plant in Deepwater, New Jersey.
The second was filed in state court on behalf of customers
serviced primarily by the Pennsville Township Water Department
and was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey on DuPont's motion.
The New Jersey cases have been combined for purposes of
discovery and the complaints have been amended to allege that
drinking water had been contaminated by PFOA in excess of 0.04
ppb.
The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. -- http://www.dupont.com--
operates and manufactures a range of products for distribution
and sale to many different markets, including the
transportation, safety and protection, construction, motor
vehicle, agriculture, home furnishings, medical, electronics,
communications, protective apparel, and the nutrition and health
markets.
E.I. DUPONT: Canada Teflon Suit Status Ruling Expected This Year
----------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling on whether a lawsuit filed against E.I. DuPont De
Nemours & Co. with the Superior Court for the Province of Quebec
Canada can proceed as a class action is expected this year.
In December 2005, a motion was filed by a single named plaintiff
in the Superior Court for the Province of Quebec, Canada seeking
authorization to institute a class action on behalf of all
Quebec consumers who have purchased or used kitchen items,
household appliances or food-packaging containing Teflon or
Zonyl non-stick coatings. A ruling on this motion is expected
from the Court in 2008.
Damages are not quantified, but are alleged to include the cost
of replacement products as well as one hundred dollars per class
member as exemplary damages.
The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Co. -- http://www.dupont.com--
operates and manufactures a range of products for distribution
and sale to many different markets, including the
transportation, safety and protection, construction, motor
vehicle, agriculture, home furnishings, medical, electronics,
communications, protective apparel, and the nutrition and health
markets.
E.I. DUPONT: Iowa Court to Rule on Teflon Suits' Status in 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling on whether several lawsuits filed against E.I. DuPont
De Nemours & Co. in Iowa federal court over the company's
cookware with Teflon non-stick can proceed as class actions is
expected this year.
As of June 30, 2007, 23 intrastate class actions have been filed
on behalf of consumers who have purchased cookware with Teflon
non-stick coating in federal district courts against the
company.
The actions were filed on behalf of consumers in Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia.
Two of the 23 actions were filed in California. By order of the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, all of these actions
have been combined for coordinated and consolidated pre-trial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Iowa.
The actions allege that DuPont violated state laws by engaging
in deceptive and unfair trade practices by failing "to disclose
to consumers that products containing Teflon were or are
potentially harmful to consumers" and that DuPont has liability
based on state law theories of negligence and strict liability.
The actions allege that Teflon contained or released harmful and
dangerous substances; including a chemical (PFOA) alleged to
have been determined to be "likely" to cause cancer in humans.
The actions seek unspecified monetary damages for consumers who
purchased cooking products containing Teflon, as well as the
creation of funds for medical monitoring and independent
scientific research, attorneys' fees and other relief.
Under the court's latest case management order, a ruling on
whether these cases can proceed as class actions is expected in
2008.
The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. -- http://www.dupont.com--
operates and manufactures a range of products for distribution
and sale to many different markets, including the
transportation, safety and protection, construction, motor
vehicle, agriculture, home furnishings, medical, electronics,
communications, protective apparel, and the nutrition and health
markets.
EQUIFAX INC: Discovery Ongoing in CCRA Violations Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the matter, "Kathryn L. Pike v. Equifax
Information Services LLC et al., Case No. 8:05-cv-01172-DOC-
MLG," which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, which names a unit of Equifax,
Inc. as a defendant.
The plaintiffs asserted that Equifax violated the California
Credit Reporting Act by failing to follow reasonable procedures
to determine whether credit accounts are discharged in
bankruptcy, including the method for updating the status of an
account following a bankruptcy discharge.
On May 15, 2007, the plaintiffs filed motions seeking to certify
a nationwide class of similarly situated consumers. They seek
unspecified damages and injunctive relief.
The defendants have responded to these motions, and a hearing on
these motions is scheduled for March 12, 2008.
Discovery is ongoing, according to Equifax, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2008
form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The suit is "Kathryn L Pike v. Equifax Information Services LLC
et al., Case No. 8:05-cv-01172-DOC-MLG," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
David O. Carter presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Gino P. Pietro, Esq.
Pietro and Associates
1605 East 4th Street, Suite 250
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Phone: 714-542-5004
e-mail: pietrolaw@sbcglobal.net
- and -
Robert Walter Thompson, Esq.
(robert_thompson@cmwlaw.net)
Callahan McCune & Willis
111 Fashion Lane
Tustin, CA 92780-3397
Phone: 714-730-5700
Representing the defendants are:
Craig E. Bertschi, Esq.
(cbertschi@kilpatrickstockton.com)
Kilpatrick Stockton
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
Phone: 404-815-6493
- and -
Thomas P. Quinn, Jr., Esq. (tquinn@nokesquinn.com)
Nokes and Quinn
450 Ocean Drive
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Phone: 949-376-3055
FANNIE MAE: D.C. Court Mulls Dismissal of G-Fees Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has yet to
rule on a motion by Federal Mortgage National Association --
a.k.a. Fannie Mae -- that seeks for the dismissal of a
consolidated lawsuit, "In re G-Fees Antitrust Litigation, Case
No. 1:05-cv-00114-RWR."
Since January 18, 2005, Fannie Mae has been served with 11
proposed class-action complaints filed by single-family
borrowers that allege that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac violated
federal and state antitrust and consumer protection statutes by
agreeing to artificially fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the
price of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's guaranty fees.
Two of these cases were filed in state courts. The remaining
cases were filed in federal court. The two state court actions
were voluntarily dismissed. The federal court actions were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.
The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on Aug. 5,
2005. The plaintiffs in the consolidated action seek to
represent a class of consumers whose loans allegedly "contain a
guarantee fee set by" Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac between Jan. 1,
2001, and the present.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, treble damages,
punitive damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief, as well
as attorneys' fees and costs.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac filed a motion to dismiss on Oct. 11,
2005, which remains pending, according to the company's Feb. 27,
2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The suit is "In re G-Fees Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:05-
cv-00114-RWR," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, Judge Richard W. Roberts presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Reuben A. Guttman, Esq. (guttman@whafh.com)
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP
1920 L Street, NW Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 783-6091
Fax: (202) 350-5908
- and -
Keith T. Vernon, Esq. (ktvern@climacolaw.com)
Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli Co. LPA
888 16th Street, NW Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 349-9864
Fax: (202) 349-9867
Representing the defendants are:
Adam J. Coates, Esq. (acoates@omm.com)
O'Melveney & Meyers, LLP
1625 I Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 383-5300
- and -
Megan Kathleen Greene, Esq. (mkgreene@kslaw.com)
King & Spalding
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 200
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 737-0500
Fax: (202) 626-3737
FANNIE MAE: Continues to Face Consolidated D.C. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association -- also known as Fannie
Mae -- continues to face a consolidated class action that was
filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,
under the caption, "In Re:Fannie Mae Securities Litigation, Case
No. 04-CV-01639."
Beginning on Sept. 23, 2004, 13 separate complaints were filed
by holders of Fannie Mae's securities against it, as well as
certain of its former officers, in three federal district
courts.
All of the cases were consolidated and transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia. The court entered
an order naming the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and
State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio as lead plaintiffs.
The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on March 4,
2005, against the company, and certain of its former officers.
That complaint was subsequently amended on April 17, 2006, and
then once again on Aug. 14, 2006.
The lead plaintiffs' second amended complaint also added KPMG
LLP and Goldman, Sachs & Co. as additional defendants.
The lead plaintiffs allege that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, largely with respect to
accounting statements that were inconsistent with the GAAP
requirements relating to hedge accounting and the amortization
of premiums and discounts.
The lead plaintiffs contend that the alleged fraud resulted in
artificially inflated prices for the company's common stock and
seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and
other fees and costs.
On Jan. 7, 2008, the court issued an order that certified the
action as a class action, and appointed the lead plaintiffs as
class representatives and their counsel as lead counsel.
The court defined the class as all purchasers of Fannie Mae
common stock and call options and all sellers of publicly traded
Fannie Mae put options during the period from April 17, 2001,
through Dec. 22, 2004.
Fannie Mae reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 27,
2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The suit is "In Re: Fannie Mae Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-01639," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, Judge Richard J. Leon presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
James R. Cummins, Esq. (jcummins@wsbclaw.com)
Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley CO., L.P.A.
One West Fourth Street
1513 Fourth & Vine Tower
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (513) 621-0267
Fax: (513) 381-2375
Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. (dsommers@cmht.com)
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, NW
West Tower, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 408-4600
Fax: (202) 408-4699
- and -
Frank J. Johnson, Esq. (frankj@johnsonbottini.com)
Law Office of Frank J. Johnson
402 West Broadway, 27th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 230-0063
Fax: (619) 230-1839
Representing the defendants is:
David W. DeBruin, Esq. (ddebruin@jenner.com)
Jenner & Block
601 13th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 639-6015
Fax: (202) 637-6375
FANNIE MAE: D.C. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss ERISA Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has yet to
rule on a motion by Federal Mortgage National Association a.k.a.
Fannie Mae that seeks for the dismissal of a consolidated
lawsuit filed against it over alleged violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act remains pending.
On Oct. 15, 2004, David Gwyer filed a proposed class action
complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.
Two additional proposed class-action complaints were filed by
other plaintiffs on May 6, 2005, and May 10, 2005. These cases
are based on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
and names the company, its Board of Directors' Compensation
Committee and certain of its former and current officers and
directors, as defendants.
These cases were consolidated on May 24, 2005, with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia and a consolidated
complaint was filed on June 15, 2005. The plaintiffs in this
consolidated ERISA-based lawsuit purport to represent a class of
participants in the company's Employee Stock Ownership Plan
between January 1, 2001, and the present.
Their claims are based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duty
relating to accounting matters.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and
other fees and costs, and other injunctive and equitable relief.
On July 23, 2007, the Compensation Committee of the company's
Board of Directors filed a motion to dismiss, which remains
pending.
Fannie Mae reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 27,
2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The suit is "In re Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation, Case No. 1:04-
cv-01784-RJL," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, Judge Richard J. Leon presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Robert I. Harwood, Esq. (rharwood@whesq.com)
Wechsler Harwood LLP
488 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
New York, NY 10022-5726
Phone: 212/935-7400
Fax: 212/753-3630
- and -
John Bucher Isbister, Esq. (jisbister@tydingslaw.com)
Tydings & Rosenberg, LLP
100 East Pratt Street
Baltimore, MD 21202-1062
Phone: (410) 752-9714
Fax: (410) 727-5460
Representing the defendants are:
Shannon M. Barrett, Esq. (sbarrett@omm.com)
O'Melveny & Myers, LLP
1625 I Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 383-5308
Fax: (202) 383-5414
- and -
James Hamilton, Esq. (james.hamilton@bingham.com)
Bingham Mccutchen LLP
2020 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1806
Phone: (202) 373-6026
Fax: (202) 373-6473
FANNIE MAE: Tex. Court Mulls Dismissal of Borrowers' Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has
yet to rule on a motion that seeks for the certification of a
class in the matter, "Casa Orlando Apartments, Ltd., et al. v.
Federal National Mortgage Association f/k/a Medlock Southwest
Management Corp., et al. v. Federal National Mortgage
Association, Case No. 5:04-cv-00129-DF."
The complaint was filed against Federal National Mortgage
Association a.k.a. Fannie Mae. It was filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on June 2,
2004.
In it, the plaintiffs purport to represent a class of
multifamily borrowers whose mortgages are insured under Sections
221(d)(3), 236 and other sections of the National Housing Act
and are held or serviced by the company.
The complaint identified as a proposed class low- and moderate-
income apartment building developers who maintained uninvested
escrow accounts with the company or its servicer.
The Plaintiffs Casa Orlando Apartments, Ltd., Jasper Housing
Development Co., and the Porkolab Family Trust No. 1, allege
that the company violated fiduciary obligations that they
contend it owed to borrowers with respect to certain escrow
accounts and that the company was unjustly enriched.
In particular, the plaintiffs contend that, starting in 1969,
the company misused these escrow funds and are therefore liable
for any economic benefit the company received from the use of
these funds.
The plaintiffs seek a return of any profits, with accrued
interest, earned by the company related to the escrow accounts
at issue, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.
Fannie Mae's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment with
respect to the statute of limitations were denied.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Dec. 16, 2005. On
Jan. 3, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which remains pending.
Fannie Mae reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 27,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The suit is "Casa Orlando Apartments, Ltd., et al. v. Federal
National Mortgage Association f/k/a Medlock Southwest Management
Corp., et al. v. Federal National Mortgage Association, Case No.
5:04-cv-00129-DF," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Judge David Folsom.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Nicholas H. Patton, Esq. (nickpatton@texarkanalaw.com)
Patton Tidwell & Schroeder, LLP
4605 Texas Blvd
PO Box 5398
Texarkana, TX 75505-5398
Phone: 903/792-7080
Fax: 903/792-8233
- and -
Evan M. Janush, Esq. (emj@lanierlawfirm.com)
The Lanier Firm
126 E. 56th Street
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-421-2800
Fax: 212-421-2878
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Damon Michael Young, Esq. (dyoung@youngpickettlaw.com)
Young Pickett & Lee
4122 Texas Blvd.
PO Box 1897
Texarkana, TX 75504-1897
Phone: 903/794-1303
Fax: 903/792-5098
- and -
John H Beisner, Esq. (jbeisner@omm.com)
O'Melveny & Myers
1625 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202-383-5300
Fax: 202-282-5414
FRIENDLY'S: Class Action Status Denial in Waiters' Suit Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court has favored restaurants and ruled that a group
of Friendly's waiters could not appeal a lower court's denial
for class action status while their lawsuit winds through the
court system, Hartford Business Journal reports.
The waiters, according to the report, are fighting back to get
paid for performing extra chores that divert them away from
tipping patrons, a vital component of their income.
Hartford Journal says that the Supreme Court's ruling may reach
outside the restaurant industry because it makes it harder for
employees to establish class-action certification.
The report explains that the dispute between the food servers
and restaurants hinges on the differences in the hourly wages
paid to waiters and other non-wait staff. Restaurants are
allowed to pay waiters below minimum wage levels, reducing wait
staff pay by a 29.4% "tip credit," which is based on the
assumption that waiters are expected to earn much of their
income from tips.
Food servers claim that their wallets take a hit when employers
assign them tasks that don't include waiting tables, such as
brewing coffee, rolling napkins or cleaning restrooms. For that
reason, servers employed by T.G.I.Friday's and Friendly's want
to be paid for the extra tasks they perform while on the job, so
they have been working together to form class-action groups to
fight restaurants.
However, the recent Supreme Court decision hurts their efforts
while helping businesses block employees from gaining the
vitally important class-action position, said Daniel A.
Schwartz, Esq., an attorney with the Pullman & Comley law
firm in Hartford.
That does not mean the waiters can't ask again. They can, but
only after their current trial is over, Mr. Schwartz said. The
impact of the Supreme Court ruling will make it much tougher --
and more expensive -- for employees to establish class-action
status, he further said, which means that employers are in a
stronger position when it comes to deflecting class-action
lawsuits in Connecticut courts.
The advantage of class-action certification is very significant
because it almost always forces the employer to settle, Mr.
Schwartz explained.
Outside of court, the group is taking its case to the state
Department of Labor to clarify state regulations on how wait
staff wages are determined.
Simon Flynn, president of the Connecticut Restaurant Group, an
industry-advocacy organization, said that the restaurant group
is talking with the DOL about clarifying the rules concerning
what servers' duties are. Restaurants are trying to make their
operations as efficient as possible, but they also want to
follow the letter of the law, Mr. Flynn said.
Daniel Blinn, Esq., of the Consumer Law Group in Rocky Hill and
attorney for the Friendly's waiters, said Connecticut statute
requires restaurants to strictly separate table-serving work
from all other duties.
According to court documents, the wait staff at Friendly's was
required to "clean restrooms, wash dishes, pick up cigarette
butts from the parking lot, go to the bank, and perform
additional miscellaneous cleaning duties," in addition to other
chores. Sometimes the waiters were paid minimum wage for this
kind of work, but Mr. Blinn says that it didn't always happen.
The waiters are arguing that because they were required to do
other kinds of work, they should get full minimum wage for all
the hours they put in.
Restaurants are required to segregate that work, Mr. Blinn said,
"If they can't, or won't, they shouldn't take the tip credit."
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Daniel Blinn, Esq.
Consumer Law Group, LLC
35 Cold Spring Road
Rocky Hill, CT 06033
Phone: (860) 571-0408
Representing the defendant is:
William Saturley, Esq. (wsaturley@nkms.com)
Nelson, Kinder, Mosseau and Saturley
45 Milk Street
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 778-7500
(603) 606-5005
Fax: (617) 778-7501
GAYLORD GAS: Violated MI Consumer Protection Act, Judge Says
------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on Feb. 26, 2008, that
Gaylord Gas, Inc., and Kansas City, Mo. parent company Inergy
Propane, LLC, are facing a purported class action lawsuit filed
in Crawford County, Michigan, by a local man who claims that he
was charged more than a dollar a gallon above the state market
price for propane.
The suit, according to CAR, was filed on Feb. 14, 2008, by
Lawrence Friedman, Esq.
In an update, Gaylord Herald Times relates that Judge Janet
Allen ruled on Feb. 28, 2008, that Gaylord Gas violated the
Michigan Consumer Protection Act by charging its customers "a
price grossly in excess" of average rates in Northern Michigan.
She ordered the company to provide relief to some of its
customers in what is being called the "early stages" of court
action.
Record-Eagle cites Judge Allen as saying that anyone charged
more than $3 per gallon deserves a refund.
According to Gaylord Herald, Judge Allen ordered that Gaylord
Gas customers who were charged $3 or more per gallon for propane
will be entitled to waived gas and tank removal fees if they
wish to change companies. Judge Allen and the attorneys
involved in the case indicated that further action is
forthcoming, though no future court dates in the class-action
suit have been set.
The report says that in her ruling, Judge Allen said "I'm
convinced Gaylord Gas has participated in unlawful practices,"
basing on the parties' testimonies. Record-Eagle relates that
witnesses testified that they've been charged between $3.19 and
$4.19 per gallon by Gaylord Gas this winter, even when they have
signed contracts for lesser fixed rates.
Once the order is filed -- likely next week -- Gaylord Gas will
have 14 days to send correspondence to all customers detailing
the ruling and offering to collect the tanks and gas of eligible
customers without charging a restocking fee, Gaylord Herald
says. The company then has another 14 days in which it must
promptly remove those tanks and gas, and reimburse those
customers for the unused gas.
Mr. Friedman said he expects the ruling to affect "hundreds of
customers at a minimum."
Richard Bensinger, Esq., who represents Inergy Propane,
disagreed with Judge Allen's ruling, saying it would be
inappropriate for her to "set the price of propane" by setting
the cut-off at $3. Earlier in the hearing, Mr. Bensinger
expressed an unwillingness to waive restocking fees for all
Gaylord Gas customers.
An earlier press release from Gaylord Gas claimed that about 70%
of its customers are on budget pay or cap price agreements to
protect them from volatile and high prices. "Propane prices are
at or near their highest all-time levels consistent with the
rise in the price of crude oil," according to the one-page
statement issued by the company on Feb. 26. "Propane companies
like Gaylord Gas are distributors, buying propane from energy
producers, storing it and transporting it to customers, and
passing on the higher product costs."
"We do not pretend to understand or know how and why the energy
market values crude oil at such high levels," Jim Cross, a
senior executive with Gaylord Gas, said in the press release.
Mr. Cross added, "To protect our permanent customers from such
volatile and high prices, we offer a Budget Pay program, which
levels out their price of propane over the course of a year, as
well as a Cap Price agreement that allows customers to take
advantage of lower prices when the market rate is below the cap
price, while at the same time protecting them from paying more.
This winter, about 70 percent of our customers chose to engage
in these programs. As a result, they are paying less than the
average propane price in the state of Michigan."
GAYLORD GAS: Propane Overpricing Suit Adds Petoskey as Defendant
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the wake of a recent class-action lawsuit brought up against
Gaylord Gas, Inc., for price gouging, Petoskey Propane customers
are saying that they too have been unfairly charged, Petoskey
News-Review says.
Lawrence Friedman, Esq., an attorney and resident of Crawford
County, who initially filed the class-action lawsuit against
Gaylord Gas and its parent company Inergy Propane, LLC, on
Feb. 14, said that he has now amended his original complaint to
include as defendants Petoskey Propane and all other companies
owned by Inergy Propane in the state of Michigan -- Blue Flame,
Lagasco Propane, McBride Oil & Propane, Northwest Energy, Pearl
Gas, ProGas Propane and Quality Propane.
Mr. Friedman said that although Gaylord Gas customers, who were
charged more than $3 a gallon, now have the opportunity to
change their propane provider without fear of gas and tank
removal fees -- since 46th Circuit Court Judge Janet Allen ruled
on Feb. 28 that Gaylord Gas had violated the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act by charging customers well above the state
average, which as of Feb. 25 was $2.45 a gallon. He, however,
said that it won't be good enough until he is able to expand
this relief to all Inergy customers.
Mr. Friedman said he is currently discussing a possible
resolution with Inergy officials, and said that if the company
does not cooperate, he will take them back to court in the near
future.
Mr. Friedman filed his original lawsuit against Gaylord Gas
after he was charged $3.49 a gallon. During the course of his
lawsuit, he said he found that customers were being charged
upward of $4.49 a gallon.
Before his first court appearance, Mr. Friedman set up a hotline
asking Gaylord Gas customers to call if they felt they had been
overcharged. He said he received around 100 calls, with 30 of
them coming from Petoskey Propane customers.
Mr. Friedman said that any customer of an Inergy Propane company
in Michigan who feel they have been gouged by high prices can
call the Michigan Consumer Protection Division in the Michigan
Attorney General's Office at (877) 765-8388.
GEORGETTE KLINGER: Employees Sue for Their Day 'At the Spa'
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit on behalf of over 300 Georgette Klinger
Spa employees was filed with U.S. Bankruptcy Court, New Jersey
(Case No. 07-20464(RG)).
Georgette Klinger Spa filed for bankruptcy in about July 2007 in
the District of New Jersey, where its principal office was
located.
The class-action complaint demands that the Georgette Klinger
pay hundreds of thousands in unpaid wages and benefits due to
employees. The suit, filed by Susan Chana Lask, Esq., on
behalf of the employees, seeks class action status to represent
each of the over 300 employees affected. Should they prevail,
each employee who was summarily fired would benefit.
Georgette Klinger abruptly closed its doors to employees and
customers without warning on December 18, 2007. The lawsuit
holds Georgette Klinger liable for never notifying its employees
60 days before closing as mandated by federal law called the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, or WARN.
WARN mandates employers with over 100 employees to give 60 days
notice of a closing. "All those dedicated employees who
provided massages, facials and skin care that kept Klinger going
for years will now have their day at the spa in Federal Court.
They must be paid," said Ms. Lask.
WARN includes back pay and benefits for up to the entire 60-day
period during which employees and the community should have been
notified. In addition, the WARN Act provides for payment of
additional penalties to the community through a civil penalty of
up to $500 for each day of violation, up to the full 60-days,
that notice was not given.
The complaint alleges that Georgette Klinger used the employees
to work for the company up to the day of closing and never paid
them two-weeks worth of wages. The employees lost wages and
their family health insurance benefits without warning. The
massive layoff violated employee rights under federal law
according to the complaint.
Plaintiff Eugenia Sakharny, representing the class, said "We
thought something was wrong when they started taking supplies
off the shelves and there were no more towels for customers, but
management told us everything was ok."
Presently, the Georgette Klinger case is a Chapter 7 filing in
the New Jersey Bankruptcy Court. In Bankruptcy proceedings,
secured creditors are first in priority to be paid, then
employees are to be paid.
GMH COMMUNITIES: Fairness Settlement Hearing Set on April 25
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania will hold a fairness hearing on April 25, 2008, at
9:00 a.m. for the $8,750,000 settlement in the class action
lawsuit brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
shares between May 5, 2005, and March 10, 2006.
Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on April 4,
2008. Deadline to file for claims is on May 26, 2008.
The hearing will be held in the courtroom of the Honorable
Petrese B. Tucker.
Case Background
On April 5, 2006, the company; Gary M. Holloway Sr., company
chairman, president and chief executive officer; and Bradley W.
Harris, the company's former chief financial officer, were named
defendants in a class action complaint.
The complaint states that the plaintiff has filed a federal
class action on behalf of purchasers of the publicly traded
securities of the company between Oct. 28, 2004 and March 10,
2006. The plaintiff seeks to pursue remedies under the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants issued a series of
false and misleading financial results regarding the company to
the market during the class period, and more specifically,
failed to disclose:
-- that the company's earnings, net income and revenues
were materially inflated and expenses were materially
understated;
-- that the company's funds from operations were
materially inflated;
-- that the company lacked adequate internal controls;
-- that the company's reported financial results were in
violation of generally accepted accounting principles,
or Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and
-- that as a result of the foregoing, the company's
financial results were materially inflated at all
relevant times.
The plaintiff alleges claims under Section 11 of the Securities
Act with respect to all of the defendants; Section 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act with respect to the company; Section 15 of
the Securities Act with respect to Mr. Holloway and Mr. Harris;
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act with respect to
all of the defendants; and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
with respect to Mr. Holloway and Mr. Harris.
On April 11, 2006, April 20, 2006, April 27, 2006 and May 15,
2006, four additional class action complaints were filed with
the court against the defendants by separate law firms, and
additional complaints may be filed in the near future until the
court has certified a class and a lead plaintiff has been named.
Each of these additional filed complaints alleges the same
claims against the defendants as described above with respect to
the complaint filed on April 5, 2006, except that the complaint
filed on April 20, 2006, restricts the class period to
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the company to
the time period between May 5, 2005 and March 10, 2006.
On Jan. 22, the court entered an order appointing two lead
plaintiffs, as well as lead counsel and a liaison counsel (Class
Action Reporter, April 9, 2007).
In addition, on that date, the court entered an order indicating
that the lead plaintiffs shall file a consolidated complaint
within 60 days of the date of the order and that defendants
shall respond to the consolidated complaint within 60 days of
service of such consolidated complaint.
The order also stated that the parties should not file any
dispositive motions before attending a settlement conference
with an assigned magistrate judge.
In November 2007, GMH Communities Trust reached a final
settlement agreement with the lead plaintiffs in the class
action lawsuit, under which, all claims against the Company and
related defendants will be dismissed without admission or
presumption of liability or wrongdoing (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 7, 2007).
The Company also reached final settlement in connection with
litigation brought by certain unitholders in the Company's
operating partnership stemming from similar claims to those made
under the Company's class action litigation. All parties in
this action have executed a final settlement and release
agreement, under which the lawsuit has been dismissed with
prejudice and a full release of the Company and all related
defendants has been provided.
The Company's insurance carrier has agreed to pay a substantial
portion of the settlement amounts and legal expenses related to
the defense of both matters. The Company expects the net
charges, inclusive of its contribution to the settlement amounts
and legal expenses associated with defending the matters, will
be approximately $2.2 million for the nine months ended
September 30, 2007.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq. (elleng@csgrr.com)
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Representing defendants are:
Marc J. Sonnenfeld, Esq. (msonnenfeld@morganlewis.com)
Karen Pieslak Pohlmann, Esq.
(kpohlmann@morganlewis.com)
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-292
- and -
Gregory P. Miller, Esq. (Gregory.Miller@dbr.com)
Stephen G. Stroup, Esq. (Stephen.Stroup@dbr.com)
Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP
One London Square
18th and Cherry Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19103
GREAT-WEST LIFECO: Judge Gives Policyholder Lawsuit Go-Ahead
------------------------------------------------------------
An Ontario court judge has allowed a class action lawsuit
against Great-West Lifeco Inc. to proceed, Reuters reports.
According to Bloomberg News, Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Regional Senior Judge Lynne Leitch ruled that London Life
Insurance policyholders, whose money was used to help finance
Great-West's purchase of London Life in 1997, may sue as a group
in an attempt to recover more than CDN$500 million
(US$505 million).
Reuters says that the plaintiffs allege CDN$220 million
(US$222 million) of London Life policyholder money was
unlawfully used to help Great-West purchase the firm. They are
demanding policyholders get the money back, with interest, in
the form of a dividend. Bloomberg notes that Great-West bought
London Life for CDN$1.95 billion.
The transactions "were a sham amounting to a scheme to do
indirectly what could not be done directly -- that is to use
assets of the participating policyholders to provide financial
assistance to Great-West," the plaintiffs alleged in court
documents.
Bloomberg recalls that Great-West, based in Winnipeg, Manitoba,
denied the claims at a three-day hearing in September 2007,
saying the transactions were fair and beneficial to the
policyholders and were reviewed by an independent actuary.
However, in her ruling, entered on Feb. 29, 2008, Judge Leitch
certified the class-action lawsuit, which involves about
1.78 million policyholders.
"A denial of certification and a continuation of these actions
as they are now constituted cannot provide the remedy to the
class that the representative plaintiffs are seeking," Judge
Leitch wrote. "Certification of these actions as class
proceedings achieves access to justice."
According to Bloomberg, the case is between James Jeffery and
D'Alton S. Rudd and London Life Insurance Co. and the Great-West
Life Assurance Co., 46300CP, Ontario Superior Court of Justice
(London).
KAWASAKI MOTORS: Recalls Off-Road Motorcycles for Frame Failure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A., of Irvine, Calif., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 200 Kawasaki KLX140 Off-Road Motorcycles.
The company said one or more of the motorcycle's frame welds
could be missing or made incorrectly allowing the frame to crack
or break, posing a risk of serious injury to riders. No
injuries have been reported.
This recall involves 2008 Kawasaki KLX140A8F/B8F off-highway
motorcycles. They are designed for the beginner as well as the
more advanced rider. They are green in color and have
"Kawasaki" identification on the sides of the fuel tank and
KLX140 underneath the seat on both sides.
These recalled motorcycles were manufactured in Thailand and
were being sold by Kawasaki motorcycle dealers nationwide
between January 2008 and February 2008 for about $2,700.
Picture of the recalled motorcycles is found at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08548.jpg
Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the off-road
motorcycles and contact their authorized Kawasaki dealer to
arrange for a free inspection and repair. Consumers with
recalled units have been sent direct notification.
For more information, contact Kawasaki, toll-free at (866) 802-
9381 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. PT Monday through Friday or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.kawasaki.com
LDR INDUSTRIES: Recalls Gas Connectors for Fire, Explosion Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
LDR Industries Inc., of Chicago, Ill., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
50,000 LDR 1200 Series Gas Connectors.
The company said the gas connectors can leak propane or natural
gas, posing a fire and explosion hazard to consumers. No
injuries have been reported.
The recalled LDR series 1200 gas connectors have 3/8 inch fine
thread nuts attached. The connectors are used primarily with
gas space heaters. The brass nuts are gold colored while the
stainless steel tube is silver colored. The following
connectors are included in this recall. The UPC code and "LDR
1200 Series Gas Connector" are printed on the product's
packaging.
Recalled Gas Connectors
Length UPC Code
------ --------
12 inches 019442405489
16 inches 019442019464
22 inches 019442018917
30 inches 019442405496
34 inches 019442018900
46 inches 019442018894
60 inches 019442400224
72 inches 019442405731
These recalled gas connectors were manufactured by Sai lin Ke,
of Beijing, China and were being sold at hardware stores in
Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas,
Tennessee, and Florida from August 2007 through September 2007
for between $7 and $20.
A picture of the recalled gas connectors is found at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08205.jpg
Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the appliance
with the recalled gas connectors. Only a qualified
professional, such as a plumber, heating contractor or gas
company technician, should check the connectors and replace
them. Contact LDR Industries or the place of purchase for
instructions on returning the connectors for a full refund.
For additional information, contact LDR at (800) 545-5230 ext.
2345 between 9:00 a.m. And 4:00 p.m. CT Monday through Friday,
or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.ldrind.com/
MATTEL INC: Faces Consolidated Product Liability Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc., is facing a multidistrict litigation in California
captioned "In re Mattel Inc. Toy Lead Paint Products Liability
Litigation, Case No. 2:2007ml01897," according to the company's
Feb. 26, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
About 22 lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. asserting claims
arising out of 2007 voluntary product recalls by Mattel and
Fisher-Price, as well as the withdrawal of red and green toy
blood pressure cuffs from retail stores or their replacement at
the request of consumers.
Eighteen of those cases were commenced in various U.S. District
Courts:
1. "Mayhew v. Mattel," filed on Aug. 7, 2007, with the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California;
2. "White v. Mattel," filed on Aug. 16, 2007, with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California;
3. "Luttenberger v. Mattel," filed on Aug. 23, 2007, with
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California;
4. "Puerzer v. Mattel," filed on Aug. 29, 2007, with the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California;
5. "Shah v. Fisher-Price," filed on Sept. 13, 2007, with
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California;
6. "Rusterholtz v. Mattel," filed on Sept. 27, 2007, with
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California;
7. "Jimenez v. Mattel," filed on Oct. 12, 2007, with the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California;
8. "Probst v. Mattel," filed on Nov. 5, 2007, with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California;
9. "Entsminger v. Mattel," filed on Nov. 9, 2007, with the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California;
10. "White v. Mattel," filed on Nov. 26, 2007, with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California
11. "Shoukry v. Fisher-Price," filed on Aug. 10, 2007, with
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York;
12. "Goldman v. Fisher-Price," filed on Aug. 31, 2007, with
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York;
13. "Allen v. Fisher-Price," filed on Nov. 16, 2007, with
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York;
14. "Monroe v. Mattel," filed on Aug. 17, 2007, with the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania;
15. "Chow v. Mattel," filed on Sept. 7, 2007, with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana;
16. "Sarjent v. Fisher-Price, filed on Aug. 16, 2007, with
the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina;
17. "Hughey v. Fisher-Price, filed on Aug. 24, 2007, with
the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina; and
18. "Sanders v. Mattel, filed on Nov. 14, 2007, with the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana.
Two other actions originally filed with the Los Angeles County
Superior Court have since been removed to federal court in the
Central District of California. They are:
-- "Healy v. Mattel," filed Aug. 21, 2007; and
-- "Powell v. Mattel," filed Aug. 20, 2007.
Another lawsuit commenced with the San Francisco County Superior
Court has been removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. This lawsuit is captioned,
"Harrington v. Mattel," filed Aug. 20, 2007.
Furthermore, one action -- captioned "DiGiacinto v. Mattel,"
filed on Aug. 29, 2007 -- was commenced with the District of
Columbia Superior Court, and has since been removed to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.
As a result, all 22 lawsuits in the United States are now
pending in federal court. Mattel is a defendant in all of the
actions, while Fisher-Price is named as a defendant in 19 of the
cases.
Mattel Overseas, Inc., Mattel Sales Corp., Mattel Direct Import,
Inc., and Mattel Operations, Inc., are named as defendants in
two of the cases (Powell and Chow).
Target Corp., named as a defendant in the Mayhew and Jiminez
cases, has tendered the defense of those actions to Mattel and
requested indemnification for the specific claims in those
complaints, which tender and request for indemnification have
been accepted.
All but one of the cases seek to bring claims as a class action.
Seventeen of the lawsuits seek certification of a nationwide
class, while four (Monroe, Chow, Hughey, and Harrington) seek
certification of statewide classes only.
While the specific scope of each proposed plaintiff class
varies, they generally seek to certify classes that would
include either or both of:
* all purchasers in the U.S. of the toys recalled by
Mattel and Fisher-Price in August, September and
October 2007, as well as the toy blood pressure cuffs
withdrawn from retail stores or replaced at the
request of consumers in December 2007; and
* all children who used or were exposed to those same
toys and their parents.
In the Harrington and Healy actions, the claims are on their
face tied to the August and September 2007 recalls, yet each
seeks to certify a class that includes purchasers of toys from
Jan. 1, 2003, and Aug. 14, 2003, respectively, to the present.
Two of the actions (Shoukry and Goldman) also seek certification
of a defendant class of other entities that purchased toys
containing lead paint for resale from the same manufacturer as
involved in the Company's Aug. 2, 2007 recall.
The DiGiacinto action is not a class action; rather, the
plaintiff purports to represent "the General Public of the
District of Columbia" under the District's consumer protection
statute.
With some variation in how the claims are stated among the
cases, they generally allege that the defendants failed to
prevent products manufactured in China from containing lead
paint and misled the public with their branding and advertising
suggesting that the products were safe.
In the Healy and Rusterholtz cases, the plaintiffs state claims
based on allegations that the toys with magnets recalled on
Aug. 14, 2007, were defective.
The Allen and White II actions contain allegations that the toy
blood pressure cuffs were defective because of the presence of
lead in the substrate.
The cases present a range of legal theories, but they generally
fall into four categories:
i. breach of express or implied warranty;
ii. consumer fraud and unfair practices under state
statutes;
iii. traditional negligence and strict liability claims;
and
iv. unjust enrichment.
The plaintiffs make two fundamental claims with respect to the
remedies sought:
a. the vouchers provided in connection with the recalls
are inadequate and plaintiffs should receive cash
compensation, usually in the form of reimbursement,
restitution or disgorgement, and
b. exposure to the toys has increased the risk of injury
from lead so that defendants should be required to
fund a medical monitoring program to test and treat
children exposed to the recalled toys.
Claims for statutory penalties, punitive damages, treble
damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys'
fees are also included in many of the cases. However, none of
the actions filed in the U.S. specifies the amount of damages
claimed.
A number of the cases also seek injunctive relief, including
orders requiring defendants to stop their allegedly deceptive
consumer practices, institute additional testing of products
from China, or certify that their products are lead-free.
Multidistrict Litigation
On Sept. 5, 2007, Mattel and Fisher-Price filed a motion before
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation asking that all
federal actions related to the recalls be coordinated and
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, under the caption, "In re Mattel Inc. Toy Lead
Paint Products Liability Litigation."
On December 18, 2007, the JPML issued a transfer order,
transferring six actions pending outside the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (Sarjent, Shoukry,
Goldman, Monroe, Chow and Hughey) to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with five actions pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Mayhew, White, Luttenberger, Puerzer and Shah).
The remaining cases (Healy, Powell, Rusterholtz, Jiminez,
Probst, Harrington, DiGiacinto, Allen, Sanders, Entsminger, and
White II), so-called "potential tag-along actions," are either
already pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California or have been transferred there pursuant
to January 2008 conditional transfer orders issued by the JPML.
The suit is "In re Mattel Inc. Toy Lead Paint Products Liability
Litigation, Case No. 2:2007ml01897," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
Dale S. Fischer presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Ivy D. Arai, Esq. (ivy@hbsslaw.com)
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
1301 5th Ave Suite 2900
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206-623-7292
- and -
Ben Barnow, Esq. (b.barnow@barnowlaw.com)
Barnow and Associates PC
One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: 312-621-2000
Fax: 312-641-5504
- and -
Mila F. Bartos, Esq. (mbartos@finkelsteinthompson.com)
Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran
Duvall Foundry, 1050 30th St NW
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: 202-337-8000
Representing the defendants are:
Thomas E. Fennell, Esq. (tefennell@jonesday.com)
Jones Day
2727 North Harwood Street
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-220-3939
MATTEL INC: Faces Suits in Canada Over Lead Contaminated Toys
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc., faces several product liability lawsuits in
Canadian courts in connection to lead contaminated toys,
according to the company's Feb. 26, 2008 form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.
Since Sept. 26, 2007, eight proposed class actions have been
filed in the provincial superior courts of the following
Canadian provinces:
1. British Columbia (Trainor v. Fisher-Price, filed on
Sept. 26, 2007);
2. Alberta (Cairns v. Fisher-Price, filed on Sept. 26,
2007);
3. Saskatchewan (Sharp v. Mattel Canada, filed on Sept. 26,
2007);
4. Quebec (El-Mousfi v. Mattel Canada, filed on Sept. 27,
2007);
5. Quebec (Fortier v. Mattel Canada, filed on Oct. 10,
2007);
6. Ontario (Wiggins v. Mattel Canada, filed on Sept. 28,
2007);
7. New Brusnwick (Travis v. Fisher-Price, filed on
Sept. 28, 2007); and
8. Manitoba (Close v. Fisher-Price, filed on Oct. 3, 2007).
Mattel, Fisher-Price and Mattel Canada are defendants in all of
the actions, and Fisher-Price Canada is a defendant in two of
the actions (El-Mousfi and Wiggins).
All but one of the cases seek certification of both a class of
residents of that province and a class of all other residents of
Canada outside the province where the action was filed.
The classes are generally defined similarly in all of the
actions to include both purchasers of the toys recalled by
Mattel and Fisher-Price in August and September 2007 and
children, either directly or through their parents as "next
friends," who have had contact with those toys (either directly
or through their parents as "next friends").
The actions in Canada generally allege that defendants were
negligent in allowing their products to be manufactured and sold
with lead paint on the toys and negligent in the design of the
toys with the small magnets, which led to the sale of defective
products.
The cases typically state claims in four categories:
-- production of a defective product;
-- misrepresentations;
-- negligence; and
-- violations of consumer protection statutes.
The plaintiffs generally seek general and special damages,
damages in the amount of monies paid for testing of children
based on alleged exposure to lead, restitution of any amount of
monies paid for replacing recalled toys, disgorgement of
benefits resulting from recalled toys, aggravated and punitive
damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and an award
of litigation costs and attorneys' fees.
The plaintiffs in all of the actions except one do not specify
the amount of damages sought.
In the Ontario action (Wiggins), the plaintiff demands general
damages of CDN$75 million and special damages of
CDN$150 million, in addition to the other remedies.
In November 2007, the class action suit commenced by Mr. Fortier
was voluntarily dismissed.
All of the actions in Canada are at a preliminary stage.
Mattel, Inc. -- http://www.mattel.com/-- designs, manufactures
and markets a variety of toy products worldwide through sales to
its customers and directly to consumers.
MEDICAL WEST: Faces Suit Over Fraudulent Collection Practice
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin A. Calma, who is the father of a child treated at Medical
West, has sued the Bessemer hospital, as well as UAB Health
System, which manages the facility, and Franklin Collection
Service over what he claims is a fraudulent scheme to collect
more money than is owed in patient charges, The Birmingham News
reports.
The suit, filed last week in Birmingham's federal court, claims
that Medical West's collections practice on delinquent accounts,
handled by Franklin Collection, violates the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The RICOA, Birmingham
News explains, is the law initially passed to bring down the
Mafia.
The complaint alleges conspiracy among the defendants to inflate
their profits through mail and wire fraud. Lawyers for the
plaintiff are seeking class action status for the case to
include any patient over the last four years who paid more than
the original debt owed at any UAB hospital because of collection
notices from Franklin Collection.
In this case, Mr. Calma, of Jefferson County, said that Medical
West originally billed him $735 for treatment his daughter
received in June 2007. Mr. Calma said he thought his insurance
was going to handle the expense. However, in January 2008, he
got a letter from Franklin Collection with the heading "Notice
of Intent to File Civil Lawsuit."
According to court filings, the amount Mr. Calma was directed to
pay to avoid legal action was $992.25 -- 35% higher than the
original bill. Mr. Calma then allowed the company to withdraw
the money from his bank account, and the company withdrew
$1,002.25, according to the suit.
"The defendants add unreasonable, unconscionable and illegal
charges to the original debt, and then use extortionate
practices to collect the over charges," the suit says.
The suit says that Mr. Calma signed a release at Medical West
agreeing to "reasonable collection agency fees" if the account
was not paid when due.
Allan Armstrong, Esq., one of Mr. Calma's lawyers, asserted that
a 35% mark-up for a collection agency to send one letter and
make one call is neither reasonable nor legal. Mr. Armstrong
also said Franklin's coercing someone by threatening to
sue, when it's unlikely the hospital would have sued over the
bill, is wrong.
The compliance officer for Franklin Collection and officials at
the University of Alabama at Birmingham refused to comment on
the matter when contacted by Birmingham News.
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls ATVs Due to Risk of Injury to Riders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Industries Inc., of Medina, Minn., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
11,300 select "Outlaw IRS" ATVs, Model Year 2006-2008.
The company said a retention bolt can come loose causing the
rear wheels to lock up, which poses a risk of serious injury to
the rider.
The firm has received 11 reports of loss of control, including
one rider who suffered a strained leg muscle.
The recall involves select 2006-2008 Polaris "Outlaw" ATVs with
Independent Rear Suspension. The affected models are:
2006 OUTLAW 500 IRS
2007 OUTLAW 500 IRS
2007 OUTLAW 525 IRS
2008 OUTLAW 525 IRS
The model name is printed on decals located on either side of
the fuel tank.
These recalled ATVs were manufactured in the United States and
were being sold at Polaris dealers nationwide from January 2006
through January 2008 for between $6,900 and $7,400.
A picture of the recalled ATVs is found at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08547.jpg
Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled ATVs
immediately, and contact any Polaris ATV dealer to schedule a
free repair. Polaris has notified registered consumers directly
about this recall.
For further information, contact Polaris toll-free at (888) 704-
5290 between 8:00 a.m. And 5:00 p.m. CT Monday through Friday,
or visit the company's Web site:
http://www.polarisindustries.com
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Discovery Ongoing in Mutual Funds Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the multi-district proceeding titled "In
re: Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, MDL-1586, Master Docket
Nos. 04-md-15861, 04-md-15862, 04-md-15863, and 04-md-15864,"
which names Prudential Financial, Inc., and Prudential
Securities, Inc., as defendants, according to Prudential
Financial's Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.
In October 2004, Prudential Financial and Prudential Securities
were named as defendants in several class actions brought on
behalf of purchasers and holders of shares in a number of mutual
fund complexes.
The actions were consolidated as part of the multi-district
proceeding, "In re: Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, MDL-
1586, Master Docket Nos. 04-md-15861, 04-md-15862, 04-md-15863,
and 04-md-15864," which is pending with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland.
The complaints allege that purchasers and holders of mutual
funds were harmed by dilution of the funds' values and excessive
fees caused by market timing and late trading. It is seeking
unspecified damages.
In August 2005, the Company was dismissed from several of the
actions, without prejudice to repleading the state claims, but
remains a defendant in other actions in the consolidated
proceeding.
In July 2006, in one of the consolidated mutual fund actions,
"Saunders v. Putnam American Government Income Fund, et al.,"
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
granted plaintiffs leave to refile their federal securities law
claims against Prudential Securities.
In August 2006, the second amended complaint was filed alleging
federal securities law claims on behalf of a purported
nationwide class of mutual fund investors seeking compensatory
and punitive damages in unspecified amounts.
Discovery is ongoing. Motions to dismiss the other actions are
pending.
Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a
financial services company. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company
had approximately $616 billion of assets under management.
Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, the Company offers an
array of financial products and services, including life
insurance, mutual funds, annuities, pension and retirement-
related services and administration, asset management, banking
and trust services, real estate brokerage and relocation
services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities
brokerage services.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Consolidated CA Stockbrokers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc., and Prudential Securities, Inc., a
multidistrict litigation with the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, accusing them of improperly
classifying stockbrokers as exempt employees under state and
federal wage and hour laws.
The suits –- recently consolidated in California for coordinated
trial proceedings -- also name as defendants Prudential
Securities, Inc. and Prudential Equity Group LLC.
Two of the complaints -- "Janowsky v. Wachovia Securities, LLC,
and Prudential Securities Incorporated," and "Goldstein v.
Prudential Financial, Inc.," were filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
The Goldstein complaint purports to have been filed on behalf of
a nationwide class. The Janowsky complaint alleges a class of
New York brokers.
The three complaints filed with the California Superior Court
purport to have been brought on behalf of classes of California
brokers. The suits are captioned:
1. "Dewane v. Prudential Equity Group, Prudential
Securities Incorporated, and Wachovia Securities LLC;"
2. "DiLustro v. Prudential Securities Incorporated,
Prudential Equity Group, Inc. and Wachovia Securities;"
and
3. "Carayanis v. Prudential Equity Group LLC and
Prudential Securities Inc."
The Carayanis complaint was subsequently withdrawn without
prejudice in May 2006.
In June 2006, a purported New York state class action complaint
was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York, captioned, "Panesenko v. Wachovia Securities, et
al."
The Panesenko complaint is alleging that the Company failed to
pay overtime to stockbrokers in violation of state and federal
law and that improper deductions were made from the
stockbrokers' wages in violation of state law.
In September 2006, Prudential Securities was sued in "Badain v.
Wachovia Securities, et al.," a purported nationwide class
action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York.
The complaint alleges that Prudential Securities failed to pay
overtime to stockbrokers in violation of state and federal law
and that improper deductions were made from the stockbrokers'
wages in violation of state law.
In October 2006, a purported class action, "Bouder v. Prudential
Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of America,"
was filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, claiming that the Company failed to pay overtime to
insurance agents who were registered representatives in
violation of federal and state law, and that improper deductions
were made from these agents' wages in violation of state law.
In December 2006, the stockbrokers' cases were transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for
coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings.
The complaints seek back overtime pay and statutory damages,
recovery of improper deductions, interest, and attorneys' fees,
according to Prudential Financial's Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a
financial services company. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company
had approximately $616 billion of assets under management.
Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, the Company offers an
array of financial products and services, including life
insurance, mutual funds, annuities, pension and retirement-
related services and administration, asset management, banking
and trust services, real estate brokerage and relocation
services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities
brokerage services.
RADIOSHACK CORP: CA Court Denies Review Petition in "Brookler"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court denied a petition by RadioShack
Corp. that had sought to review a lower court ruling in the
matter, "Brookler v. RadioShack Corp."
The suit involves allegations that RadioShack violated
California's wage order and labor code relating to the providing
of meal periods.
In February 2006, a California State Court certified a class of
approximately 23,000 members in the wage and hour suit.
RadioShack moved to decertify the class in July 2007, based upon
recent case authority dealing with the standard of liability for
meal and rest period actions.
RadioShack's motion to decertify was denied by the trial court,
and RadioShack's petition for review to the California Supreme
Court was denied on Jan. 3, 2008, according to the company's
Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
RadioShack Corp. -- http://www.radioshackcorporation.com/-- is
primarily engaged in the retail sale of consumer electronics
goods and services through its RadioShack store chain and non-
RadioShack branded kiosk operations.
TELLABS INC: Appeals Court Remands Securities Suit Back to Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit remanded the
securities fraud case, "Johnson, et al v. Tellabs Inc, et al.,
f/k/a/ Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. v. Tellabs, Inc., Case No.
1:02-cv-04356," back to a federal court for further proceedings.
On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint was filed with the
U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois against
Tellabs, Michael Birck (Chairman of the Board of Tellabs) and
Richard Notebaert (former CEO, President and Director of
Tellabs).
Thereafter, eight similar complaints were also filed with the
U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.
All nine of these actions were subsequently consolidated, and on
Dec. 3, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was
filed against Tellabs, Mr. Birck, Mr. Notebaert, and certain
other of the company's current or former officers and directors.
The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class
period (Dec. 11, 2000-June 19, 2001), the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by making materially false and
misleading statements, including, among other things, allegedly
providing revenue forecasts that were false and misleading,
misrepresenting demand for the company's products, and reporting
overstated revenue for the fourth quarter 2000 in its financial
statements.
Further, certain of the individual defendants were alleged to
have violated the federal securities laws by trading the
company's securities while allegedly in possession of material,
non-public information about us pertaining to these matters.
The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified
restitution, damages and other relief.
On Jan. 17, 2003, Tellabs and the other named defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint in its entirety.
On May 19, 2003, the Court granted the company's motion and
dismissed all counts of the consolidated amended complaint,
while affording plaintiffs an opportunity to replead.
On July 11, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended class action complaint against Tellabs, Messrs. Birck
and Notebaert, and many (although not all) of the other
previously named individual defendants, realleging claims
similar to those contained in the previously dismissed
consolidated amended class action complaint.
The company filed a second motion to dismiss on Aug. 22, 2003,
seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all claims alleged in
the second consolidated amended class action complaint.
On Feb. 19, 2004, the Court issued an order granting that motion
and dismissed the action with prejudice.
On March 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, appealing the
dismissal.
The appeal was fully briefed and oral argument was heard on
Jan. 21, 2005.
On Jan. 25, 2006, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion
affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment of the
district court, and remanding for further proceedings.
On Feb. 8, 2006, the defendants filed with the Seventh Circuit a
petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc.
On July 10, 2006, the Seventh Circuit denied the petition for
rehearing with a minor modification to its opinion, and remanded
the case to the district court.
On Sept. 22, 2006, the defendants filed a motion with the
district court to dismiss some, but not all, of the remaining
claims.
On Oct. 3, 2006, the defendants filed with the U.S. Supreme
Court, a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to appeal the
Seventh Circuit's decision. On Jan. 5, 2007, the defendants'
petition was granted. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral
arguments on March 28, 2007.
On June 21, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Seventh
Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further
proceedings. On Nov. 1, 2007, the Seventh Circuit heard oral
arguments for the remanded case.
On Jan. 17, 2008, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion adhering
to its earlier opinion reversing in part the judgment of the
district court, and remanded the case to the district court for
further proceedings, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2008
form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 28, 2007.
The suit is "Johnson, et al v. Tellabs Inc, et al., f/k/a/ Makor
Issues & Rights, Ltd. v. Tellabs, Inc., Case No. 1:02-cv-04356,"
filed with the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of
Illinois, Judge Amy J. St. Eve presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Richard H. Weiss, Esq. (rweiss@milbergweiss.com)
Milberg Weiss LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
New York, NY 10119-0165
Phone: 212.946.9304
Fax: 212.273.4401
Representing the defendants is:
David F. Graham, Esq. (dgraham@sidley.com)
Sidley Austin LLP
One South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 853-7000
TELLABS INC: Oct. 20 Trial Scheduled for "Brieger" Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 20, 2008 trial is scheduled for the consolidated
lawsuit, "Brieger v. Tellabs, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
01882," which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against Tellabs, Inc.
On April 5, 2006, a class-action complaint was filed in the
court against:
-- Tellabs;
-- Michael Birck, Richard Notebaert, the company's former
chief executive, president and director; and
-- current or former Tellabs employees who, during the
alleged class period of Dec. 11, 2000, to July 1,
2003, participated on the Tellabs Investment and
Administrative Committees of the Tellabs, Inc. Profit
Sharing and Savings Plan.
The suit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. Thereafter, two similar complaints were
filed in the same court.
The complaints allege that during the alleged class period, the
defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The defendants, according to the lawsuits, violated ERISA by
among other things, continuing to offer Tellabs common stock as
a Plan investment option when it was imprudent to do so and
allegedly misrepresenting and failing to disclose material
information necessary for Plan participants to make informed
decisions concerning the Plan.
Further, certain of the defendants allegedly failed to monitor
the fiduciary activities of the fiduciaries they appointed and
certain of the defendants allegedly breached their duty of
loyalty by trading Tellabs stock, while taking no protective
action on behalf of Plan participants.
The complaints seek restitution, damages and other relief.
On June 28, 2006, the court consolidated all three actions, and
on Aug. 14, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class-
action complaint.
On Sept. 15, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or
in the alternative, for summary judgment seeking the dismissal
with prejudice of all claims in the consolidated amended class
action complaint.
On Feb. 13, 2007, the court denied the defendants' motion.
Based on the court's decision, the defendants have requested
that the court certify an issue for interlocutory appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit. The court denied
the defendants' request.
The plaintiffs moved to certify a class, discovery was conducted
to determine the propriety of class certification, and Tellabs
opposed class certification.
On Sept. 20, 2007, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to
certify a class.
Merits discovery is now proceeding, and a trial is currently
scheduled for Oct. 20, 2008, according to the company's Feb. 26,
2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 28, 2007.
The suit is "Brieger v. Tellabs, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
01882," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Judge Matthew F. Kennelly presiding.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Norman Rifkind, Esq. (rifkind@laskyrifkind.com)
Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd.
350 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1320
Chicago, IL 60610
Phone: (312) 634-0057
Fax: (312) 634-0059
Representing the defendant is:
Charles Clark Jackson, Esq.
(charles.jackson@morganlewis.com)
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP
77 West Wacker Drive, 5th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 324- 1000
TENET HEALTHCARE: Still Faces Labor Violations Suits in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corp. continues to face several purported
class actions in California, alleging violations various labor
laws, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2008 form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
McDonough & Tien Litigation
On Sept. 28, 2004, the court granted the company's petition to
coordinate two pending wage and hour actions, captioned
"McDonough, et al. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation"
and "Tien, et al. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation," in Los
Angeles Superior Court.
The McDonough case was originally filed on June 24, 2003, with
the San Diego Superior Court and the Tien case was originally
filed on May 21, 2004, with the Los Angeles Superior Court.
The plaintiffs in both cases allege that Tenet's hospitals
violated certain provisions of the California Labor Code and
applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders
with respect to meal breaks, rest periods and the payment of one
hour's compensation for meal breaks or rest periods not taken.
The complaint in the Tien case also alleges that Tenet had
improperly "rounded off" time entries on timekeeping records and
that its pay stubs do not include all information required by
California law.
The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking back pay, statutory
penalties and attorneys' fees, and have filed motions to certify
these actions on behalf of virtually all nonexempt employees of
the company's California subsidiaries.
The company opposed class certification because it believes that
its uniform policies comply and have complied with the
applicable Labor Code and Wage Orders.
The company's policies are intended to ensure that:
-- employees who miss a rest period or meal break on any
given day are appropriately paid; and
-- the company's "rounding off" practices and pay stubs
comply with California law.
In addition, the company argued that each of these claims should
be addressed individually based on particular facts and,
therefore, should not be subject to class certification.
The company are awaiting the court's ruling on class
certification in both the "McDonough," and "Tien" suits.
Pagaduan & Falck Litigation
The company also faces two proposed class actions involving
allegations regarding unpaid overtime. The suits are:
-- "Pagaduan v. Fountain Valley Regional Medical Center,"
filed with the Orange County Superior Court, and
-- "Falck v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation," pending with
U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California
These lawsuits allege that the company's pay practices since
2000 for California-based 12-hour shift employees violate
California and, in the Falck case, federal overtime laws by
virtue of the alleged failure to include certain payments known
as Flexible (or California) Differential payments in the regular
rate of pay that is used to calculate overtime pay.
These payments are made to 12-hour shift employees when they do
not work a shift that is exactly 12 hours.
The company contends that these differential payments need only
be included in the regular rate of pay when they actually are
paid (as opposed to merely being potentially payable), and that
they always are included in the regular rate calculation in
these circumstances.
The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking back pay, statutory
penalties and attorneys' fees.
In February 2007, the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled that the
Pagaduan case be coordinated with the previously coordinated
McDonough and Tien cases already pending there, as described
above.
The company is now defending these wage and hour cases in a
single court.
On Feb. 14, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the Pagaduan case.
Separately, the Falck case, which was first provisionally
certified as a collective action under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act for the purpose of giving notice to potential
class members, was certified as a class action for all purposes
on Feb. 12, 2008.
Tenet Healthcare Corp. -- http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is
engaged in the provision of healthcare services, primarily
through the operation of general hospitals.
TENET HEALTHCARE: La. Hospitals Face Medical Malpractice Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Memorial Medical Center, and Lindy Boggs Medical Center, both of
which are Tenet Healthcare Corp. hospitals, continue to face
three medical malpractice cases in Louisiana that were filed as
purported class actions by former patients.
In each case, family members allege, on behalf of themselves,
and a purported class of other patients and their family
members, damages as a result of injuries sustained during
Hurricane Katrina.
The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 26, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
Tenet Healthcare Corp. -- http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is
engaged in the provision of healthcare services, primarily
through the operation of general hospitals.
TEXAS: Faces Lawsuit Over 2003 Tort Reform Act
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed on Feb. 25, 2008, with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, arguing that
the 2003 Tort Reform Act limiting non-economic damages is
unconstitutional, Galvestonbay.injuryboard.com relates.
Galvestonbay's Robert J. Binstock writes that the Tort Reform
Act overhauled civil litigation in Texas by placing a cap on
non-economic damages. The bill, which has been a source of
controversy since its induction, does not place a cap on
economic losses including medical expenses and loss of income,
but limits the amount that can be awarded to a plaintiff for
intangible harms such as severe pain, physical and emotional
distress, disfigurement, loss of the enjoyment of life that an
injury has caused, including sterility, loss of sexual organs,
physical impairment and loss of a loved one among other damages.
According to the lawsuit, the bill violates several provisions
of the Constitution. The alleged violations include provisions
of the First, Seventh, Fifth, and the Fourteenth amendment.
The suit states that proposed class members will include all
Texas individuals injured because of negligent medical treatment
since the enactment of the reform measures and future injured
individuals.
The suit names as defendants health care providers who seek to
enforce the damage cap and more than 600 Texas civil trial court
judges who are required to enforce the damage limits. The
Center for Constitutional Litigation and other plaintiffs'
attorneys throughout the state will represent the class.
The lawsuit names 11 pending cases that would likely be affected
by the current damages cap. According to Mr. Binstock, the
class suit could have a huge impact on civil litigation in
Texas. Judge T. John Ward has been assigned to preside over the
litigation.
TRAVELERS COS: Supreme Court Denies Writ of Certiorari Petition
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court denied a Petition for Writ of Certiorari
with regards to a lower court decision that denied summary
disposition of a consolidated case over insurance coverage for
Hurricane Katrina losses.
The suits, which names The Travelers Companies, Inc., formerly
The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., as a defendant are:
-- "Chehardy, et al. v. State Farm, et al., C.A. No. 06-
1672, 06-1673 and 06-1674,"
-- "Vanderbrook, et al. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., et
al. C.A. No. 05-6323;" and
-- "Xavier University of Louisiana v. Travelers Property
Ca. Co. of America, C.A. No. 06-516."
"Chehardy," and "Vanderbrook" are purported class actions in
which the Company is one of several insurer defendants.
"Xavier" is an individual suit involving a property insurance
policy brought by one of the Company's insureds.
All of these actions allege that the losses were caused by the
failure of the New Orleans levees.
On Nov. 27, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana issued a ruling in the three consolidated
cases denying the motions of the Company and certain other
insurers for a summary disposition of the cases.
The Court's ruling did not determine that any additional amounts
were owed under any of the Company's policies or otherwise reach
the merits of the policyholders' claims.
The Company, along with certain other insurers named in the
consolidated lawsuits, filed an immediate appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
On Aug. 2, 2007, the Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court's
ruling. The Fifth Circuit held that there is no coverage for
the plaintiffs' flood losses under the policies at issue
(including policies issued by the Company) because the policies'
flood exclusions unambiguously exclude coverage.
The plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc, which the
Fifth Circuit denied on Aug. 27, 2007.
The plaintiffs filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the
U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on Feb. 19, 2008, according
to the company's Feb. 21, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.
The Travelers Companies, Inc. -- http://www.travelers.com/-- is
a holding company that is principally engaged in providing a
range of commercial and personal property and casualty insurance
products and services to businesses, government units,
associations and individuals.
TRAVELERS COS: Claims Dismissal in N.J. Antitrust Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter, "In re Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation," which names St. Paul Travelers Companies,
Inc. -- now known as The Travelers Companies, Inc. -- as one of
the defendants, are appealing the dismissal of certain claims in
the case.
In 2005, four putative class actions were brought against a
number of insurance brokers and insurers, including the Company
and certain of its affiliates, by plaintiffs who allegedly
purchased insurance products through one or more of the
defendant brokers. The plaintiffs alleged that various
insurance brokers conspired with each other and with various
insurers, including the Company and certain of its affiliates,
to artificially inflate premiums, allocate brokerage customers
and rig bids for insurance products offered to those customers.
To the extent they were not originally filed there, the federal
class actions were transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey and were consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings with other class actions under the caption, "In re
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation."
On Aug. 1, 2005, various plaintiffs, including the four named
plaintiffs in the above-referenced class actions, filed an
amended consolidated class action complaint naming various
brokers and insurers, including the Company and certain of its
affiliates, on behalf of a putative nationwide class of
policyholders.
The complaint included causes of action under the Sherman Act,
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, state
common law and the laws of the various states prohibiting
antitrust violations.
The complaint sought monetary damages, including punitive
damages and trebled damages, permanent injunctive relief,
restitution, including disgorgement of profits, interest and
costs, including attorneys' fees.
All defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim.
After giving plaintiffs multiple opportunities to replead, the
court dismissed the Sherman Act claims on Aug. 31, 2007, and the
RICO claims on Sept. 28, 2007, both with prejudice, and declined
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
The plaintiffs are appealing the district court's decisions to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, according to
the company's Feb. 21, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.
The Travelers Companies, Inc. -- http://www.travelers.com/-- is
a holding company that is principally engaged in providing a
range of commercial and personal property and casualty insurance
products and services to businesses, government units,
associations and individuals.
UNITED KINGDOM: Australians Sue British Gov't Over Nuclear Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans of British nuclear tests in the South Pacific,
including 100 Australians, have launched a class action against
the British Government, ABC News reports.
According to ABC News, thousands of Commonwealth servicemen
witnessed Britain's nuclear tests in the South Pacific five
decades ago. While some of the men showed signs of radiation
sickness at the time, many have only become ill with diseases
like cancer in the last 20 to 30 years.
The Commonwealth servicemen have now joined one of the largest
compensation claims in British history, the report relates.
Also involved in the case are 100 Australian veterans.
The British Government, according to ABC News, denies that
radiation from nuclear tests has resulted in life-long
illnesses.
The British courts will decide in 2009 whether the case will
proceed.
UNITED STATES: 25 Florida Muslims Sue Over Stalled Citizenship
--------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-five Muslims who reside in Florida are suing federal
authorities over bureaucratic delays they say have stalled their
citizenship applications for up to four years, TheLedger.com
reports.
Although the plaintiffs in the case are legal U.S. residents and
have passed criminal background checks, they have been unable to
become citizens, according to the federal class-action suit.
Each is waiting for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to
finish a "name check" on them.
The Ledger points out that the FBI name check is a potentially
time-consuming review of whether their names appear in any law
enforcement records, including whether they were witnesses or
victims of a crime. If the plaintiffs' name or a similar name
or even a fragment of their name shows up in any kind of file,
it can prompt further research by the FBI, including manually
searching old paper records that must by retrieved from one of
265 locations around the country.
"They get stuck in limbo for years and years," said lawyer Mary
Gundrum, Esq., of the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, which
helped file the suit. "These individuals want nothing more than
to become U.S. citizens. They have followed every law this
country requires."
The 25 plaintiffs live all over Florida, including seven from
the Tampa Bay area. The plaintiffs include retired Iraqi
physician Akram Jawad, who is now working in Tampa real estate;
Khalil Hamdan, a Jordanian national and six-year U.S. resident
who is a manager at a Tampa wholesale distributor; and Samir
Othman, a Tampa electrical engineer who has lived in the U.S.
for 23 years.
The plaintiffs are suing the FBI, Department of Homeland
Security and Federal Citizenship and Immigration Services,
seeking to speed up the process. Similar lawsuits have been
filed within the past year in California and Illinois.
Ramzy Kilic, a civil-rights coordinator for the Council on
American-Islamic Relations in Tampa, said the pattern is for
Muslims' citizenship applications to be delayed by the name
checks.
However, Chris Rhatigan, a spokeswoman for Citizenship and
Immigration Services, explained that Muslims are not being
singled out and that "[e]very applicant for naturalization goes
through this check."
It now takes an average of 16 to 18 months for a foreign-born
resident with a green card to become a citizen, from the time
they apply to the time they are called in for an interview and
exam, Ms. Rhatigan said. The FBI name check is part of that
process.
The Department of Homeland Security noted that about 150,000
green card and naturalization applicants are being delayed by
the FBI name check, with 30,000 held up for more than three
years.
However, Ms. Rhatigan said it is usually not a problem for
would-be citizens and that less than 1% of applicants for
citizenship have to wait longer than six months for the name
check to be completed.
"We're not going to approve any naturalization application until
the FBI returns to us the name check" as well as fingerprint and
background checks, Ms. Rhatigan further added. "It's our
commitment to our national security."
The lawsuit further alleges that, although federal law requires
a decision within 120 days of an applicant's naturalization
interview, some of the plaintiffs have been waiting for four
years.
VERITAS SOFTWARE: Calif. Court Approves $35M Securities Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California approved a $35-million
settlement between Veritas Software Corp. and disgruntled
shareholders more than six months after an appeals court
remanded the case, Shannon Henson of Securities Law360 reports.
After Veritas announced in January 2003 that it would restate
its financial results as a result of transactions entered into
with AOL Time Warner in September 2000, numerous separate
complaints purporting to be class actions were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California alleging
that Veritas and some of its officers and directors violated
provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaints contain varying allegations, including that
Veritas made materially false and misleading statements with
respect to its 2000, 2001 and 2002 financial results included in
its filings with the SEC, press releases and other public
disclosures.
A consolidated complaint entitled, "In Re VERITAS Software
Corporation Securities Litigation" was filed by the lead
plaintiff on July 18, 2003.
On Feb. 18, 2005, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement
in the class action. On March 18, 2005, the Court entered an
order preliminarily approving the class action settlement.
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, a $35 million
settlement fund was established on March 25, 2005. Veritas'
insurance carriers funded the entire amount of the settlement
fund.
In July 2007, the Court of Appeals vacated the settlement,
finding that the notice of settlement was inadequate (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 28, 2007).
In February, Judge Chesney said that the settlement was fair and
adequate, the report said. She also awarded Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins about $6.5 million in fees and expenses
for its work as the lead plaintiffs' counsel.
The class, for terms of the settlement, includes everyone who
bought or acquired Veritas securities between Jan. 3, 2001, and
Jan. 16, 2003.
The suit is "In Re VERITAS Software Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. C-03-283-MMC," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Maxine
M. Chesney.
New Securities Fraud Cases
SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Murray Frank Files Securities Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action in the
Northern District of California on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of SiRF
Technology Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:SIRF) during the period
October 30, 2007, through February 4, 2008, inclusive.
The complaint charges SiRF and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose the truth about demand for the
Company' s products and the effect of the Company' s acquisition
of Centrality Communications, Inc. on SiRF's business and
financial performance.
The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.
Interested parties may move the court no later April 8, 2008,
for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Brian D. Brooks, Esq. (bbrooks@murrayfrank.com)
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
275 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10016-1101
Phone: (212) 682-1818
Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com
SUNOPTA INC: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action with the
Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of SunOpta, Inc.
during the period August 8, 2007, through January 25, 2008,
inclusive.
The complaint charges SunOpta and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose that SunOpta lacked adequate
internal controls, improperly overstated SunOpta's earnings
during the Class Period, and materially misrepresented that
SunOpta's financial results were prepared in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
Interested parties may move the court no later than March 28,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Brian D. Brooks, Esq. (bbrooks@murrayfrank.com)
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
275 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10016-1101
Phone: (212) 682-1818
Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com
SWISS REINSURANCE: Howard Smith Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith has filed a securities class
action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all the US residents
or citizens who purchased Swiss Reinsurance Company stock
between May 8, 2007, and November 19, 2007.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Swiss Re's financial performance, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Swiss Re stock.
For more information, contact:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem, PA 19020
Telephone: (215) 638-4847
Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
Toll Free: 1-888-638-4847
TELETECH HOLDINGS: Johnson & Perkinson Files Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Perkinson commenced a class action lawsuit naming
TeleTech Holdings, Inc. on behalf of individuals, families,
trusts or other entities that purchased TeleTech securities
between February 8, 2007 and November 8, 2007, inclusive.
The pending complaint alleges that TeleTech and certain of its
officers and directors violated the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 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 the Company's financial statements were
overstated;
(2) that specifically, the Company improperly accounted for
compensation expenses and in doing so, backdated tens
of millions of dollars in options granted to executives
between 1999 and 2007;
(3) that the financial statements (including those
presented in the Registration Statement), were
overstated because the Company over-reported its
earnings and gross margins while under-reporting its
employment taxes and compensation expenses, as well as
its reserves;
(4) that the Company's financial statements were not
prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles;
(5) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and
(6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On March 30, 2007 the Company conducted a secondary offering.
In connection with the secondary offering, the Company filed a
Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively referred to
as the Registration Statement) with the SEC. As part of the
secondary offering, Defendant Kenneth Tuchman registered as much
as 5.75 million shares of his privately owned TeleTech common
stock at $36.50 per share.
Defendant Mr. Tuchman made nearly $210 million in the secondary
offering. Following this, the Company continued to paint a
picture of sound financial health and markets. However, on
November 8, 2007, TeleTech disclosed that it was reviewing its
equity-based compensation practices and would likely have to
restate previously issued financial statements, possibly going
back to 1999. The Company concluded that financial statements
for the periods 1999 through the second quarter of 2007 should
not be relied upon. Upon the release of this news, shares of
the Company's stock declined $2.18 per share, or 9.64 percent,
to close on November 9, 2007 at $20.43 per share, on unusually
heavy trading volume.
Interested parties may move the court no later than March 17,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
James F. Conway, III, Esq.
Eben F. Duval, Esq.
Christopher Allen, Esq.
Johnson & Perkinson
1690 Williston Road
P.O. Box 2305
South Burlington, Vermont 05403
Toll free: 1-888-459-7855
e-mail: email@jpclasslaw.com
Web site: http://www.jpclasslaw.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, 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 * * *