/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080415.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, April 15, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 74
Headlines
ADVANCED AUTO: Faces La. Lawsuit Over Alleged Identity Theft
ALOHA AIRLINES: Laid Off Employees Commence Lawsuit
AMERICA SERVICE: Seeks to Dismiss Tenn. Securities Fraud Suit
ARIZONA: Tucson College Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Student Fraud
AUSTRALIA: Residents Plan Suit Over Alleged Radiation Poising
BANK LEUMI: To Appeal Court Order Allowing Price-Fixing Suit
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION: Files Suit Over Computer-Search Bill
COMPUCREDIT CORP: Faces Nebraska Suit Over Credit Violations
ENDOSCOPY CENTER: Lawsuits Take Step Closer to Trial Date
FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement in Florida Securities Suit
FX ENERGY: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Utah
JABIL CIRCUIT: Florida Court Dismisses "Goodman" Securities Suit
JACKSON HEWITT: July 30 Hearing Set for Calif. RAL Litigation
LITHIA MOTORS: Units Face Ala. Suit Over Sale of Used Vehicles
MCCORMICK & SCHMICKS: Settles CA Suit Over Employment Practices
MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y.
NPC INT'L: Faces Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuit in Florida
ORION ENERGY: Skadden Arps Retained in NY Securities Fraud Suit
PRISON HEALTH: Discovery Ongoing in Pa. Physician's Litigation
QUALCOMM INC: Faces CA Suit Over Forced Cell Phone Price Hikes
SHAW GROUP: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of N.Y. Amended Complaint
SMITH & WESSON: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in Mass.
SONY ELECTRONICS: California Suit Claims Vaio Laptops Defective
ST. JUDE: Appeals Court Decertifies Silzone-Related Lawsuit
STERLING CHEMICALS: Discovery Ongoing in Tex. Workers' Lawsuit
US AIRWAYS: Faces Skycaps' Suit Over $2-Per-Bag Collection Fee
New Securities Fraud Cases
AGRIA CORP: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in MA
FORCE PROTECTION: Johnson & Perkinson Announces SC Suit Filing
GLOBAL CASH: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
MONEYGRAM INTL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
NEUROMETRIX INC: Dyer & Berens Announces Securities Suit Filing
OPPENHER HOLDINGS: Stull & Brody Files NY Securities Fraud Suit
SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
*********
ADVANCED AUTO: Faces La. Lawsuit Over Alleged Identity Theft
------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Auto Parts is facing a class-action complaint filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana alleging it exposed 56,000 customers to identity theft
and fraud by a security breach of its financial records,
CourtHouse News Service reports.
The action arises from the defendant's failure to maintain
adequate security of personal financial information including
personal and financial data on residents of the State of
Louisiana and residents of other states as well.
Named plaintiff Belle Chasse Automotive Care, Inc., brings the
class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3) on behalf of all persons whose financial and personal
information from 14 stores that was compromised by Advanced Auto
Parts' fault or responsibilities.
The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:
(a) whether the defendant owed a duty to the class members
under the applicable statutes and law;
(b) whether the defendant properly maintained the personal
financial information of the class members;
(c) whether the defendant breached a duty and was negligent
in failing to keep class members' personal financial
information secure;
(d) whether the defendant was negligent in failing to
immediately inform the class members, either directly
or indirectly, in a timely fashion of the loss of the
information;
(e) whether the class is entitled to notice as to whether
the security of their account and financial information
was lost;
(f) whether the class is entitled to remedies such as
credit monitoring;
(g) whether the personal information, account information,
and payment history information was encrypted before it
was lost;
(h) whether Advanced Auto is liable for subsequent identity
theft resulting from the negligent release of the
class' sensitive personal and financial information;
(i) Advanced Auto's vicarious liability for the actions of
its employees; and
(j) the extent of damages caused by the defendant's
negligence.
The plaintiff asks for:
-- an order certifying the class under the appropriate
provisions of the Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and appointing the plaintiffs and their
counsel to represent the class;
-- damages award;
-- pre-judgment interest from the date of filing the
suit;
-- reasonable attorney's fees;
-- all costs of the proceeding; and
-- all general, special and equitable relief to which
the plaintiffs and the members of the class are entitled
by law.
The suit is "Belle Chasse Automotive Care, Inc. et al. v.
Advanced Auto Parts Inc., Case No. 08-1568," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
Lawrence J. Centola, III, Esq.
337 Lafayette Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 581-9065
Fax: (504) 581-7635
ALOHA AIRLINES: Laid Off Employees Commence Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Two former employees of Aloha Airlines are claiming in
bankruptcy court that the company was required to give them 60
days notice before laying them off, KGMB9 News reports.
According to Honolulu Advertiser, Aloha, which is Hawaii's No. 2
carrier, shut down its passenger service on March 31 and fired
1,900 workers in the largest, single-day mass firing the state
has ever seen. The closing, which Aloha blamed on soaring fuel
prices and a grueling inter-island fare war, came 11 days after
the storied airline filed for bankruptcy protection for the
second time in about three years.
KGMB9 News relates that, according to federal law, there are
only two defenses against the employees' claim: (1) that Aloha
executives truly believed up until it closed that financing
would save the company and that telling employees would put the
deal in jeopardy; and (2) something suddenly sank the company.
"In the event that an employer is faced with circumstances that
were sudden and dramatic and could not reasonably be foreseen it
is then excused from giving the full 60 days notice," Stuart
Miller, Esq., who represents the former Aloha employees said.
According to bankruptcy court documents, the lawsuit is waiting
for a reply from Aloha Airlines. If the suit proceeds as a
class action lawsuit it could mean back pay for all laid off
workers, KGMB9 News.
AMERICA SERVICE: Seeks to Dismiss Tenn. Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee has
yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of an amended
consolidated securities fraud suit filed against America Service
Group Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries.
On April 6, 2006, the plaintiffs filed the first of four similar
securities class actions with the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee against the company and the
company's chief executive officer and chief financial officer.
The plaintiffs' allegations in these class actions are
substantially identical. They are brought on behalf of a
putative class of individuals who purchased the company's common
stock between Sept. 24, 2003, and March 16, 2006.
Allegedly, prior to the company's announcement of the Audit
Committee investigation, the company and the company's chief
executive officer and chief financial officer violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 by making
false and misleading statements, or concealing information about
the company's business, forecasts and financial performance.
The complaints seek certification as a class action, unspecified
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
relief. By order dated Aug. 3, 2006, the district court
consolidated the lawsuits into one consolidated action.
On Oct. 31, 2006, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
adding as defendants:
-- Secure Pharmacy Plus, LLC;
-- Enoch E. Hartman III; and
-- Grant J. Bryson.
The amended complaint also generally alleges that defendants
made false and misleading statements concerning the company's
business, which caused the company's securities to trade at
inflated prices during the class period.
The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages in the form
of restitution; compensatory damages, including interest; and
reasonable costs and expenses.
The defendants requested the court to dismiss the amended
complaint, and the parties completed the briefs on this motion
in May 2007. This motion, therefore, is currently pending
before the presiding judge.
American Service reported no development in the matter in its
March 10, 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: American Service Group, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:06-cv-00323," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Judge William J. Haynes presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
401 B Street, Suite 1600
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 231-1058
e-mail: general_efile@lerachlaw.com
- and -
George Edward Barrett, Esq.
(gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com)
Barrett, Johnston & Parsley
217 Second Avenue, N.
Nashville, TN 37201
Phone: (615) 244-2202
Representing the defendant is:
Benjamin Lee, Esq. (blee@kslaw.com)
King & Spalding LLC
1180 Peachtree Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
Phone: (404) 572-4600
Fax: (404) 572-5100
ARIZONA: Tucson College Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Student Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tucson College (Arizona) is facing a class-action complaint
filed with U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
alleging the college defrauded students and induced them to take
out loans, which they paid to the college, by false promises
about degree certification, transferability of credits, job
placement rates and other things, CoutHouse News Service
reports.
Also named as defendants in the suit are:
-- Gryphon Investors Inc., a California corporation;
-- Delta Career Education Corp.;
-- Gryphon Colleges Corp.;
-- National Career Education Inc., a Delaware corporation;
and
-- Southwest Business Colleges dba Tucson College, a
subsidiary of Delta Educational Systems, a Virginia
corporation.
This is a class and collective action brought on behalf of all
persons who, at any time from Jan. 1, 2004, up to and including
the date of entry of judgment after trial, are or were enrolled
in schools or education programs offered by the defendants, or
their controlled affiliates or subsidiaries as students anywhere
in the United States, including the State of Arizona.
These students did not receive the degree and certification
promised and were intentionally misled about the transferability
of the credits that they earned and are similarly situated under
Federal Rules of Procedure Rule 23.
Twenty named plaintiffs claim they paid $10,228 apiece for a
9-month course in criminal justice that the state attorney
general investigated in 2007, causing the school to stop
accepting students, and causing most of its students to
withdraw.
Students in Tucson College's medical insurance coding program
also say they were cheated. They say students were cheated in
other programs too, which they will specify upon discovery.
The plaintiffs demand judgment as follows:
-- for compensatory damages in an amount as yet to be
determined but in excess of $10,000 per claimant;
-- punitive damages; and
-- attorney's fees, costs and interest.
The suit is "Elena Lopez et al. v. Gryphon Investors, Inc. et
al.," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Andrea E. Watters, Esq.
Watters Law Office, PC
2807 East Broadway Boulevard
Tucson, Arizona 85716
Phone: (520) 323-5910
AUSTRALIA: Residents Plan Suit Over Alleged Radiation Poising
-------------------------------------------------------------
The relatives of more than five inner Sydney residents who died
of cancer are considering a class action suit against the New
South Wales government over alleged radiation poising.
Opposition MP Michael Richardson and the families have called on
the government to reveal the extent of contamination from an
unmarked radioactive waste dump in Nelson Parade, Hunters Hill.
They say five residents died of radiation-related cancers in the
1970s. Mr. Richardson said three other deaths were detailed in
documents held at the National Library in Canberra which were
collected in the 1970s by former federal Labor MP Tom Uren.
A major cause of the deaths appeared to have been the
consumption of vegetables grown at numbers 7 and 9 Nelson Pde,
Mr. Richardson said.
However, the Health Department maintains that radiation exposure
levels in the street fall within the Australian Radiation
Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency guidelines.
Tests taken on the housing blocks by the Radiation Branch of the
Health Department in the mid-1960s were "woefully inadequate,"
Mr. Richardson said. "They missed massive amounts of radium
contamination at No.7 because it was underneath the house," he
added.
He called on NSW Premier Morris Iemma to reveal the extent of
the contamination and said the government should offer free
medical testing to all the street's current and former
residents.
A NSW Health Department spokeswoman Kerry Chant said the
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
conducted a radiological survey on properties adjoining NSW
Health land in Nelson Pde on February 20 this year.
"Overall, the results indicate that people living in Nelson
Parade should have no health concerns," the spokeswoman said.
"Exposure levels fall within Australian Radiation Detection and
Nuclear Safety Agency (ARDANSA) recommendations for general
public exposure."
She said the results of testing at three sites had been provided
to property owners and NSW Health representatives had offered to
meet and discuss the results.
Further testing would be carried out after a remediation plan
was put in place.
BANK LEUMI: To Appeal Court Order Allowing Price-Fixing Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bank Leumi (TASE: LUMI) has petitioned the High Court of Justice
for leave to appeal against a decision by Tel Aviv District
Judge Nissim Yeshaya allowing a ILS7 billion class action suit
over price fixing brought by Sharnoa Computerized Machines Ltd.,
Globes Online reports.
The suit claims that Bank Leumi and two other big banks
effectively set up a cartel, thereby reducing proper competition
for business.
In its appeal, Bank Leumi, which was represented by Adv. Yaron
Elhanani, asked the High Court to overturn the District Court's
decision and dismiss the motion for a class action suit.
The bank argued that there was no evidence to confirm that such
a cartel existed. The bank also said that, in reality, prices
of products are frequently similar because of market
competition, and not as the result of cartel arrangements.
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION: Files Suit Over Computer-Search Bill
-----------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed a federal
lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a state law that
would allow police to search the computers of sex offenders long
after their sentences end, Munster Times reports.
Sen. John Waterman, R-Shelburn, had said that the bill was
another way to protect children from sexual predators, in this
case those who seek out victims through the Internet, the report
relates.
Waterman's bill, according to Munster Times, originally had
nothing to do with sex offenders. However, late in the session,
a conference committee inserted several provisions, including
the ones dealing with computers, that Senator Waterman said he
supported.
Starting July 1, the law will require sex offenders enrolling in
the state's public registry to submit e-mail addresses and user
names for instant messaging, chat rooms and social networking
sites. Offenders who provide that information must sign a
consent form allowing searches of their computers or other
Internet-enabled devices at any time. They must also install
software that monitors their Internet activity at their expense.
Those restrictions already are conditions of probation. ACLU is
challenging their use for sex offenders who still must register
but have finished serving parole or probation, claiming that it
is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
"These are people who have been restored to all civil rights,
and nevertheless the law explicitly requires these free people
to give permission to a search of their computers and purchase
software and hardware," Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of
Indiana, said. "What this means is that at 2 o'clock in the
morning someone can show up and say let me look at the
computer," he said.
Mr. Falk further argued that the computer might belong to a
spouse or someone else living in the residence and include
private financial information.
The report notes that sex offenders generally must register for
10 years after their release from prison, but some face the
restriction for life. Senator Waterman said that the computer
provisions would not apply to those who are removed from the sex
offender registry.
The state ACLU is seeking class action status and has two
plaintiffs -- one is a Marion County man using the name "John
Doe" and who has been convicted of child molesting, and the
other is a Scott County man who has convictions for child
molesting and sexual misconduct with a minor.
Both are required to register for life as sex offenders, the
suit says, and have concerns about the privacy of financial and
business information on their computers.
Mr. Falk told Munster Times that no initial hearing has been set
yet.
COMPUCREDIT CORP: Faces Nebraska Suit Over Credit Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
CompuCredit Corp. -- doing business as Aspire Visa -- is facing
a class-action suit filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nebraska accusing it of credit violations and
deceptive trade, CourtHouse News Service reports.
The action is brought pursuant to:
-- the federal Credit Repair Organization Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1679 et seq.;
-- the state Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Neb. Rev. Stat.
Section 87-302 et seq.; and
-- the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act, Neb. Rev. Stat.
Section 59-1601 et seq.
to redress the defendants' false and misleading representations
and deceptive practices in connection with the promotion,
solicitation, implementation, and use of credit cards and
credit repair services. This is in addition to the defendants
assessing unwarranted, unapproved, and illegal amounts of
interest, annual fees, monthly maintenance fees, over-limit
fees, and late fees on the credit card accounts once opened.
Named plaintiff Roberta L. Roth says Aspire immediately charges
new customers $185.50, but does not disclose it. She says she
paid Aspire $1,051 after charging only $179, but it demands
another $2,000.
Also named as defendant in the suit is Columbus Bank & Trust.
Ms. Roth claims that the defendants push their credit cards to
consumer with poor credit scores. She says their standard
practice is to charge new customer $29 for an "account opening
fee finance charge," $150 for an "annual fee," and $6.50 for an
"account maintenance fee," and that "all of these fees are
immediately held against the $300 limit."
She adds that the "defendants did not disclose these fees, and
the plaintiff was unaware of these charges until receiving her
first monthly statement."
She says she charged $178.67; the defendants collected
$1,050.82, and tried to collect another $2,452.79 -- all for the
$178.67.
Ms. Roth brings this class action on her own behalf and on
behalf of two classes of consumers designated pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3):
THE CROA CLASS: This action is brought as a class action
consisting of (1) all persons, (2) who are
residents of the state of Nebraska, (3) who
have opened an Aspire Visa credit card
where Defendants received any payment
before services were provided and no
services were ever provided, (4) within the
five-year period prior to the filing of
this Complaint; and
THE NCPA & NDTPA CLASSES: This action is brought as a class
action consisting of (1) all persons, (2)
who are residents of the state of Nebraska,
(3) who have opened an Aspire Visa credit
card account and paid any amount on said
account and where fees, costs, and
penalties were assessed against the credit
limit, (4) within the four-year period
prior to the filing of this Complaint.
Ms. Roth requests the court for:
-- preliminary and permanently enjoin the Defendants from
soliciting and selling the Aspire Visa credit card
program in the state of Nebraska;
-- actual damages, including disgorgement and refund of
the amounts paid by Nebraska residents;
-- statutory attorneys' fees and costs of this action;
-- statutory damages of up to $1,000.00 per class member;
and
-- such other relief as the court will allow, pursuant to
Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 59-1609.
The suit is "Roberta L. Roth et al v. Compucredit Corporation,
d/b/a Aspire Visa et al.," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nebraska.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
Pamela A. Car, Esq.
Car & Reinbrecht, P.C., L.L.O.
8720 Frederick Street, Suite 105
Omaha, NE 68124
Phone: (402) 391-8484
Fax: (402) 391-1103
e-mail: paclaw@uswest.net
ENDOSCOPY CENTER: Lawsuits Take Step Closer to Trial Date
---------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for both plaintiffs and defendants in civil cases
against the owners of the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada
came face to face over the issue of medical records and access
to witnesses, Las Vegas Now reports.
According to the report, it was the second time for all of the
attorneys representing some of the 40,000 people exposed to
hepatitis meet with all of the lawyers defending the doctors who
own Endoscopy Center. The first order of business was getting
the medical records back from Metro and settling the issue of
who would pay to store the thousands of boxes of documents.
Robert Eglet, Esq., attorney for the plaintiffs said, "If Metro
hadn't seized these records and the county didn't have control
of those records, the defendants would have control of these
records. They would be storing them, they would be organizing
them."
"And I don't know if we'll ever get them back in a condition
where we could guarantee under oath to anybody that the records
we're copying are what we used to have in our office. They've
been out of our control too long," said defense attorney Dan
Curriden, Esq.
Both sides agreed to meet with Metro next week to work out a
solution.
Las Vegas Now says that the other major problem is the defense
wanting to interview 30 random people included in the class
action lawsuit. Attorneys for the owners of the Endoscopy
Center asked for hundreds of people to fill out lengthy
questionnaires.
The special hearing master agreed to give the defense 150 people
-- with a paired down survey.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that this is just an attempt
to stop a class action lawsuit for the 40,000 who were infected
and a strategy to push back a tentative trial date for the
people who are sick.
"If we just go hearing after hearing after hearing, we won't
have a trial in June of 2009. And a lot of these people deserve
trials before June 2009. People have died already, people are
dying already, people are seriously ill. A lot of them are over
70," said Will Kemp, Esq., another attorney for plaintiffs.
The report points out that at least 850 people have already
tested positive for hepatitis. However, only seven have been
recognized as having contracted the illness from the Endoscopy
Center. The attorneys representing those people hope to go to
court in June 2009.
As reported in Class Action Reporter on March 4, 2008, the
Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada faces a class-action
complaint filed on Feb. 28, 2008, with the District Court in
Clark County, Nevada, accusing it of potentially exposing as
many as 40,000 patients to HIV and hepatitis by treating them
with used syringes over a four-year period.
FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement in Florida Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
FARO Technologies, Inc., settled a securities fraud class action
filed against it with the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District Court of Florida, according to the company's March 10,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
On Dec. 6, 2005, the first of four essentially identical class
action securities fraud lawsuits were filed against the Company
and certain of its officers.
On April 19, 2006, the four lawsuits were consolidated, and
Kornitzer Capital Management, Inc., was appointed as the lead
plaintiff.
On May 16, 2006, Kornitzer filed its Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint against the Company and the individual
defendants.
The Amended Complaint also named Grant Thornton LLP, the
Company's independent registered public accounting firm, as an
additional defendant.
On July 31, 2006, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint, which the court granted on Feb. 3, 2007,
without prejudice.
As to the Company and the individual defendants, the Court's
decision primarily was based on its findings that the Amended
Complaint failed to adequately allege:
-- scienter (i.e., intentionally fraudulent or severely
reckless conduct) with respect to certain claims; and
-- that certain supposed misrepresentations or omissions
actually caused economic loss.
The Court granted Kornitzer leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint by Feb. 22, 2007.
On Feb. 22, 2007, Kornitzer filed its Consolidated Second
Amended Class Action Complaint against the Company, the
individual defendants and Grant Thornton LLP.
In the Second Amended Complaint, as in the Amended Complaint,
Kornitzer seeks to represent a class consisting of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly
traded securities between April 15, 2004, and March 15, 2006.
On behalf of the alleged class, Kornitzer seeks an unspecified
amount of damages, premised on allegations that each defendant
made misrepresentations and omissions of material fact during
the class period in violation of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
Among other things, Kornitzer alleges:
-- that the Company's reported inventory, gross margins
and profits were false and misleading during a portion
of the class period because the Company consciously
overstated the value of its inventory;
-- that the Company misstated during 2005 certain of the
selling expenses it had accrued and had expected to
incur;
-- that certain Asian sales that the Company had reported
during the class period had been the product of
unlawful payments made in violation of the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act, and that the Company failed to
disclose that it was utilizing unlawful means to
achieve such sales; and
-- that certain of the Company's statements regarding the
Company's systems of internal controls had been false
and misleading, in light of the above and other
circumstances.
On Feb. 26, 2008, the parties to the Securities Litigation
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding stating the principal
terms of their agreement to settle the Securities Litigation.
The suit is "Goldberger v. Faro Technologies, Inc. et al., Case
No. 6:05-cv-01810-ACC-DAB," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District Court of Florida, Judge Anne C. Conway
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
John F. Edgar, Esq. (jfe@edgarlawfirm.com)
John M. Edgar, Esq. (jme@edgarlawfirm.com)
Edgar Law Firm, LLC
4520 Main St., Suite 1650
Kansas City, MO 64111
Phone: 816/531-0033
Fax: 816/531-3322
- and -
Patrick A. Klingman, Esq. (pklingman@sfmslaw.com)
Karen M. Leser, Esq. (kleser@sfmslaw.com)
James E. Miller, Esq. (jmiller@sfmslaw.com)
James C. Shah, Esq. (jshah@classactioncounsel.com)
Nathan Zipperian, Esq.
(nzipperian@classactioncounsel.com)
Scott R. Shepherd, Esq.
(sshepherd@classactioncounsel.com)
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
Phone: 860-526-1100
610-891-9880
954-943-9191
Fax: 860-526-1120
610-891-9883
954-943-9173
Representing the defendants are:
Richard S. Davis, Esq. (rdavis@foley.com)
Robert A. Scher, Esq. (rscher@foley.com)
Foley & Lardner, LLP
Phone: (407) 244-3260
(212) 682-7474
Fax: (407) 648-1743
(212) 687-2329
- and -
Daniel A. Casey, Esq. (dcasey@klng.com)
Jeffrey T. Kucera Esq. (jkucera@kl.com)
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham, LLP
201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2000
Miami, FL 33131-2399
Phone: 305-539-3324
305-539-3322
Fax: 305-358-7095
FX ENERGY: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Utah
--------------------------------------------------------------
FX Energy, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities fraud class
action suit that was filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah, according to the company's March 10, 2008 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
In November and December 2007, three actions were filed against
the company and officers and directors David N. Pierce, Clay
Newton, Thomas B. Lovejoy, Andrew W. Pierce, and Richard
Hardman, by three separate plaintiffs, each seeking class
certification to proceed on behalf of all others similarly
situated and alleging violations by the defendants of the
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws set forth in
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder relating to the company's public
statements about its oil and gas activities and prospects in
Poland between March 2004 and January 2006.
The complaints seek damages to be determined at trial, interest,
and costs, together with such other relief as the court may deem
appropriate.
The three actions have now been consolidated into a single
matter, and the lead plaintiffs and counsel have been specified.
The consolidated actions have not been certified to proceed as a
class action. No responsive pleading from the defendants will
be due until an amended complaint is filed.
The suit is "Pykkonen, et al. v. FX Energy, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-CV-00874," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah, Judge Dale A. Kimball presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Richard D. Burbidge, Esq. (rburbidge@bmgtrial.com)
Burbidge Mitchell & Gross
215 S. State, Ste. 920
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Phone: (801) 355-6677
Thomas R. Karrenberg (tkarrenberg@aklawfirm.com)
Anderson & Karrenberg
50 W. Broadway, Ste. 700
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Phone: (801) 534-1700
- and -
David R. Scott, Esq. (drscott@scott-scott.com)
Scott & Scott
108 Norwich Ave.
PO Box 192
Colchester, CT 06415
Phone: (860) 537-5537
Representing the defendants are:
Raymond J. Etcheverry, Esq.
Parsons Behle & Latimer, Esq.
201 S Main St., Ste. 1800
P.O. Box 45898
Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0898
Phone: (801) 532-1234
e-mail: ecf@parsonsbehle.com
JABIL CIRCUIT: Florida Court Dismisses "Goodman" Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
dismissed the amended class action complaint in a consolidated
securities fraud lawsuit filed against Jabil Circuit, Inc.,
according to the company's April 9, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Feb. 29, 2008.
On Sept. 18, 2006, a putative shareholder class action was filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
captioned, "Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v. Jabil
Circuit, Inc., et al., No. 8:06-cv-01716" against the company
and various present and former officers and directors.
The suit was brought on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs
comprised of persons that purchased shares of the company
between Sept. 19, 2001, and June 21, 2006.
The complaint asserted claims under Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, as well as under Section 20(a) of that Act.
The complaint alleged that the defendants had engaged in a
scheme to fraudulently backdate the grant dates of options for
various senior officers and directors, causing the company's
financial statements to understate management compensation and
overstate net earnings, thereby inflating the company's stock
price.
In addition, the complaint alleged that the company's proxy
statements falsely stated that the company had adhered to its
option grant policy of granting options at the closing price of
its shares on the trading date immediately prior to the date of
the grant.
A second putative class action, containing virtually identical
legal claims and allegations of fact, captioned, "Steven M. Noe
v. Jabil Circuit, Inc., et al., No., 8:06-cv-01883," was filed
on Oct. 12, 2006.
The two actions were consolidated into a single proceeding and
on Jan. 18, 2007, the Court appointed The Laborers Pension Trust
Fund for Northern California and Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers as lead plaintiffs in the action.
On March 5, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint is
purported to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased
the company's publicly traded securities between Sept. 19, 2001,
and Dec. 21, 2006, and names the company and certain of its
current and former officers, including:
-- Forbes I.J. Alexander,
-- Scott D. Brown,
-- Wesley B. Edwards,
-- Chris A. Lewis,
-- Mark T. Mondello,
-- Robert L. Paver, and
-- Ronald J. Rapp
as well as certain of the Company's Directors:
-- Mel S. Lavitt,
-- William D. Morean,
-- Frank A. Newman,
-- Laurence S. Grafstein,
-- Steven A. Raymund,
-- Lawrence J. Murphy,
-- Kathleen A. Walters, and
-- Thomas A. Sansone
The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of
Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 14(a) of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act and the rules promulgated thereunder
It contained allegations of fact and legal claims similar to the
original putative class actions and, in addition, alleged that
the defendants failed to timely disclose the facts and
circumstances that led the Company, on June 12, 2006, to
announce that it was lowering its prior guidance for net
earnings for the third quarter of fiscal year 2006.
On April 30, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint asserting claims
substantially similar to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint
it replaced but adding additional allegations relating to the
restatement of earnings previously announced in connection with
the correction of errors in the calculation of compensation
expense for certain stock option grants.
At the company's request, the Court, on April 9, 2008, dismissed
the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint without
prejudice, but with leave to amend such complaint by May 12,
2008.
The suit is "Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v. Jabil
Circuit, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:06-cv-01716-SDM-EAJ," filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
under Judge Steven D. Merryday.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
William E. Hoese (whoese@kohnswift.com)
Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.
1101 Market St., Suite 2400
Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389
Phone: 215/238-1700
Representing the defendants is:
Michael L. Chapman, Esq. (michael.chapman@hklaw.com)
Holland & Knight, LLP
100 N. Tampa St. � Ste. 4100
PO Box 1288
Tampa, FL 33601-1288
Phone: 813/227-8500
Fax: 813/229-0134
JACKSON HEWITT: July 30 Hearing Set for Calif. RAL Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
An July 30, 2008 class certification hearing was set for a
lawsuit filed against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc., Santa
Barbara Bank & Trust, and Cendant Corp. in relation to Refund
Anticipation Loans.
On March 18, 2003, Canieva Hood and Congress of California
Seniors brought the purported class action with the Superior
Court of California (San Francisco). It subsequently added
Cendant in the case, which was transferred to the Superior Court
of California (Santa Barbara).
The suit seeks declaratory relief in connection with the
provision of RALs, as to the lawfulness of the practice of
cross-lender debt collection, as to the validity of Santa
Barbara's cross-lender debt collection provision and as to
whether the method of disclosure to customers with respect to
the provision is unlawful or fraudulent.
It is also seeking injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement,
compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, and expenses.
The company is a party in the action for allegedly
collaborating, and aiding and abetting, in the actions of SBB&T.
The trial court granted a motion by Santa Barbara and third-
party bank defendants on federal preemption grounds, and stayed
all other proceedings pending appeal.
The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's
preemption decision. The California Supreme Court denied
review.
SBB&T and third-party banks moved in the California Court of
Appeal to stay remittitur pending certiorari to the U.S. Supreme
Court.
On June 4, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari, and
the purported class action suit is proceeding in the trial
court.
A class certification hearing has been scheduled for July 30,
2008, according to the company's March 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Jan. 31, 2008.
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised
and company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S. The Company provides its
customers with accurate tax return preparation services and
electronic filing.
LITHIA MOTORS: Units Face Ala. Suit Over Sale of Used Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several subsidiaries of Lithia Motors, Inc., are facing a
consolidated class action in Alaska over the sale of a used
vehicle, according to the company's April 10, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
On May 30, 2006, four of the company's wholly owned subsidiaries
located in Alaska were served with a lawsuit, captioned,
"Jackie Lee Neese et al. v. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3AN-06-04815CI," which is alleging that
the dealerships failed to comply with Alaska law relating to
various disclosures required during the sale of a used vehicle.
The complainant seeks to represent other similarly situated
customers. The court has not yet certified the suit as a class
action.
During the pendency of the Neese case, the State of Alaska
brought charges against Lithia's subsidiaries alleging the same
factual allegations, and also alleging violations related to the
practice of charging document fees.
The company settled the State action to resolve the disputes.
However, the plaintiffs in the private action moved to intervene
in the State of Alaska matter. They also filed a second
putative class action, entitled, "Jackie Lee Neese, et al, v.
Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc., Case No. 3AN-06-
13341CI," related to the document fee claims identified in the
State of Alaska's complaint.
The second Neese lawsuit was consolidated with the first case.
The court denied the plaintiffs' request to intervene in the
State of Alaska matter and the plaintiffs have filed an appeal
with the Alaska Supreme Court challenging that denial.
The trial court dismissed two of the stores involved in the
first lawsuit because none of the named plaintiffs had purchased
any vehicles from the two stores. The plaintiffs have also
appealed that dismissal to the Alaska Supreme Court.
Both the private lawsuits, as well as the implementation of the
settlement with the State of Alaska, have been stayed pending a
ruling in the appeal of the State of Alaska case.
Lithia Motors, Inc. -- http://www.lithia.com-- is an operator
of automotive franchises and retailer of new and used vehicles
and services.
MCCORMICK & SCHMICKS: Settles CA Suit Over Employment Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
McCormick & Schmicks Seafood Restaurants, Inc., has reached a
tentative settlement for a class-action complaint regarding
employment practices filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.
The suit was filed in 2006. The company had contested the
claims, but it eventually negotiated with the plaintiffs to
reach a settlement.
On Feb. 28, 2008, the company negotiated a resolution of the
claims, and the parties submitted the settlement to the Court
for approval.
The negotiated settlement includes a monetary settlement and
some changes to our hiring and employment practices, according
to the company's March 10, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 29, 2007.
McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaurants, Inc. --
http://www.mccormickandschmicks.com/-- is a national seafood
restaurant operator. As of Dec. 29, 2007, the Company owned and
operated 82 restaurants, including 76 restaurants in 24 states
throughout the U.S., including one pursuant to a management
agreement and six restaurants under The Boathouse name in the
greater Vancouver, British Columbia area.
MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley is facing a consolidated class action suit filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, according to the company's April 8, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 29, 2008.
In December 2007, several purported class-action complaints were
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, asserting claims on behalf of participants in Morgan
Stanley's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against
Morgan Stanley and other parties, including certain present and
former directors and officers, under the ERISA.
The complaints relate in large part to subprime losses, and
allege, among other things, that Morgan Stanley stock was not a
prudent investment and that risks associated with Morgan Stanley
stock and Morgan Stanley's financial condition were not
adequately disclosed.
That suit named as defendants Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley &
Co. Inc., certain officers and directors of Morgan Stanley & Co.
Inc., the Global Director of Human Resources of Morgan Stanley,
and the Investment Committee of the Morgan Stanley 401(K) Plan.
In January and February 2008, two purported class-action
complaints were filed with the SDNY Court asserting claims on
behalf of participants in the Company's 401(k) plan and employee
stock ownership plan against the Company and other parties,
including certain present and former directors and officers,
under ERISA.
The complaints are similar to certain ERISA-related complaints
filed in the SDNY in December 2007 insofar as they relate in
large part to subprime-related losses, and allege, among other
things, that the Company's stock was not a prudent investment
and that risks associated with the Company's stock and its
financial condition were not adequately disclosed.
On Feb. 11, 2008, all of the pending actions asserting claims
under ERISA related to the Company's 401(k) and employee stock
ownership plan were consolidated in a single proceeding in the
SDNY, which is styled, "In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation,
Case No. 1:07-cv-11624-RWS."
Morgan Stanley -- http://www.morganstanley.com-- is a global
financial services firm that, through its subsidiaries and
affiliates, provides its products and services to a group of
clients and customers, including corporations, governments,
financial institutions and individuals.
The suit is "In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation, Case No.
1:07-cv-11624-RWS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Robert W. Sweet, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Lori Gwen Feldman, Esq. (lfeldman@milberg.com)
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC)
One Pennsylvania Plaza
New York, NY 10119
Phone: (212)-594-5300
Fax: (212)-868-1229
NPC INT'L: Faces Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
NPC International, Inc., is facing a purported class action suit
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act, according to the company's April 11, 2008 Form
10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 25, 2007.
The lawsuit against the Company, entitled, "Hildreth v. NPC
International, Inc., Case No. 2:08-CV-10-FTM-34-DNF," was filed
on Jan. 11, 2008, by three persons claiming they were customers
who had made purchases from one of the Company restaurants.
The Complaint filed indicates that the plaintiffs will ask the
Court to certify the case as a class action to assert claims on
behalf of all individuals in the U.S. who, on or after Dec. 4,
2006, the Company willfully provided at the point of sale or
transaction with an electronically-printed receipt that violated
U.S.C. Section 1681c(g) of FACTA.
The Complaint also states that the plaintiffs in the case do
"not seek to quantify or recover actual damages," but only seek
statutory damages for each willful violation under FACTA.
The Hildreth case is still in its preliminary stages and
discovery has not begun. The Company was served on Jan. 28,
2008 and filed a response to the Complaint on March 10, 2008.
In addition, the plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion to
certify a class and, accordingly, the Court has not yet ruled
whether to certify a class of any kind.
The suit is "Hildreth et al v. NPC International, Inc., Case No.
2:08-cv-00010-MMH-DNF," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, under Judge Marcia Morales
Howard.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Bill B. Berke, Esq. (Berkelaw@yahoo.com)
Berke & Lubell, PA
Suite 300
1003 Del Prado Blvd.
Cape Coral, FL 33990
Phone: 239/549-6689
Fax: 239/549-3331
Representing the defendants is:
Michael Byrley Colgan, Esq.
(mcolgan@glennrasmussen.com)
Glenn, Rasmussen, Fogarty & Hooker, PA
100 S. Ashley Dr. - Ste. 1300
P.O. Box 3333
Tampa, FL 33601-3333
Phone: 813/229-3333 EXT. 323
Fax: 813/229-5946
ORION ENERGY: Skadden Arps Retained in NY Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orion Energy Systems, Inc., has retained the law firm Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP as defense counsel in purported
securities class action lawsuits filed with the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
In February 2008, class action lawsuits were commenced with the
New York district Court on behalf of a class of all persons who
purchased or acquired the common shares of Orion Energy in its
Initial Public Offering on Dec. 18, 2007, or in the open market
from Dec. 18, 2007, through Feb. 6, 2008 (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 13, 2008).
With respect to the IPO, Orion realized over $78 million in
proceeds, while Chief Executive Officer Neal R. Verfuerth
and his family sold 600,000 shares for proceeds of approximately
$7 million.
On Feb. 6, 2008, just weeks after its IPO, Orion revealed news
concerning the company which completely surprised analysts and
investors, and caused the stock to drop approximately 43%, to a
price of $8.51 per share.
Orion is a manufacturer of efficient lighting and energy systems
to businesses.
The Prospectus for its IPO described a company that was quickly
growing revenues from existing product lines, and briefly
described product line extensions. After the close of trading
on Feb. 6, 2008, Orion disclosed that revenues in its current
fiscal quarter would decline as the company took aggressive
measures to promote a "new business model," a change in focus
that is alleged not to have been adequately disclosed or
described in the IPO Prospectus. During the February 6
conference call, Orion executives, including Mr. Verfuerth,
appeared unable to explain to the satisfaction of securities
analysts this surprising news about the business model change on
the heels of the IPO, or its impact on revenues.
The complaint charges Orion, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters who sponsored the IPO with
violation of the federal securities laws by issuing a
Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with the IPO
which was materially false or misleading due to omissions. The
law generally imposes strict liability on defendants responsible
for a materially false Registration Statement and Prospectus,
including for purchases made in the open market after the IPO;
no fraud need be proved to recover.
Orion believes that it has substantial legal and factual
defenses in this action, which it intends to pursue vigorously.
Orion will continue to focus on its competitive strengths and
growth strategies to deliver what it believes are compelling
energy savings and environmental benefits through innovative
energy efficiency technologies for commercial and industrial
customers throughout the United States.
Orion Energy Systems, Inc. is a leading power technology
enterprise that designs, manufactures and implements energy
management systems, consisting primarily of high-performance,
energy efficient lighting systems and controls and related
services, for commercial and industrial customers without
compromising their quantity or quality of light.
PRISON HEALTH: Discovery Ongoing in Pa. Physician's Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action suit against
Prison Health Services, Inc. -- a unit of the America Service
Group, Inc. -- and the City of Philadelphia.
The suit was filed by Andrew Berkowitz, M.D., an individual
physician independent contractor in Philadelphia. The plaintiff
filed the suit as a putative class action on Aug. 2, 2006, with
the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Trial
Division.
The plaintiff is seeking unspecified damages for the class, but
damages in the amount of at least $9,588, individually.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff provided services to
inmates at the Philadelphia Prison System at the request of the
defendants and that the defendants breached the alleged
contractual duties owed to him by paying an amount alleged to be
less than the full amount the plaintiff billed for his medical
services.
On Sept. 22, 2006, the City of Philadelphia filed a cross-claim
against PHS alleging breach of contract, negligence and seeking
indemnification.
On Sept. 29, 2006, Prison Health filed its answer to the
plaintiff's complaint, which answer included a cross-claim
against the City of Philadelphia for contribution and
indemnification.
The plaintiff filed his motion for class certification on
Oct. 1, 2007, and PHS and the City have since responded to this
motion.
The parties are presently involved in discovery proceedings.
American Service reported no development in the matter in its
March 10, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
America Service Group Inc. -- http://www.asgr.com/-- through
its subsidiaries Prison Health Services, Inc., EMSA Limited
Partnership, Correctional Health Services, LLC, and Secure
Pharmacy Plus, LLC, contracts to provide and administer managed
healthcare services, including the distribution of
pharmaceuticals throughout the U.S.
QUALCOMM INC: Faces CA Suit Over Forced Cell Phone Price Hikes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Qualcomm Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
alleging it forced cell phone price hikes by abusing its
monopoly power, CourtHouse News Service reports.
The suit is a national class action brought under the Sherman
Act and the Cartwright Act on behalf of all persons who:
(1) purchased one or more cellular devices that either
contain the Wideband Code Division Access technology of
that are compatible with the Universal Mobile
Telecommunications System standard (the Device Class);
and
(2) purchased cellular service from any carrier in the United
States which bundles its cellular service with subsidized
UMTS-compliant devices (the Service Class).
According to the antitrust class-action complaint, after
inducing cell phone manufacturers to adopt its Wideband CDMA
technology as the industry standard, Qualcomm abused its
monopoly power and breached its promise to license the
technology "on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms" and
jacked up its licensing fees, forcing higher costs to consumers.
The plaintiffs claim that Qualcomm, "by its intentional
deception of private standards-determining organizations (SDOs)
has monopolized certain markets for cellular telephone
technology and components." It did this by causing the
Universal Mobile Telecommunications System to adopt its WCDMA
"third generation technology" as the industry standard, the suit
states.
After cell phone companies invested "billions of dollars" in
adapting to the UMTS standard, "Qualcomm disregarded its FRAND
commitments (fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory) . . . (and)
coerced device manufacturers and service carriers who are locked
into the UMTS standard into paying supracompetitive (sic) prices
to license Qualcomm's WCDMA technology," the complaint states.
The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:
(a) whether Qualcomm's patents are essential to
manufacturing UMTS chipsets or UMTS devices;
(b) whether Qualcomm represented its patents are essential
to manufacturing UMTS chipsets or UMTS devices to
relevant manufacturers, and said manufacturers have
relied on those representations;
(c) whether Qualcomm represented or committed that it would
license its patents on FRAND terms to SDO participant
involved in the selection and formulation of the UMTS
standard;
(d) whether Qualcomm intentionall misrepresented that it
would license its patents on FRAND terms to SDO
participants involved in the selection and formulation
of the UMTS standard;
(e) whether Qualcomm has committed the UMTS Licensing
Practices alleged;
(f) whether the UMTS Licensing Practices alleged are fair,
reasonable and non-discriminatory;
(g) whether Qualcomm reneged on its commitments to license
its UMTS patents on FRAND terms;
(h) whether the UMTS Licensing Practices have anti-
competitive effects, including supracompetitive pricing
and impair non-price competition in the form of
deterred innovation;
(i) whether Qualcomm's UMTS Licensing Practices violate the
Section 1 of the Sherman Act;
(j) whether Qualcomm's UMTS Licensing Practices violate the
Section 2 of the Sherman Act;
(k) whether the UMTS Licensing Practices' anticompetitive
effects are passed on to end consumers of UMTS devices;
(l) what portion of end-user prices for UMTS devices are
attributable to Qualcomm's anticompetitive conduct
alleged;
(m) whether UMTS Licensing creates a trust in violation of
California's unfair competition law; and
(n) whether plaintiff and the device class are entitled to
relief, and the nature of such relief.
The plaintiffs ask the court to enter an order:
-- certifying the suit as a class action and designating
the plaintiff and his counsel as representatives of the
Device and Service classes;
-- awarding treble damages in an amount to be determined at
trial;
-- setting an injunction against further anticompetitive
acts, and the costs of the suit, including reasonable
attorneys' fees;
-- providing equitable relief including an accounting, a
constructive trust and restitution, in an amount to be
determined at trial, and attorneys' fees; and
-- awarding pre- and post-judgment interest.
The suit is "Jesse Meyer et al. v. Qualcomm, Inc., Case No. 08
CV 0655 WQH," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Alan Himmelfarb, Esq. (ahimmelfarb@kamberedelson.com)
KamberEdelson, LLC
2757 Leonis Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90058
Phone: (323) 585-8696
Jay Edelson, Esq. (jedelson@kamberedelson.com)
Ethan Preston, Esq. (epreston@kamberedelson.com)
KamberEdelson, LLC
53 West Jackson Ave., Suite 550
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 589-6370
- and -
Karin E. Fisch, Esq.
Orin Kurtz, Esq.
Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP
212 East 29th Street
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 889-3700
SHAW GROUP: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of N.Y. Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the class action, "City of Brockton Retirement
System v. The Shaw Group Inc, et al., Case No. 06CV8245," which
is pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, are appealing the dismissal of their
amended class action complaint, according to Shaw Group's
April 9, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 29, 2008.
The purported class action was filed against Shaw Group and
certain of its officers on Oct. 10, 2006, alleging violations of
federal securities laws. It also alleges claims under Sections
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers
of the company's common stock during the period from Jan. 6,
2006, to July 9, 2006.
The suit also alleges, among other things, that:
* the company falsely represented that internal controls
were adequate and effective in the second quarter of
fiscal 2006, and
* in the second quarter of 2006, materially overstated
revenues and understated losses.
The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought. To
date, the suit has not been certified as a class action by the
Court.
On Sept. 25, 2007, the judge in the matter signed an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs The City of Brockton Retirement
System and The Norfolk County Retirement System, and appointing
as lead counsel for plaintiffs the firm of Labaton Sucharow &
Rudoff LLP.
On Dec. 3, 2007, the plaintiffs served an amended class action
complaint, which includes the same substantive allegations and
the same two claims as the initial complaint.
On Jan. 10, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to transfer
venue to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana, and a motion to dismiss the amended class action
complaint.
The plaintiffs filed their opposition briefs on Jan. 24, 2008,
and the defendants filed their reply briefs shortly thereafter.
On Feb. 14, 2008, the Court denied the defendants' motion to
transfer venue, while their dismissal request was later granted
in its entirety with prejudice. The plaintiffs have until
April 18, 2008, to file a notice of appeal.
The suit is "City of Brockton Retirement System v. The Shaw
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-08245-RCC," filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Richard C. Casey presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Alan Ian Ellman, Esq. (aellman@labaton.com)
Christopher J. Keller, Esq. (ckeller@labaton.com)
Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP
100 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-907-0877
212-907-0853
212-907-0700
Fax: (212) 883-7077
(212) 883-7053
SMITH & WESSON: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. is facing several purported
securities fraud class actions filed with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, according to the
company's March 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Jan. 31, 2008.
The suits are:
-- William Hwang v. Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., et al.;
-- Joe Cranford v. Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., et al.; and
-- Joanne Trudelle v. Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., et al.,
in (Springfield).
The three cases are purported securities class action lawsuits
brought individually and on behalf of all persons who purchased
the securities of the company between June 15 and December 6,
2007.
The putative plaintiffs seek unspecified damages against the
company, its officers, and its directors for alleged violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.
On Feb. 11, 2008, the plaintiffs in each of the actions filed
motions for consolidation of the actions and to appoint lead
class plaintiffs and lead counsel pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Those motions are
currently pending before the Court.
The first identified complaint is "William Hwang, et al. v.
Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation, et al.," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
200 Broadhollow Road, Suite 406
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: 631-367-7100
Fax: 631-367-1173
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: 610.667.7706
Fax: 610.667.7056
e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com
SONY ELECTRONICS: California Suit Claims Vaio Laptops Defective
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sony Electronics Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed
with the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
San Diego alleging that the company's Vaio PCG laptops have
defective power cord connection slots that cause the computers
to shut down, fail to charge and short circuit the motherboard,
CourtHouse News Service reports.
The plaintiffs say Sony knows of the defect but refuses to
correct it or to warn consumers about it.
As a result of Sony's concealment of the defects, false
advertising and failure to warn, the class purchased thousands
of Vaio PCG laptops in the United States and California, and
have suffered, and continue to suffer, loss of money and
property as a result of defendant's business practices and other
conduct.
The plaintiffs assert claims under:
(i) the Unfair Competition Law, Section 17200 --
Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.;
(ii) the False Advertising Law, Section 17500 --
Business and Professions Code Section 17500 et seq.;
(iii) the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code
Section 1750 et seq.;
(iv) breach of express and implied warranties;
(v) Song-Beverly Warranty Act, Civil Code Section 1790 et
seq.;
(vi) unjust enrichment/restitution; and
(vii) negligence.
The plaintiffs bring the action to obtain damages, restitution,
and injunctive relief on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased Sony Vaio PCG laptops in the PCG series, in the United
States during the four years prior to the initiation of this
action up to and including the date of certification of this
action as a class action.
The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:
(a) whether the Vaio PCG laptops fail at unacceptable high
rates, are defectively designed or manufactured, and
are not merchantable quality;
(b) whether Sony made false or misleading statements to the
classes concerning the defects in the Vaio PCG laptops;
(c) whether Sony knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that
its statements about the performance and reliability of
the Vaio PCG laptops were false or misleading;
(d) whether Sony concealed from the class that the Vaio PCG
laptops fail at unacceptable high rates, are
defectively designed or manufactured, and are not of
merchantable quality;
(e) whether Sony's false or misleading statements of fact,
and its concealment of material facts, regarding the
performance and reliability of the Vaio PCG laptops
were likely to deceive the public;
(f) whether, by virtue of the misconduct set forth in the
complaint, Sony has engaged in an unfair, deceptive or
unlawful business practices with respect to the Vaio
PCG laptops;
(g) whether, by virtue of the misconduct set forth in the
complaint, Sony has engaged in an unfair, deceptive or
misleading advertising with respect to the Vaio PCG
laptops;
(h) whether, by its conduct, Sony violated the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, the Song-Beverly Act and implied
warranties;
(i) whether Sony has breached its implied warranties to
plaintiff and the class; and
(j) whether, as a result of defendants' misconduct,
plaintiff and the classes are entitled to damages,
restitution, injunctive relief, equitable relief and/or
other relief, and, if so, the nature and amount of such
relief.
The plaintiffs asks the court for:
-- an order certifying this case as a class action and
appointing plaintiff and her counsel to represent the
class;
-- restitution and disgorgement of all amounts obtained by
Sony as a result of its misconduct, together with
interest thereon from the date of payment, to the
victims of such violations (except for the CLRA cause of
action);
-- actual and statutory damages for injuries suffered by
plaintiff and the class in the maximum amount permitted
by applicable law except for the CLRA cause of action;
-- an order requiring Sony to cease its wrongful conduct as
set forth in the complaint and correct the defects in
the laptops;
-- reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs of prosecuting
this action; and
-- pre-judgment interest.
The suit is "Maria Contreras et al v Sony Electronics Inc., Case
No. 37-2008-00071395-CU-BC-CTL," filed with the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of San Diego.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Houman Fakhimi, Esq.
Fakhimi & Associates
3 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 620
Santa Ana, California 92707
Phone: (714) 542-2188
Fax: (714) 542-3119
- and -
Gregg A. Farley, Esq.
Law Offices of Gregg A. Farley
11755 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300
Los Angeles, California 90025
Phone: (310) 445-4024
Fax: (310) 445-4109
ST. JUDE: Appeals Court Decertifies Silzone-Related Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United Sates Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
reversed certification of a nationwide class of patients
implanted with faulty Silzone prosthetic heart valves on the
grounds that the case presented too many individual differences
to be tried as a class action, CourtHouse News Service reports.
In July 1997, St. Jude Medical Inc. began marketing mechanical
heart valves which incorporated Silzone coating. The Company
later began marketing heart valve repair products incorporating
Silzone coating. Silzone coating was intended to reduce the
risk of endocarditis, a bacterial infection affecting heart
tissue, which is associated with replacement heart valve
surgery.
In January 2000, the Company initiated a voluntary field action
for products incorporating Silzone coating after receiving
information from a clinical study that patients with a Silzone-
coated heart valve had a small, but statistically significant,
increased incidence of explant due to paravalvular leak compared
to patients in that clinical study with heart valves that did
not incorporate Silzone coating.
Subsequent to the Company's voluntary field action, the Company
has been sued in various jurisdictions by some patients who
received a product with Silzone coating and, as of July 20,
2007, such cases are pending in the United States, Canada,
United Kingdom and France. Some of these claimants allege
bodily injuries as a result of an explant or other
complications, which they attribute to Silzone-coated products.
Others, who have not had their Silzone-coated heart valve
explanted, seek compensation for past and future costs of
special monitoring they allege they need over and above the
medical monitoring all other replacement heart valve patients
receive. Some of the lawsuits seeking the cost of monitoring
have been initiated by patients who are asymptomatic and who
have no apparent clinical injury to date. The Company has
vigorously defended against the claims that have been asserted
and expects to continue to do so with respect to any remaining
claims.
"This case exemplifies the difficulty with class treatment of
cases alleging fraud or misrepresentation," the court wrote,
because each patient and treating doctor learned about the bad
valves in different ways.
Studies have shown that the Silzone valve, made by St. Jude
Medical Inc., increases the risk of paravalvular leakage.
Multi-District Litigation in Minnesota
In 2001, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
ruled that certain lawsuits filed in U.S. federal district court
involving products with Silzone coating should be part of MDL
proceedings under the supervision of U.S. District Court Judge
John Tunheim in Minnesota. As a result, actions in federal
court involving products with Silzone coating have been and will
likely continue to be transferred to the District Court for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The District Court ruled against the Company on the issue of
preemption by finding that the plaintiffs' causes of action were
not preempted by the U.S. Food and Drug Act. The Company sought
to appeal this ruling, but the appellate court determined that
it would not review the ruling at that point in the proceedings.
Class Action Proceedings
Certain plaintiffs requested the District Court to allow some
cases to proceed as class actions. The first complaint seeking
class-action status was served upon the Company in April 2000
and all eight original class-action complaints were consolidated
into one case by the District Court in October 2001.
One proposed class in the consolidated complaint seeks
injunctive relief in the form of medical monitoring. A second
class in the consolidated complaint seeks an unspecified amount
of monetary damages. In response to the requests of the
claimants in these cases, the District Court issued several
rulings concerning class action certification. The Company
requested the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to review the
District Court's class certification orders.
In October 2005, the Eighth Circuit issued a decision reversing
the District Court's class certification rulings. More
specifically, the Eighth Circuit ruled that the District Court
erred in certifying a consumer protection class seeking damages
based on Minnesota's consumer protection statutes, and required
the District Court in further proceedings to conduct a thorough
conflicts-of-law analysis as to each plaintiff class member
before applying Minnesota law.
In addition, in its October 2005 opinion, the Eighth Circuit
also ruled that the District Court's certification of a medical
monitoring class was an abuse of discretion and thus reversed
the District Court's certification of a medical monitoring class
involving the products with Silzone coating.
After briefing and oral argument by the parties, the District
Court issued its further ruling on class certification issues in
October 2006. At that time, the District Court granted
plaintiffs' renewed motion to certify a nationwide consumer
protection class under Minnesota's consumer protection statutes
and the Private Attorney General Act.
The Company sought appellate review of the District Court’s
October 2006 decision, and in November 2006, the Eighth Circuit
agreed to conduct a review of the District Court's decision.
In Sept. 2007, the parties submitted briefs to the Eighth
Circuit (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 28, 2007).
The suit is "In Re: St Jude Medical Inc. et al., Case No. 0:01-
md-01396-JRT-FLN," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota under Judge John R. Tunheim, with referral
to Judge Franklin L. Noel.
Representing the defendant are:
Steven E. Angstreich, Esq.
(sangstreich@levyangstreich.com)
Carolyn Lindheim, Esq. (clindheim@levyangstreich.com)
Levy Angstreich Finney Baldante Rubenstein & Coren
10 Melrose Ave Ste 100
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
Phone: 856—0303
Fax: 185-6795-7447
James T. Capretz, Esq. (jcapretz@capretz.com)
Capretz & Associates
5000 Birch St. Ste 2500
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: 949-724-3000
Fax: 949-757-2635
Joe D. Jacobson, Esq. (jacobson@stlouislaw.com)
Green Jacobson & Butsch, PC
7733 Forsyth Blvd Ste 700
St Louis, MO 63105
Phone: 314-862-6800
Fax: 314-862-1606
Steven M. Kohn, Esq. (skohn@reedsmith.com)
Reed Smith - Oakland, 1999 Harrison
St Ste 2400
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: 510-763-2000
Fax: 510-273-8832
-- and --
Patrick Murphy, Esq.
The Murphy Law Office
844 E Sahara Ave., Las Vegas, NV 89104
Phone: 702-259-4600
Fax: 17022594748
Representing the plaintiffs are:
J. Gordon Rudd, Jr., Esq.
David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
Zimmerman Reed, P.L.L.P.
651 Nicollet Mall Suite 501
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (Hennepin Co.)
Phone: 612-341-0400
Toll Free: 800-755-0098
Fax: 612-341-0844
STERLING CHEMICALS: Discovery Ongoing in Tex. Workers' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against
Sterling Chemicals, Inc., according to the company's April 11,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
On Feb. 21, 2007 the company received a summons naming it as a
defendant in a class action titled, "Evans et al. v. Sterling
Chemicals, et al., Case No. H-07-0625."
The plaintiffs comprising the proposed class are employees and
retired employees of Sterling Fibers, Inc., one of the company's
former subsidiaries that was sold in connection with its Plan of
Reorganization in 2002.
They are alleging that the company was not permitted to increase
their premiums for retiree medical insurance based on a
provision contained in the asset purchase agreement between the
company, and Cytec Industries Inc. governing its purchase of
Sterling Chemicals' former acrylic fibers business in 1997. At
the time of Sterling Chemicals' bankruptcy, it specifically
rejected this asset purchase agreement.
The plaintiffs are asserting claims for breach of contract and
claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and
seek damages, declaratory relief, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.
The company moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in their
entirety on July 6, 2007, based on the rejection of the asset
purchase agreement in its bankruptcy case.
However, the court denied the company's motions for dismissal,
for reconsideration and to allow the company to take an
interlocutory appeal.
Discovery in this matter is in its beginning stages.
The suit is "Evans et al. v. Sterling Chemicals, et al., Case
No. H-07-0625," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Ronald Martin Weber, Jr., Esq.
(mweber@davis-davislaw.com)
Davis & Davis, 1301 McKinney, Ste. 3500
Houston, TX 77010
Phone: 713-781-5200
Fax: 713-781-2235,
US AIRWAYS: Faces Skycaps' Suit Over $2-Per-Bag Collection Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Days after a federal jury ordered American Airlines to pay
skycaps at Logan International Airport a total of more than
$325,000 for lost tips, skycaps for US Airways have commenced a
similar lawsuit with the same Boston court against their
employer, Boston Globe reports.
Boston Globe relates that lawyers representing at least 3,000
skycaps employed by US Airways and a subcontractor at airports
across the country filed the suit with U.S. District Court
challenging the $2 fee the airline began charging in 2007 for
each bag checked at the curb.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 9, 2008, a
federal jury awarded more than $325,000 to nine Logan
International Airport skycaps for American Airlines who claimed
that they lost tips when the airline instituted a $2 fee
for checking a bag at curbside.
According to the CAR, American Airlines had explained that its
decision to impose the baggage fee in 2005 was an attempt to
bolster its finances after it lost $821 million in 2004. The
fee is split between the airline and the contractor it hires to
operate its curbside check-in service.
In their suit, the American Air skycaps complained that many
passengers were confused and thought the $2 was going to them as
a tip, while others saw the new fee as a forced tip and
therefore were not willing to give them a gratuity on top of
that.
Likewise, the skycaps for US Air contend in the new class-action
suit that the fee has caused their tips to plunge because
passengers mistakenly believe skycaps keep the $2 and are loath
to tip on top of it.
"The verdict that we got against American really struck a chord
with people," Boston lawyer Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq., told
Boston Globe. "People have been very happy to see the little
guy stand up for himself against a big corporation and say,
'We're not going to be taken advantage of.'"
Andrew Christie, a spokesman for the Tempe, Arizona-based US
Airways, said that the airline had not seen the suit and could
not comment.
The suit against US Airways and a subcontractor, PrimeFlight
Aviation Services Inc., differs from the claim against American
Airlines, Ms. Liss-Riordan, who is working with a Philadelphia
firm, pointed out. She explained that the earlier complaint
focused on an alleged violation of a Massachusetts law that
protects tips received by service workers who can be legally
paid below the state's $8-an-hour minimum wage, while in the new
suit, the skycaps focus on alleged violations of a federal law
that protects tips received by workers who earn less than the
federal minimum wage of $5.85 an hour.
New Securities Fraud Cases
AGRIA CORP: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action suit with the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of Agria Corporation pursuant or traceable to the
Company's November 6, 2007 Initial Public Offering.
The Complaint charges Agria Corporation and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of
1933.
Agria engages in the research and development, production, and
sale of upstream agricultural products in the People's Republic
of China.
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 had failed to secure enforceable
employment agreements with its Chief Operating Officer
and other key executives prior to its IPO;
(2) that the Company was in active negotiations with its
COO and other key executives to provide multi-million
dollar compensation packages in order to secure their
future services (which were key to the Company's future
success);
(3) that these dramatically increased compensation expenses
would materially impact the Company's financial results
going forward, specifically by increasing its general
and administrative expenses, and decreasing its
operating profit and margins;
(4) that, as a result of the above, the Company's financial
results following its IPO would in no way be analogous
to the financial statements provided in its
Registration Statement;
(5) that the failure of the Company to successfully
negotiate enforceable employment agreements with its
COO and other key executives would significantly affect
its ability to execute its stated operating strategies
due to the executives' critical importance to the
Company;
(6) that various accounting and payment issues, which
existed at the time of the IPO, would subsequently
prohibit the Company's auditors from completing its
audit of the Company's financial statements;
(7) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and
(8) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
Registration Statement was false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On November 6, 2007, the Company conducted its IPO. In
connection with its IPO, the Company filed a Registration
Statement with the SEC. The IPO was a financial success for the
Company and its selling shareholder, Brothers Capital Limited,
as they raised over $282 million by selling 17,150,000 of the
Company's securities to investors at a price of $16.50 per
share.
Then on April 7, 2008, after the close of the market, Agria
shocked investors when it announced that its auditors were
unable to begin their audit of the Company's financial
statements for 2007 due to various accounting and payment
issues. The Company warned that "given the substantial delay in
the commencement of the audit process, there is a risk that the
Company may not be able to file its Annual Report" on time, and
retracted its previously provided guidance for the fourth
quarter of 2007, and first quarter and full year of 2008. The
Company also announced that its COO had resigned.
Further, the Company disclosed for the first time that its Chief
Executive Officer was actively involved in protracted
compensation negotiations with the COO and other key executives.
These executives stood to receive $18 million in cash and
transfer of Company shares (which represented 22% of the
Company) so as to "provide incentive for their continuing
service and align their interests with those of the
shareholders."
As the Company noted, payment of cash and shares to the COO and
other executives "as compensation and incentive for their past
and continuing services in connection with the proposed
transaction will likely result in material compensation charges
to the Company in the period in which the payment is made."
Upon the release of this news, shares of the Company's
securities declined $3.34 per share, or almost 38 percent, to
close on April 8, 2008 at $5.46 per share, on unusually heavy
trading volume. This closing price on April 8, 2008,
represented a cumulative loss of $11.04, or 66.9 percent, of the
value of the Company's shares at the time of its IPO just months
prior.
The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.
Interested parties may move the court no later than June 10,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Darren J. Check, Esq.
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free)
1-610-667-7706
e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action suit with
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of The First Marblehead
Corporation during the period August 9, 2007, through April 8,
2008, inclusive.
The complaint charges First Marblehead and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of 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 recently enacted and impending legislation would
have a significant negative impact on the Company's
business and prospects; and
(2) that the Company's student loan guarantor, The
Education Resources Institute Inc., was under-
reserved and facing bankruptcy.
Interested parties may move the court no later than June 9,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Brian D. Brooks, Esq. (bbrooks@murrayfrank.com)
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
275 Madison Ave
New York, NY 10016-1101
Phone: 212-682-1818
Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com
FORCE PROTECTION: Johnson & Perkinson Announces SC Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Perkinson announced the commencement of a class action
lawsuit with the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina naming Force Protection, Inc., and certain
officers of the Company on behalf of investors who purchased
Force Protection common stock between August 14, 2006, and
February 29, 2008, inclusive.
The complaint alleges that prior to and during the Class Period,
defendants continually boasted that Force Protection's dominance
in the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles market was due
to its superior product design and rapid delivery rates.
In June 2007, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense
questioned both of these claims and criticized the awarding of
contracts to Force Protection on a sole source basis and without
competitive bidding. The report noted that there were other
U.S. companies that could have competed with Force Protections
on both product capability and faster delivery schedules. The
complaint further alleges the following true facts, which were
known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the class period:
(1) as a result of the Company's ongoing problems in
meeting contractual delivery deadlines, the Company
would have trouble competing in the MRAP market;
(2) in audit reports, the Defense Contract Audit Agency had
been critical of the Company's finances and financial
accounting system, which threatened the Company's
eligibility to compete for government contracts;
(3) the Company's accounting department suffered from
material weaknesses and deficiencies and lacked the
necessary staff and resources to perform its required
functions;
(4) contrary to the representations contained in the
Company's SEC filings, the Company's internal controls
were inadequate and easily manipulated, and, as a
result, multiple areas of the Company's internal
controls suffered serious deficiencies;
(5) the Company lacked effective internal controls in its
financial reporting process, required to enable it to
properly analyze and estimate Force Protection's
future financial and operational performance;
(6) defendants had caused the Company to falsely report at
least its third quarter 2007 financial results.
Interested parties may move the court no later than May 9, 2008,
for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
James F. Conway, III, Esq.
Eben F. Duval, 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
GLOBAL CASH: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP commenced a class action
lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of a class of all persons who
purchased or acquired shares of common stock of Global Cash
Access Holdings, Inc., pursuant or traceable to the Company's
initial public offering which commenced on September 22, 2005,
and who held such shares of GCA common stock until November 14,
2007.
The claims asserted arise under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, respectively 15 U.S.C. Sections 77k,
77l(a)(2) and 77o, and have been asserted against: GCA; current
and former directors Kirk Sanford, Karim Maskatiya, Robert
Cucinotta; controlling shareholders M&C International and Summit
Partners, L.P.; and underwriters Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc. and
JP Morgan Securities Inc.
The complaint alleges that:
(a) the Company's internal controls were deficient causing
its finance and accounting departments to be unable to
accurately calculate the amount of commissions payable
to the Company's customers;
(b) GCA had improperly computed the amount of commissions
it was required to pay many of its customers resulting
in the Company failing to comply with contractual
terms; and
(c) GCA's expenses (i.e. cost of revenues) during 2005 were
understated resulting in an overstatement of gross
profit margins and net income.
The subsequent disclosure of these facts resulted in the decline
of the Company's common stock price, causing the plaintiff and
the other members of the class to suffer damages.
Interested parties may move the court no later than June 10,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Philip T. Taylor, Esq.
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
New York, New York 10110
Phone: (212) 279-5050
Fax: (212) 279-3655
MONEYGRAM INTL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
commenced a class action with the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota, on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of MoneyGram International, Inc. between January 24,
2007, and January 14, 2008, inclusive.
The Complaint charges MoneyGram and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
MoneyGram is a global payment services company. The Company's
major products and services include global money transfers,
money orders and payment processing solutions for financial
institutions and retail customers.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's financial well-being, business relationships, and
prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose or
indicate the following:
(1) that the Company had inadequate reserves for its
investments in asset-backed securities;
(2) that the Company had understated its potential loses
from its exposure to asset-backed securities;
(3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and
(4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
statements about its financial well-being and future
business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis
when made.
On January 14, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it
announced that it was realigning its portfolio due to heavy
investment in asset-backed securities, and that in January 2008
it sold $1.3 billion of securities for a realized loss of $200
million. The Company also announced that it was involved in
negotiations concerning recapitalization of the Company, which
would "provide sufficient capital to support realignment of the
Company's portfolio away from the risk associated" with asset-
backed securities. This process would involve the liquidation
of a significant portion of the Company's investment portfolio,
and would cause the Company to experience losses that were
substantially higher than those reflected in the November 30,
2007 valuation.
The Company announced that as of November 30, 2007, it had
experienced total net unrealized losses of $860 million.
Finally, the Company announced that investors should not rely on
the previously given guidance for 2007 results. Upon the release
of this news, the Company's shares declined $6.02 per share, or
49.47 percent, to close on January 15, 2008 at $6.15 per share,
on unusually heavy trading volume.
On February 12, 2008, the Company announced that it gave final
approval to a bailout of cash and debt from the investors, and
that through February 11, 2008, the Company sold approximately
$1.8 billion of investment portfolio securities for a net
realized loss of approximately $380 million. Then, on Feb. 29,
2008, the Company announced that it was delaying filing of its
2007 Annual Report, and that it expected $1.2 billion in
impairments in the fourth quarter. On this news, shares of the
Company's shares declined further, closing on March 3, 2008, at
$3.26 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.
The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.
Interested parties may move the court no later than May 27,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Darren J. Check, Esq.
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free)
1-610-667-7706
e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com
NEUROMETRIX INC: Dyer & Berens Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Berens LLP announced that a proposed class-action lawsuit
on behalf of investors who purchased NeuroMetrix, Inc. common
stock between October 27, 2005, and March 6, 2007, was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.
In the Complaint, the plaintiff alleges that NeuroMetrix and
certain of its officers and directors issued materially false,
misleading, and incomplete statements concerning the Company's
NC-stat System.
The NC-stat System is a strap-on or hand-held device comprised
of disposable single-use biosensors which are placed on a
patient's skin to perform nerve conduction studies. It is a
diagnostic device typically used by general practitioner
physicians to test patients for problems such as carpal tunnel
syndrome and back pain without the need for an exam from a
specialty doctor, like a neurologist.
As a consequence of the non-disclosures and materially false and
misleading statements, the plaintiff alleges that investors in
NeuroMetrix's common stock have sustained substantial losses.
Interested parties may move the court no later than May 16,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com)
Dyer & Berens LLP
682 Grant Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (888) 300-3362 or (303) 861-1764
Fax: (303) 395-0393
OPPENHER HOLDINGS: Stull & Brody Files NY Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action
lawsuit on April 11, 2008, with the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased and acquired auction rate securities
from Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. and certain of its affiliates
between April 9, 2003 and February 13, 2008, inclusive, and
continued to hold such auction rate securities through
February 13, 2008.
The class action is brought against Oppenheimer Holdings Inc.,
Oppenheimer & Co. Inc, Oppenheimer Asset Management and Freedom
Investments Inc., in connection with the sale of auction rate
securities, auction rate preferred stock, auction market
preferred stock, variable rate preferred securities, money
market preferred securities, periodic auction rate securities
and auction rate bonds.
The Complaint alleges that Oppenheimer violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by deceiving
investors about the investment characteristics of Auction Rate
Securities and the auction market in which these securities
traded.
The Complaint alleges that Oppenheimer offered and sold Auction
Rate Securities to the public as highly liquid cash-management
vehicles and as suitable alternatives to money market mutual
funds.
According to the Complaint, holders of Auction Rate Securities
sold by Oppenheimer and other broker-dealers have been unable to
liquidate their positions in these securities following the
decision on February 13, 2008 of all major broker-dealers
including Oppenheimer to "withdraw their support" for the
periodic auctions at which the interest rates paid on Auction
Rate Securities are set.
The Complaint alleges that Oppenheimer failed to disclose the
following material facts about the Auction Rate Securities it
sold to investors:
(1) the Auction Rate Securities were not cash alternatives,
like money market funds, but were, instead, complex
long-term financial instruments with 30 year maturity
dates, or longer;
(2) the Auction Rate Securities were only liquid at the
time of sale because Oppenheimer and other broker-
dealers were artificially supporting and manipulating
the auction rate market to maintain the appearance of
liquidity and stability;
(3) Oppenheimer and other broker-dealers routinely
intervened in auctions for their own benefit, to set
rates and prevent all-hold auctions and failed
auctions; and
(4) Oppenheimer continued to market Auction Rate Securities
as liquid investments after it had determined that it
and other broker-dealers were likely to withdraw their
support for the periodic auctions and that a "freeze"
of the market for Auction Rate Securities would result.
For more information, contact:
Tzivia Brody, Esq.
Stull, Stull & Brody
6 East 45th Street
New York, NY 10017
Toll-free: 1-800-337-4983
Fax: 1-212-490-2022
e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
Web site: http://www.ssbny.com
SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action with the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of the
Schwab YieldPlus Fund Investor Shares and the Schwab YieldPlus
Fund Select Shares during the period March 17, 2005, through
March 17, 2008, inclusive.
The Complaint charges The Charles Schwab Corporation and certain
of its related subsidiaries, among others, with violations of
the Securities Act of 1933.
The Charles Schwab Corporation provides a variety of financial
services to individual investors, independent investment
managers, retirement plans and institutions.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that, in connection
with the Funds' Registration Statement, defendants failed to
disclose or indicate the following:
(1) that the Funds' assets were or would be overly-
concentrated in the highly risky mortgage industry and
that such securities were or would be highly vulnerable
to illiquidity;
(2) that there existed no primary market for the majority
of the bonds;
(3) that the duration for a majority of the Funds is over
two years;
(4) that the values of the Funds' shares were inflated and
highly speculative given their composition;
(5) that there were not adequate internal controls; and
(6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Funds'
Registration Statements were false and misleading at
all relevant times.
The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.
Interested parties may move the court no later than May 19,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Darren J. Check, Esq.
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free)
1-610-667-7706
e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com
*********
A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.
*********
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 * * *