/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080501.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 1, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 86 Headlines ACCREDITED HOME: Agrees to Class Certification in "Viera" Case ACCREDITED HOME: May 5 Hearing Set for Dismissal Bid in "Taylor" ACCREDITED HOME: Still Faces NAACP Litigation Over Prime Loans ACCREDITED HOME: Continues to Face Calif. Securities Fraud Suit ACCREDITED HOME: Faces Ala. Litigation Alleging TILA Violations ACCREDITED HOME: Served with Suit by Former Aames Loan Officer ACCREDITED HOME: Md. Court Considers Motions in "Cabrejas" Case ACCREDITED HOME: Still Faces Home Equity Loans Lawsuit in Texas ACCREDITED HOME: Calif. Court Mulls Approval of FCRA Settlement ACCREDITED HOME: Illinois Suit Settlement Hearing is on June 6 ARIZONA: Judge Orders Aravaipa Gate to Remain Unlocked AU QUARANTINE & INSPECTION: Horse Owners to Launch E.I. Lawsuit BRENTS-RIORDAN: Hoodies Recalled Due to Strangulation Hazard CABOT STAINS: Recalls Deck Cleaner for Inhalation and Fire Risk CADENCE DESIGN: Settles Tech Workers' Overtime Lawsuit in Calif. CALIFORNIA: Moor Field Opens as Part of Title IX Case Settlement DAVIDSON COS: Negligence Lawsuit Withdrawn DE BEERS: May 19 Claims Deadline Set for $259M Suit Settlement FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: N.Y. Court Mulls Motions in Securities Suit FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS: Recording Artists Sue Over Work Dues FUNERAL HOMES Anapol Schwartz Files Donor Family Class Lawsuit GECKO ALLIANCE: Recalls Electronic Spa Controls Due to Fire Risk GEORGIA: Dougherty County Tax Lawsuit Sent to Appeals Court HED ARTZI: Israel Consumer Council Seeks to Join Kiddie Ads Suit J.P. MORGAN: Faces Securities Litigation in New York State Court KILGORE CO: Carpal Tunnel Exams Spur Lawsuit in Tennessee Court LOUISIANA: Parish President Still Faces Lawsuits Over Katrina MASTER LOCK: Recalls Leash Locks for Lead Paint Standard Breach MATTEL INC: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Product Liability Suit MF GLOBAL: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set for May 6 NEW CENTURY: Faces Multiple Securities Litigation in California QUALCOMM INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over State Antitrust Law Breach RETAIL VENTURES: Still Faces Suit Over Credit Card Data Thefts ROHM & HAAS: Faces Air & Groundwater Contamination Suit in Pa. ROHM & HAAS: Supreme Court Denies Petition in Pension Plan Case TYSON FOODS: Faces Suit in Arkansas Over "Drug-Free" Chickens WARNER CHILCOTT: Settles Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in N.Y. New Securities Fraud Cases LEHMAN BROTHERS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit ********* ACCREDITED HOME: Agrees to Class Certification in "Viera" Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., stipulated to the certification of a class in the purported class action suit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas against the company, alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. In August 2007, AHL was served with a class action complaint, "Viera et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding, Inc.," brought with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint alleges that AHL violated the WARN Act by failing to provide 60 days' notice to the plaintiffs who were terminated through no fault of their own as part of or as the reasonable consequence of a mass layoff and plant closing effectuated by AHL on Aug. 10 and 22, 2007. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated former employees, the alleged wages for the work days in the 60 calendar days prior to their respective terminations along with benefits, interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit. AHL has stipulated to a certification of the class in the absence of viable grounds for opposing certification, according to Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AHL1's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Viera et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-00719-SS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Judge Sam Sparks presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Hubert Bell, Jr., Esq. (bellhjr@aol.com) Law Office of Hubert Bell, Jr. 1907 N. Lamar Blvd., Suite 300 Austin, TX 78705 Phone: (512) 469-9006 Fax: 512/469-9008 J. Cecil Gardner, Esq. The Gardner Firm 1119 Government Street, Post Office Drawer 3103 Mobile, AL 36652 Phone: (251) 433-8100 Fax: (251) 433-8181 - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. Lankenau & Miller, LLP 132 Nassau Street, Suite 423 New York, NY 10038 Phone: (212) 581-5005 Fax: (212) 581-2122 Representing the defendant is: Fazila Issa, Esq. (fissa@littler.com) Littler & Mendelson, P.C. 1301 McKinney Street, Suite 1900 Houston, TX 77010 Phone: (713) 652-4707 ACCREDITED HOME: May 5 Hearing Set for Dismissal Bid in "Taylor" ---------------------------------------------------------------- A May 5, 2008 hearing is set for a purported class action suit pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. and Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., alleging violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Fair Housing Act. In August 2007, AHLHC and AHL were served with a class action complaint, "Taylor v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding, Co. and Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.," brought with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleges that AHLHC and AHL violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Fair Housing Act by charging, through the use of a discretionary pricing policy, a higher Annual Percentage Rate to African-American borrowers than the APR charged to similarly situated Caucasian borrowers. The plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated African-American borrowers, compensatory and punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and recovery of attorneys' fees and costs of suit. On Nov. 5, 2007, AHLHC and AHL filed a motion to dismiss the suit, a hearing on which is set for May 5, 2008, according to Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AHL1's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Taylor v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-01732-JAH-JMA," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge John A. Houston, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Lori Erin Andrus, Esq. (lori@libertylaw.com) Andrus Liberty and Anderson 1438 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 956-1000 Fax: (415) 956-1008 ACCREDITED HOME: Still Faces NAACP Litigation Over Prime Loans -------------------------------------------------------------- Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. continues to face a purported class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned, "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company, et al." The suit was filed in July 2007 on behalf of itself and its African-American members, alleging that the company and 12 other lenders violated the Fair Housing Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and Civil Rights Act by steering African-American applicants who would otherwise qualify for prime loans into non- prime loans and charging African-American borrowers higher interest rates and fees than similarly situated Caucasians. The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, declaratory and injunctive relief and recovery of attorneys' fees and costs of suit. The company's response to the complaint was due April 14, 2008. A motion to certify a class has not yet been filed. Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AHL1 reported no further development in the matter in its March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company et al., Case No. 8:07-cv- 00794-AG-AN," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Andrew J. Guilford, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Angela Ciccolo, Esq. NAACP 4805 Mt. Hope Dr. Baltimore, MD 21215 Phone: 410-580-5792 Vic Feazell, Esq. Feazell & Tighe LLP 6300 Bridgepoint Parkway,Suite 220 Austin, TX 78730 Phone: 512-372-8100 - and - Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. (bsk@kbklawyers.com) Kabateck Brown Kellner 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-217-5000 ACCREDITED HOME: Continues to Face Calif. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Accredited Mortgage Loan REIT Trust and certain directors of Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. continue to face a consolidated securities fraud class action suit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. In March 2007, AHLHC was served with a class action, "Atlas v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et al.," brought with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws by AHLHC and certain members of senior management. AHLHC is aware that five similar securities class action lawsuits were also filed with the same court. They are: 1. "Joory v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et al.," 2. "Pourshafie v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et al.," 3. "Theda v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et al.," 4. "City of Brockton Retirement System v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co.," and 5. "Kornfeld v. James A. Konrath, et al." Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, these cases have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff has been selected. The consolidated, amended complaint was filed on Aug. 24, 2007, and added as defendants the Accredited Mortgage Loan REIT Trust and certain directors of AHLHC. On Jan. 4, 2008, the Court denied AHLHC's motion to dismiss and granted the REIT's motion to dismiss with leave to file an amended complaint by Feb. 4, 2008. The plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint. AHLHC's answer to the complaint was due March 14, 2008, according to Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AHL1's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Atlas et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00488-H-RBB," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge Marilyn L. Huff, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: David C. Walton, Esq. (davew@lerachlaw.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-3301 Phone: 619-231-1058 Fax: 619-231-7423 Representing the defendants are: Andrea M. Kimball, Esq. (akimball@luce.com) Luce Forward Hamilton and Scripps 600 West Broadway, Suite 2600 San Diego, CA 92101-3372 Phone: (619) 236-1414 Fax: (619) 645-5323 - and - Joshua G. Hamilton, Esq. (joshuahamilton@paulhastings.com) Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker 515 South Flower Street, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2371 Phone: (213) 683-6000 Fax: (213) 927-5896 ACCREDITED HOME: Faces Ala. Litigation Alleging TILA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Accredited Home Lenders Holding, Co., is facing several securities fraud class action suits with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, alleging violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act. The suit, "Edwards v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., et al.," was served on the company on March 2007. It claims that the company violated TILA by allegedly failing to disclose title insurance charges and recording fees as part of finance charges. Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AHL1 reported no development in the matter in its March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Edwards et al v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00160-KD-C," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Judge Kristi K. DuBose presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Earl P. Underwood, Esq. (epunderwood@alalaw.com) P.O. Box 969 Fairhope, AL 36533-0969 Phone: 251-990-5558 Fax: 251-990-0626 Representing the company is: Jeffery J. Hartley, Esq. (jjh@helmsinglaw.com) Helmsing, Leach, Herlong, P.O. Box 2767 Mobile, AL 36652 Phone: 251-432-5521 ACCREDITED HOME: Served with Suit by Former Aames Loan Officer -------------------------------------------------------------- Accredited Home Lenders Holding, Co., disclosed that in February 2007, it was served with a class-action complaint, "Sierra v. Aames Home Loan," which was filed by a former Aames Funding Corp. loan officer with the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, California in December 2006. As a result of its merger with Aames Investment Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries, the company succeeded to the litigation interests of AIC and its subsidiaries, including the interest under this matter of Aames Home Loan, a trade name of Aames Funding Corp., a subsidiary of AIC. The named plaintiff is a former commissioned loan officer of AFC, and the complaint alleges that AFC violated state law by requiring the plaintiff to work overtime without compensation. The plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees, the allegedly unpaid overtime, general damages, multiple statutory penalties and interest, attorneys fees and costs of suit. A motion to certify a class has not yet been filed. There has been no ruling on the merits of either the plaintiff's individual claims or the claims of the putative class. Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AHL1 reported no development in the matter in its March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. -- http://www.accredhome.com -- is a mortgage company operating throughout the U.S. and in Canada. The Company originates, finances, securitizes, services, and sells non-prime mortgage loans secured by residential real estate. ACCREDITED HOME: Md. Court Considers Motions in "Cabrejas" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has yet to rule on each parties' respective motions for summary judgment in the matter, "Cabrejas v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc." The suit, originally filed with the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland, was served against the company in March 2006. The complaint alleges that Accredited's origination of second lien loans in Maryland violated the SMLL and Consumer Protection Act in that fees charged on such loans exceeded 10% of the respective loan amounts. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals, damages, disgorgement of fees, pre-judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and any other relief the court may grant. On April 13, 2006, Accredited removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. On May 15, 2006, Accredited filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second cause of action alleging a violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act on the basis that full disclosure of the fees cannot be an unfair or deceptive trade practice, which motion was granted on Dec. 4, 2006. On Jan. 3, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, alleging that the company's origination in Maryland of second lien loans with balloon payments was also a violation of the SMLL. On July 5, 2007, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss this new claim on the basis that the SMLLs prohibition of balloon payments was and is preempted by the federal Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act. On Oct. 17, 2007, AHL filed a motion for summary judgment. On Nov. 11, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. On Feb. 29, 2008, the court heard argument on the parties' respective motions for summary judgment, but has not yet issued any rulings, according to Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007- AHL1's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Cabrejas et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., Case No. 8:06-cv-00975-AW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Judge Alexander Williams, Jr., presiding. Representing the defendant are: Kirk D. Jensen, Esq. (kjensen@buckleykolar.com) Buckley Kolar LLP 1250 24th St. NW, Ste. 700 Washington, DC 20037 Phone: 1-202-349-8000 Fax: 1-202-349-8080 - and - Brian L. Moffet, Esq. (bmoffet@gfrlaw.com) Gordon Feinblatt Rothman Hoffberger and Hollander LLC 233 E Redwood St. Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: 1-410-576-4000 Fax: 1-410-576-4246 Representing the plaintiff is: John A. Pica, Jr., Esq. (johnpica28@hotmail.com) Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos PC 100 N Charles St., 20th Fl. Baltimore, MD 21201 Phone: 1-410-649-2000 Fax: 1-410-649-2150 ACCREDITED HOME: Still Faces Home Equity Loans Lawsuit in Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. continues to face a purported class action suit over adjustable-rate home equity loans in Texas. In October 2006, as a result of the merger with Aames Investment Corp., the company succeeded to the position of Aames Funding Corp. in the class action complaint, "Miller v. Aames Funding Corp.," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges that adjustable-rate home equity loans originated by AFC in Texas violate the Texas Constitutions requirement that such loans be scheduled to be repaid in substantially equal installments. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals, damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys fees, and any other relief the court may grant. On Sept. 29, 2006, the court on its own motion stayed the action, pending the resolution of class certification issues in a similar action pending before the court. Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AHL1 reported no development in the matter in its March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Miller et al. v. Aames Funding Corp. et al., Case No. 9:05-cv-00183-TH-KFG," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Thad Heartfield presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Carl A. Parker, Esq. (cparker714@aol.com) The Parker Law Firm One Plaza Square Port Arthur, TX 77642-5513 Phone: 409-985-8814 Fax: 1-409-985-2833 Representing the company is: Lindsay Lee Lambert, Esq. (llambert@hwallp.com) Hughes Watters & Askanase Three Allen Center, 333 Clay, 29th Floor Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-759-0818 Fax: 713-759-6834 ACCREDITED HOME: Calif. Court Mulls Approval of FCRA Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has yet to give final approval to the tentative settlement reached in the purported class action, "Phillips v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co., et al." The complaint, which was filed in September 2005, alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act in connection with pre-screened offers of credit that Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. made. The plaintiff sought to recover, on behalf of her and similarly situated individuals, damages, pre-judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and any other relief the court may grant. On Jan. 4, 2006, the plaintiff re-filed the action in response to the court's Dec. 9, 2005, decision granting motion to: -- dismiss with prejudice plaintiff's claim that the offer of credit failed to include the clear and conspicuous disclosures required by FCRA, -- strike plaintiff's request for declaratory and injunctive relief, and -- sever plaintiff's claims as to the Company from those made against other defendants unaffiliated with the Company. The plaintiff's remaining claim asserts that the company's offer of credit did not meet FCRA's firm offer requirement. On May 15, 2007, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to certify two subclasses, the first consisting of 58,750 recipients of the initial mailer received by the named plaintiff, and a second consisting of 70,585 recipients of the second mailer received by the named plaintiff. On May 24, 2007, the company filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking an immediate appeal from the Order granting class certification and a stay of the action in the District Court pending the outcome of that appeal. On Sept. 14, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the Petition filed by AHL and AHLHC. This matter has been settled, subject to a fairness hearing, for an amount immaterial to the Company's financial condition and results of operations, according to Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AHL1's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Pamela Phillips, et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Company, et al., Case No. 8:05-cv-00851-CJC-RNB," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Cormac J. Carney presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Kevin K. Eng, Esq. (keng@mzclaw.com) Edward S. Zusman, Esq. (ezusman@mzclaw.com) David S. Markun, Esq. (dmarkun@mzclaw.com) Markun Zusman & Compton Phone: 415-438-4515 310-454-5900 Representing the defendants are: Patricia L. McClaran, Esq. (plm@severson.com) Michael J. Steiner, Esq. (mjs@severson.com) Severson & Werson 1 Embarcadero Ctr., Ste. 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-398-3344 ACCREDITED HOME: Illinois Suit Settlement Hearing is on June 6 -------------------------------------------------------------- A June 6, 2008 final approval hearing was scheduled for the proposed settlement in a class action suit against Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., over allegations of consumer fraud related to the amount of fees it pays to third parties in connection with residential mortgage loans. In December 2002, the company was served with a complaint and a motion for class certification in the class action, "Wratchford et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc." The suit was brought in Madison County, Illinois, under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the consumer protection statutes of the other states in which the company do business and the common law of unjust enrichment. The complaint alleges that the company has a practice of misrepresenting and inflating the amount of fees the company pay to third parties in connection with the residential mortgage loans that the company funds. The plaintiffs claim to represent a nationwide class consisting of others similarly situated, that is, those who paid the company to pay, or reimburse our payments of, third-party fees in connection with residential mortgage loans, and never received a refund for the difference between what they paid and what was actually paid to the third party. The plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages on behalf of themselves and the class, in addition to pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and any other relief the court may grant. On Jan. 28, 2005, the court issued an order conditionally certifying: -- a class of Illinois residents with respect to the alleged violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act who, since Nov. 19, 1997, paid money to the company for third-party fees in connection with residential mortgage loans and never received a refund of the difference between the amount they paid to the company and the amount it paid to the third party; and -- a nationwide class of claimants with respect to an unjust enrichment cause of action included in the original complaint who, since Nov. 19, 1997, paid money to the company for third-party fees in connection with residential mortgage loans and never received a refund of the difference between the amount they paid the company and the amount it paid the third party. On Feb. 29, 2008, the court approved the parties' settlement agreement on a preliminary basis. The court also scheduled a final approval hearing for June 6, 2008, according to Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AHL1's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. -- http://www.accredhome.com -- is a mortgage company operating throughout the U.S. and in Canada. The Company originates, finances, securitizes, services, and sells non-prime mortgage loans secured by residential real estate. ARIZONA: Judge Orders Aravaipa Gate to Remain Unlocked ------------------------------------------------------ Greenlee County Superior Court Judge Monica L. Stauffer entered an order on April 7, 2008, stipulating that a gate erected by Norma Tapia remain unlocked in perpetuity, Eastern Arizona Courier reports. The report recounts that Ms. Tapia erected the gate in February 2005, blocking the public's access to the Aravaipa Wilderness Area. She said that she did so as a protest against the Graham County Sheriff's Office's handling of an alleged sexual assault on her son. Ms. Tapia told the Courier in 2005 that she felt the Sheriff's Office ignored her pleas and the evidence proving that the boy who molested her son is still at large in the Klondyke area and that he is still assaulting other boys. She said she used the only leverage she felt she had to call attention to her son's case -- she put a padlock on her gate. The Courier relates that since then, Ms. Tapia has found other reasons to guard the canyon and the thousands of acres of Bureau of Land Management land to which the public no longer has access. The most pressing reason is to preserve the beauty of the area, she said. "The BLM is not monitoring the area or taking care of it," she said, "so I am." The locked gate brought forth a class action lawsuit by surrounding landowners and the non-profit corporation Arizona Desert Big Horn Sheep Society Inc. to open the gate for public access, the Courier recalls. Judge Stauffer previously granted a preliminary injunction order on Dec. 17, 2007, that directed the gate to be unlocked. During the period of the injunction, Judge Stauffer said Ms. Tapia engaged in conduct in violation of her order and was found in contempt of court. If Ms. Tapia does not follow the court's permanent injunction, Judge Stauffer said contempt of court proceedings would include the prior violations of the court's order. In her recent ruling on the lawsuit, Judge Stauffer said the Aravaipa Canyon Road was initially constructed by the federal government in the 1800s and has been maintained by Graham County since the county was created in 1881. She said having the Aravaipa Canyon Road closed deters visitors to the area, creating a negative economic impact on the residents of the area, Graham County and the state of Arizona. Judge Stauffer also said the public freely and continuously used Aravaipa Canyon Road to cross the property where Ms. Tapia installed a locked gate and placed "No Trespassing" signs. She ruled that, based on those facts and others, a prescriptive easement is determined to exist across the property. Judge Stauffer issued a permanent injunction restraining and preventing Ms. Tapia or anyone else with interest in the property from blocking or otherwise interfering with the public's use or passage upon Aravaipa Canyon Road where it traverses the property in question. Ms. Tapia, and any successor-in-interest, will be allowed to put an unlocked gate across the road with a sign saying "Please shut gate," but Judge Stauffer ruled that there will be no other markings, obstructions or anything else that might suggest the road is privately held or that passage is restricted in any fashion. The gate must not contain any locks, cables, ropes or any other impediments that could possibly create the impression that the gate is not easily opened. Judge Stauffer also ruled that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorney and litigation fees in the amount of $10,000 and awarded their court costs of $698.64. AU QUARANTINE & INSPECTION: Horse Owners to Launch E.I. Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Class Action Reporter reported on April 30, 2008, that the final report into how horse flu entered Australia was handed to Federal Agriculture Minister Tony Burke on April 24. However, the CAR report cited ABC Online as saying, even before the report is tabled in parliament, a class action against government agencies looks likely. In an update, The Age relates that Queensland law firm Atwood Marshall is preparing to launch a multi-million dollar class action suit against the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service over the horse flu outbreak. According to The Age, more than 300 horse owners have already registered their interest in joining the class action. Lawyer Jeff Garrett said that the action could not be launched until the findings of an independent inquiry into last year's equine influenza outbreak are tabled in federal parliament. However, after hearing evidence presented to the inquiry that problems at Sydney's Eastern Creek Quarantine Station were to blame for the outbreak, he expected the AQIS to be the subject of any action. "If the findings come out as we expect, I am sure that not long after that we are probably going to have a number of court actions which will proceed," Mr. Garrett told The Age. "If you look at the submissions of counsel assisting the inquiry, if they are accepted or even 50 per cent of them are accepted, it's hard to imagine that AQIS are not going to be in the firing line." The Age says that the total damages claim is yet to be determined, but Mr. Garrett estimated it could total tens of millions of U.S. dollars. The outbreak crippled the thoroughbred industry in Queensland and NSW and resulted in losses estimated at more than AU$1 billion, the report points out. Mr. Garrett said he expected thousands more horse owners to join the action once the findings were made public. He added that the outbreak had a "huge" impact on many of his clients. "There's been people who have been completely devastated by it -- right across the board there's just been complete devastation and widespread losses," Mr. Garrett said. BRENTS-RIORDAN: Hoodies Recalled Due to Strangulation Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ Brents-Riordan Inc. LLC, of Shreveport, La., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 7,400 Hooded Youth Sweatshirts and Jackets. The company said the garments have a drawstring through the hood, which can pose a strangulation hazard to children. In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist by drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves the Youth Hooded Sweatshirt (item # 11037Y- 39) and the Youth Insulated Bomber with Hood (item # 1113Y-39). The item number is found in a label located underneath the care label. The sweatshirts have a camouflage design and "Photoflauge" is printed on them. These recalled Hooded Youth Sweatshirts and Jackets were manufactured in China and were being sold at various retail stores nationwide from July 2007 through December 2007 for between $20 and $30. Pictures of the recalled Hooded Youth Sweatshirts and Jackets are found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08238a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08238b.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately remove the drawstrings to eliminate the hazard or return the sweatshirts to either the place of purchase or Brents-Riordan for a full refund. For additional information, contact the company toll-free at (866) 835-6357 between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.brentsinc.com/ CABOT STAINS: Recalls Deck Cleaner for Inhalation and Fire Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- Cabot Stains (a division of Valspar Corp.), of Newburyport, Mass., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 24,000 Cabot Composite Deck Cleaner. The company said one of the components of the composite cleaner can react with metal foil residue on the packaging, releasing heat and chlorine gas. This poses a fire and inhalation hazard to consumers. Cabot has received one report of the composite cleaner's plastic container partially melting and emitting a chlorine odor. No injuries were reported. This recall involves the Cabot Composite Deck Cleaner #3502. The deck cleaner is a granular concentrate that, when mixed with water, is used to clean composite surfaces such as decks, railings, steps, fences and siding. It was sold in a 2-pound plastic container. The label on the container reads: "Cabot Composite Cleaner" and has number 3502 at the bottom of the front of the label. A picture of the recalled Cabot Composite Deck Cleaner is found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08237.jpg These recalled Cabot Composite Deck Cleaner is manufactured in the United States and were being sold at home improvement centers and hardware stores nationwide from February 2007 through February 2008 for about $20. Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the product and return it to the store of purchase for a full refund. If the container looks deformed or if it feels hot to the touch, immediately call Cabot anytime to arrange for the safe handling of the product. For additional information, contact Cabot at (877) 755-3336, or visit the company's Web site at: http://www.cabotstain.com/recall CADENCE DESIGN: Settles Tech Workers' Overtime Lawsuit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cadence Design Systems, Inc., reached a settlement for the purported nationwide class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that accuses the company of failing to pay overtime wages in violation of federal and state labor laws, according to the company's April 25, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2008. On May 30, 2007, Ahmed Higazi, a former Cadence employee, filed a lawsuit against Cadence with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Cadence improperly classified him as exempt from overtime pay. The suit was filed by attorneys from Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Altshuler Berzon LLP on behalf of current and former Cadence Systems Engineers (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 7, 2007). Mr. Higazi, a 45-year-old Pleasanton resident, was a technical support worker for Cadence in its San Jose headquarters for five years. He was responsible for installing, maintaining, and supporting computer software and hardware for the company. The complaint charges that Cadence unlawfully characterizes its employees who install, maintain, and support computer software and hardware as exempt from certain federal and California labor law compensation requirements in order to deprive them of overtime pay. The proposed class consists of current and former Cadence Systems Engineers, who were wrongly classified by the company as exempt from the overtime provisions of wage and hour laws. The suit alleges claims for unpaid overtime under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and California law, waiting time penalties under the California Labor Code, failure to provide proper earnings statements under California law, failure to provide meal and rest breaks as required by California law, unfair business practices under California Business & Professions Code section 17200, and unpaid 401(k) contributions in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA. Cadence filed an Answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and raising a number of affirmative defenses. The lawsuit is asking the federal court to issue an injunction requiring Cadence to provide overtime pay to eligible employees as well as compensation and damages to all current and former employees who were denied overtime both in California and elsewhere. On June 20, 2007, the company answered the plaintiff's complaint, denying its material allegations and raising a number of affirmative defenses, and on Dec. 19, 2007, the company filed an amended answer. A period of discovery conducted by both sides then ensued, followed, in January 2008, by a private mediation of the case. At the mediation, the parties were successful in resolving their respective differences, and have entered into a settlement agreement without contesting the merits of the claims or admitting liability. The parties are in the process of obtaining court approval of the settlement, which is not expected to occur before the third quarter of 2008. The suit is "Higazi v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Case No. 5:07-cv-02813-JW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge James Ware presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Kelly M. Dermody, Esq. (kdermody@lchb.com) Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Phone: 1-800-541-7358 415-956-1000 Fax: 415-956-1008 Web site: http://www.lieffcabraser.com - and - Eve Hedy Cervantez, Esq. (ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com) Altshuler Berzon LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 421-7151 Fax: 415-362-8064 Representing the defendants is: Molly A. Harcos, Esq. (mollyharcos@paulhastings.com) Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP 55 Second Street, Twenty-Fourth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-3441 Phone: (415) 856-7043 Fax: (415) 856-7100 CALIFORNIA: Moor Field Opens as Part of Title IX Case Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in a landmark class action lawsuit celebrated their victory at the official opening of Moor Field, site of the new softball facilities at Alhambra High School. They joined the high school's girls' varsity softball team on one of the two new fields built as part of the settlement of the case, which enforced Title IX, the 1972 law mandating equality in athletic opportunities, facilities, and coaching for both male and female students. While there are rampant Title IX violations at the elementary and high school level, few are ever reported or corrected. The young women, who battled the separate but unequal facilities for girls in their school district for years, see the case's successful settlement as their legacy to future student-athletes at Moor Field. "These new softball diamonds are more than just places for girls to play ball," said Lauren Cruz, plaintiff in the case and former member of the Alhambra High School girls' softball team. "They are symbols of the school's commitment to treating girls fairly and giving us the same respect that the boys have gotten all along. It is our right to play, and it feels good to have our rights recognized. This is something that's been a long time coming and I am very happy with the outcome of the fields. The girls' softball program is expanding and with these wonderful changes come better opportunities for succeeding generations to play ball." The girls were joined by their counsel, Vicky Barker of the California Women's Law Center (CWLC), and Patricia Shiu, Claudia Center, and Elizabeth Kristen of the Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center (LAS-ELC). The CWLC and the LAS-ELC brought the groundbreaking lawsuit on behalf of the Alhambra High girls for injunctive relief under Title IX and other federal and state anti-discrimination statutes. Title IX bars sex discrimination in education, including athletic programs, and the lawsuit demanded that the school and city officials increase sports opportunities offered to girls in the district. It required that new teams be added and that the disparity in athletic benefits be rectified by providing females with facilities, equipment, practice, and competition times equal to their male classmates. After two years of litigation, the city and school district settled the lawsuit. The two new softball fields for female athletes at Alhambra High School have amenities comparable to the current boys' baseball fields. In addition, the girls received a new team room and exclusive access to a locker room that was previously reserved for boys. They also enjoy equal access to all shared facilities, including weight rooms and the gym. "Title IX changes girls' lives for the better," said Elizabeth Kristen, LAS-ELC Staff Attorney. "The key is to make sure girls are allowed to benefit from the discipline and fun of sports throughout all of their years in school. The problem is that violations of Title IX have become so routine as to be considered tradition at the pre-collegiate level. That has to change." "These girls are very brave," said CWLC's Legal Director, Vicky Barker. "Title IX has been law for over 35 years, yet the animosity and challenges that girls face at the hands of administrators, who cherish a status quo that gives deference to sports like football, is robbing girls of their rights. The benefits of sports participation in the lives of young women are tremendous. When girls are denied the chance to play, their opportunity for future success in the classroom, at the university, at the office, and in life are greatly diminished." In 1972, Title IX mandated that all public and private educational institutions receiving federal funds could no longer practice sex discrimination against their students and employees. The law benefits both males and females in their athletic and scholarly endeavors and is crucial to efforts to create gender equity in schools. The benefits of participation in sports for young girls extend beyond fitness and competition. Girls who play sports earn better grades and demonstrate higher self-esteem than those who do not. They are also more likely to graduate from high school and attend college. Female athletes are less likely to smoke, abuse drugs, or become pregnant during their teenage years. Skills gained from sports participation, including teamwork, leadership, and discipline, are crucial as women progress in the corporate world at higher levels than ever before. Eighty- percent of female managers of Fortune 500 companies have played organized sports on some level. The Legal Aid Society of San Francisco - Employment Law Center and California Women's Law Center are innovators in pursuing Title IX violations at the high school level. For more information, contact: Contessa Kellogg Mankiewicz (contessa.mankiewicz@cwlc.org) CWLC Phone: 310-27-6627 323-951-9847 Web site: http://www.cwlc.org/ - and - Elizabeth Kristen (ekristen@las-elc.org) LAS-ELC Phone: 415-505-5290 415-864-8848 x. 271 Web site: http://www.las-elc.org DAVIDSON COS: Negligence Lawsuit Withdrawn ------------------------------------------ A federal lawsuit against D.A. Davidson charging negligence in the loss of client information has been withdrawn, Tribune Business Editor notes. James Goetz, Esq., an attorney for the Davidson Cos., said he learned of the withdrawal while attempting to file a response to the lawsuit. Mr. Goetz said, however, that the lawsuit could be filed again at any time. Tribune Business recounts that in March 2008, the Billings law firm filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Davidson Cos., claiming that the company's negligence resulted in a data security breach. The investment company had announced in late January this year that a hacker broke into a database and obtained the names and Social Security numbers of about 226,000 Davidson clients. The class-action lawsuit alleged "the Davidson Companies failed to comply with the industry standards designed to protect such confidential personal and financial information from theft," and that the company did not provide "adequate safeguards in its storage and handling of its clients' confidential personal and financial information." According to Tribune Business, John Heenan, Esq., of Billings, did not immediately return phone calls. The suit named two lead plaintiffs -- Lowell Dennis Schafer of Bozeman, a current Davidson client; and Terri Ann Oppenheimer- Schafer of San Antonio, Texas, a past client. Mr. Schafer, the report says, declined to comment on the matter. Mr. Goetz said he is aware of no incidents of identity theft as a result of the security breach, and he said the company has vigorously kept its clients informed of developments. DE BEERS: May 19 Claims Deadline Set for $259M Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The Jewelers Vigilance Committee, which continues to provide guidance for resellers who submit claims to the De Beers class action settlement fund, said deadline to submit a claim is on May 19, 2008, the JCK-Jewelers Circular Keystone reports. Case Background In 2001, lawsuits were filed in state and federal courts against De Beers and entities associated with De Beers. The other defendants are: -- De Beers S.A., -- DB Investments, Inc., -- De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd., -- De Beers A.G., Diamond Trading Company, Ltd., -- CSO Valuations A.G., -- Central Selling Organization, Central Holdings, Ltd., and -- De Beers Centenary A.G. Defendants are the largest supplier of rough diamonds in the world. The lawsuits claim that the defendants unlawfully monopolized the supply of Rough Gem Diamonds, sponsored false and misleading advertising and unlawfully raised the prices of Gem Diamonds higher than they should have been, all of which violated certain federal and state antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition laws. The following are the lawsuits being settled by the proposed settlement: -- "Sullivan, et al. v. DB Investments, Inc., et al., USDC, D.N.J. Civil Action Index No. 04-02819 (SRC);" -- "Hopkins v. De Beers Centenary A.G., et al., San Francisco County, Ca. No. CGC-04-432954;" -- "Cornwell v. DB Investments, Inc., et al., Maricopa Co., Az. No. CV2005-2968;" -- "Null, et al. v. DB Investments, Inc., et al., D.N.J. Civil Action Index No. 05-04849 (SRC);" -- "Leider, et al. v. Ralfe, et al., D.N.J. Civil Action Index No. 06-00908 (SRC);" -- "Anco Industrial Diamond Corp. v. DB Investments, Inc., et al., D.N.J. Civil Action Index No. 01-04463 (SRC);" and -- "British Diamond Import Company v. Central Holdings Ltd., et al., USDC, D.N.J. Civil Action Index No. 04- 04098 (SRC)." Settlement People and business entities in the U.S. who purchased gem diamonds directly from De Beers and other diamond mining companies from Sept. 20, 1997, to March 31, 2006, or who purchased loose gem diamonds, diamond jewelry or other products containing a gem diamond from a seller other than a mining company from Jan. 1, 1994, to March 31, 2006, are included in the settlement. Under the proposed settlement, defendants agreed to pay a total of $295 million to the plaintiffs. Additionally, they also agreed to pay up to $7 million to provide Notice of the Proposed Settlement to the Indirect Purchaser Class. Of the $295 million, $22.5 million has been allocated to the Direct Purchaser Class and $272.5 million has been allocated to the Indirect Purchaser Class. For more details, contact: Diamond Settlement Administrator Phone: 1-800-760-5431 (612)-359-2002 e-mail: Administrator@diamondsclassaction.com Web site: https://diamondsclassaction.com/ FAIRFAX FINANCIAL: N.Y. Court Mulls Motions in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to rule on motions filed by both parties in a consolidated securities fraud class action against Fairfax Financial Holdings, Ltd. In 2006, several lawsuits seeking class action status were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain of its officers and directors. The Court entered an order consolidating the various pending lawsuits and granted the single remaining motion for appointment as lead plaintiffs. It also issued orders approving scheduling stipulations filed by the parties to the consolidated lawsuit. On Feb. 8, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, which states that the lead plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all purchasers and acquirers of securities of Fairfax between May 21, 2003, and March 22, 2006, inclusive. The amended consolidated complaint names as defendants Fairfax, certain of its officers and directors, OdysseyRe and its auditors. The amended consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants violated U.S. federal securities laws by making material misstatements or failing to disclose certain material information regarding, among other things, Fairfax's and OdysseyRe's assets, earnings, losses, financial condition, and internal financial controls. The amended consolidated complaint seeks, among other things: -- certification of the putative class; -- unspecified compensatory damages (including interest); -- unspecified monetary restitution; -- unspecified extraordinary, equitable and injunctive relief; and -- costs (including reasonable attorneys' fees). These claims are at a preliminary stage. Pursuant to the scheduling stipulations, the various defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint, the lead plaintiffs filed their oppositions thereto, the defendants filed their replies to those oppositions and the motions to dismiss were argued before the Court in December 2007. The Court has not yet issued a ruling on these motions, according to the company's April 25, 2008 Form F-10 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The suit is "Parks, et al. v. Fairfax Financial Holdings, Ltd., et al., Case No. 06-CV-2820," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge George B. Daniels presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Eric James Belfi, Esq. (ebelfi@labaton.com) Labaton Sucharow, LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 907-0790 Fax: (212) 883-7579 Geoffrey Coyle Jarvis, Esq. (gjarvis@gelaw.com) Grant & Eisenhofer, PA 630 Fifth Avenue 45 Rokerfeller Center New York, NY 10111 Phone: (646) 722-8500 Fax: (646) 722-8501 - and - Gregory Mark Nespole, Esq. (nespole@whafh.com) Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-545-4657 Fax: (212) 545-4693 Representing the defendants are: Brian Howard Polovoy, Esq. (bpolovoy@shearman.com) Shearman & Sterling LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 848-4000 Fax: (212) 848-7179 FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS: Recording Artists Sue Over Work Dues ------------------------------------------------------------- Three Los Angeles recording musicians have filed a federal lawsuit against the American Federation of Musicians and AFM Local 47 in Los Angeles alleging that work dues paid by recording musicians to the AFM for its new one-off video game buyout recording agreements should be returned to Local 47, Mark Northam writes for Film Music Magazine. The attorney for the musicians told Film Music Magazine that his clients -- David Parameter, Anatoly Rosinsky and Andrew Shulman -- are seeking to expand the lawsuit into a class action suit on behalf of all musicians who paid work dues under these agreements. The plaintiffs allege that work dues collected from musicians by Local 47 and sent to the AFM should be returned to Local 47 for work done under one-off buyout recording agreements made available to video game companies by the AFM, citing an AFM by- law that states that work dues are due only for "negotiated agreements." They claim that the video game agreements were not negotiated and ratified by the membership, and therefore should not be subject to work dues. The AFM has responded in court documents that the video game agreements, while not ratified by the membership of the AFM, are not "non-negotiated" within the meaning of its bylaws and denies any obligation to account for or refund to Local 47 dues paid by Local 47 to the AFM for work done under the agreements. The plaintiffs point to a January 2007 letter issued by AFM attorney Jeffrey Freund, Esq., in response to Michael Posner, Esq., representing Recording Musicians Associations International President Phil Ayling, that states that the AFM buyout video game agreement in question "was not negotiated with any employer; it was simply created by the IEB [AFM International Executive Board] and made available to any employer in the video game industry who desires to score a video game with union musicians." The plaintiffs point to Section 32 of Article 9 of the AFM bylaws claiming that the video game agreements are not "negotiated agreements" within the meaning of those bylaws. While an October 2007 article in The Hollywood Reporter said the RMA-LA "is demanding its parent organization, the American Federation of Musicians, refund more than $1 million dollars in work dues the local group claims it was improperly charged," and an online news article at http://www.afm143.orgdescribes the current lawsuit as between "the RMA and the AFM," the plaintiffs' attorney, Michael Posner, Esq., told Film Music Magazine that the RMA and Mr. Ayling are not parties to the current lawsuit. According to Film Music Magazine, Mr. Ayling and RMA-LA President Pete Anthony did not respond to requests for comment regarding the matter. In a statement to the magazine, AFM President Tom Lee said, "It is regrettable that individuals have been convinced to go down this path. The AFM hopes that cooler minds will prevail and this ill advised action will be abandoned so that we can concentrate our efforts on matters of greater concern to a wider group of musicians throughout the US and Canada. We need to focus our efforts on passing the performance rights bill which will benefit musicians in the United States. Piracy, intellectual property matters, tax law, social security reform, and health insurance are all items that may be before Congress and each will have a collective impact on a large group of AFM members and their families. We urge these individuals who filed the lawsuit to join the huge majority of their brothers and sisters in working for positive change that will affect a greater number of our members instead of taking negative action which ultimately threatens the welfare of our members." Local 47 attorney Lewis Levy, Esq., told Film Music Magazine, "Local 47 is vigorously protecting its rights in the litigation and expects to be fully vindicated when the matter is concluded." The magazine writes that the lawsuit is the latest battle in an ongoing dispute between Los Angeles recording musicians and the AFM regarding new buyout agreements that the AFM is offering to employers in an attempt to reduce the amount of recording work that is being done in Seattle, Europe and other non-AFM locations that offer buyout contracts for film, television and video game score recording. FUNERAL HOMES Anapol Schwartz Files Donor Family Class Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Law firm Anapol, Schwartz, Weiss, Cohan, Feldman & Smalley, P.C. filed a donor family class action complaint with the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, against Philadelphia funeral homes, funeral directors, crematories, and a N.J. tissue harvesting company charged with pilfering bones and tissue from the dead. Several tissue processing companies are also named. Anapol Schwartz attorneys Larry Cohan and Melissa Fry Hague said, "We are representing hundreds of individuals located primarily in Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia area, including those notified that their loved one's body parts were stolen." Plaintiffs are seeking class certification and demanding a jury trial based on 16 counts, ranging from civil conspiracy, negligence and intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress, to fraud/deception under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. "We must hold the responsible parties and their accomplices accountable. These families have experienced terrible suffering -- they deserve to know the truth and move on with their lives," added Mr. Cohan. Donor families include lead plaintiffs Martha Wilson, Nancy Wilson and James Wilson, and Neil Pancoast. The complaint states that the tissue of Wilsons' father and Pancoast's wife (who died of lung and bone cancer at 59) were harvested without consent. For more information, contact: Jennifer Wasilisin, Esq. (jjwasilisin@hotmail.com) Anapol, Schwartz, Weiss, Cohan, Feldman & Smalley, P.C. 1710 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-495-4164 GECKO ALLIANCE: Recalls Electronic Spa Controls Due to Fire Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gecko Alliance of Quebec, Canada, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,670 Serenity Spa Hot Tubs. The company said the hot tub's spa control can overheat, posing a fire hazard. Gecko Alliance has received 28 reports of the spa control overheating, including one incident of damage to spa equipment. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves the Hydropool Serenity Series Spa hot tubs with serial numbers 01350XXXX through 03210XXXX. The serial numbers are printed on the right side of the spa control. The Gecko spa control (SSPA-1) has model number 0202-205097 printed on it. These recalled Serenity Spa Hot Tubs were manufactured in Canada and were being sold exclusively by Hydropool dealers throughout Northeastern United States in Serenity brand spas from January 2002 through December 2004 for between $3,900 to $8,200. Pictures of the recalled Serenity Spa Hot Tubs are found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08235a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08235b.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the hot tubs and reduce the water temperature control to the minimum setting. Consumers should contact Gecko Alliance's Back-Pak support center to receive the free retrofit enclosure kit. The kit will be provided with a full set of instructions. Instructions are also available at http://www.back-pak.com/ Consumers should not use their spa until after the retrofit enclosure kit is installed. For additional information, contact the Back-Pak support team toll-free at (800) 784 3256 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET or visit http://www.back-pak.com/ GEORGIA: Dougherty County Tax Lawsuit Sent to Appeals Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Tifton Judicial Circuit Senior Judge John D. Crosby has forwarded his recent ruling denying the Dougherty County Board of Tax Assessors' Jan. 23 motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a number of Dougherty taxpayers to the Georgia Court of Appeals seeking a Certificate of Immediate Review, Albany Herald On-line reports. As reported in Class Action Reporter on April 29, 2008, Dougherty taxpayers scored a legal victory last week when Judge Crosby refused to dismiss the case. The CAR report recounted that Dougherty County Tax Director Denver Hooten and the board of tax assessors earlier filed a motion to dismiss the class action suit, arguing that the taxpayers had adequate remedies at law through the appeals process and in superior court, and denying many of the plaintiffs' factual allegations. However, in an order filed April 22, Judge Crosby denied the defendants' motion to dismiss any of the complaint's 18 counts. Case Background CAR reported on Jan. 25, 2008, that about 15 property owners in Dougherty County, Georgia, filed a purported class action lawsuit with the Dougherty County Superior Court seeking equitable relief from a countrywide tax revaluation. Calling the action "unconstitutional, illegal, null and void," the plaintiffs are asking the court to reinstate property values based on the county's 2006 tax digest. The lawsuit, which named Dougherty Tax Director Hooten and members of the Board of Tax Assessors as defendants, was assigned to Judge Crosby. Tax Director Hooten said that last year's countywide reassessment of property values was the first since 1963 and it boosted Dougherty's tax digest by some 20%, though local governments later lowered their millage rates slightly. However, the lawsuit asserted that the reassessment was fundamentally flawed. The firm hired to conduct the reassessment, Tyler CLT Division, used a "mass appraisal" methodology, considering only square footage and age to determine a home's value, ignoring comparable sales and other relevant factors such as use, while agricultural property was valued at a flat per-acre price, the suit alleged. Of some 34,000 parcels reassessed, Dougherty officials have reported that "slightly over 5,400 taxpayers filed appeals" of the new values. According to the complaint, the county also neglected to provide a "nontechnical" explanation for increases of 15% or more as required by Georgia law, then discouraged taxpayers during the appeals process, scheduling hundreds of hearings at the same time and stacking three adjunct boards of equalization with members "disinclined to support the reduction of appraised values." Suit is up for Appeal Julius M. Hulsey, Esq., and Jane A. Range, Esq., of Hulsey, Oliver & Mahar, sent Hilliard P. Burt, Esq., attorney for Dougherty taxpayers Richard R. Thomas, Lonnie Smith, Donnie Smith, Judy Lee, Michael Smith, C.W. Hopkins, Curtis Smith, John O�Brien, Jerry Brooks, Hilton Merchant, Tim Coley and Cecil Musgrove, notice of the certificate in a letter dated April 25, 2008. Dougherty County Attorney Spencer Lee told Albany Herald that the Certificate of Immediate Review will allow the state court of appeals to review Judge Crosby's ruling and determine if the taxpayers' suit should be included in hearings that will include some 150 appeals cases that are pending with the Dougherty Superior Court. Mr. Lee said the 150 parcels represent the remainder of the 5,000 appeals that were registered when revaluation notices were first sent out in 2007. Appeals were initially heard by representatives of the company that set parcel values (Tyler CLT of Ohio), then by the Board of Tax Assessors and finally by a grand jury-appointed Board of Equalization. "A motion was granted to bifurcate the cases into those based on value and those based on uniformity," Mr. Lee said. "A stay was granted on trials of parcel appeals based on value until a ruling was made on those based on uniformity (of the digest). "This separate case, the county feels, should be ruled on with the others. We feel all issues come under the same administrative process." HED ARTZI: Israel Consumer Council Seeks to Join Kiddie Ads Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Israel Consumer Council has requested the Petach Tikva District Court to allow it to join in a class-action suit over hidden advertising in children's recordings, Haaretz Daily reports. According to Haaretz Daily, the council told the court in its request that it has a crucial part to play in the proceedings because of the importance of the issue -- the defense of minors against exploitation through alleged violation of consumer laws and others. "It is befitting that a public and objective organization entrusted with protecting the public interest be adjoined to the claim from the start of the proceedings" the council contended. The report recounts that Avshalom Sharon asked the court earlier last month to accept a ILS100-million class-action lawsuit against Hed Artzi, Classi-Kalatot, Osem and Strauss-Elite. According to the claim, advertisers and companies involved in the production and distribution of recordings -- whose targeted consumers are children -- include in their products blatant advertisement content without the knowledge of either the children or their parents. According to the council, its inclusion in the proceedings is necessary in order to represent the position of the large consumer public, on whom the proceedings and its outcome have bearing before the court. J.P. MORGAN: Faces Securities Litigation in New York State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corporation I and several other J.P. Morgan entities are facing a purported securities class action suit that is now pending with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, On March 26, 2008, J.P. Morgan and several related entities were served with a class action lawsuit filed by Plumbers' & Pipefitters' Local #562 Supplemental Plan & Trust and Plumbers' & Pipefitters' Local #562 Pension Fund before the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The suit involves claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 for alleged false and misleading registration statements and prospectus supplements filed with the Commission between January 2006 and March 2007, according to J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2007-A1's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. KILGORE CO: Carpal Tunnel Exams Spur Lawsuit in Tennessee Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Kilgore Co. is facing a clas-action complaint filed on April 25, 2008, with the U.S. District court for the Western District of Tennessee accusing it of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by giving nerve-conduction exams to job applicants, and refusing to hire people it believes susceptible to carpal tunnel syndrome, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Robinette Anderson brings this action for discrimination in employment by taking adverse employment action against individuals at its Toone, Tennessee plant based upon these individuals' nerve conduction examinations. These nerve conduction examinations purport to indicate these individuals had a propensity to develop cumulative trauma disorders, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, and the defendant thereby mistakenly perceived them to be undesirable hires who were substantially limited in the major life activity of working. The plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a),(b)(1),(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all applicants with apparent or actual disabilities, or a history of being disabled, who have been denied employment based upon nerve conduction examinations purporting to indicate they had a propensity to develop cumulative trauma disorders, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, and therefore should not be hired for what amounts to a "class or range of jobs." The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether the defendant's policies, procedures, acts and omissions violated the ADA; and (b) whether the plaintiff and the class have sustained injury by reason of the defendant's acts or omissions. The plaintiff asks the court for an order: -- determining that this is a proper class action to be certified under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- granting permanent injunction that enjoins the defendant, its directors, officers, employees, agents from engaging in, ratifying, or refusing to correct the employment practices which discriminate in violation of the ADA; -- directing the defendant to make the plaintiffs whole by providing appropriate back-pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be proved at trial, instatement or reinstatement to positions with the defendant; -- awarding extraordinary, equitable and injunctive relief as permitted by law, equity and the federal statutory provisions sued hereunder pursuant to Rule 65 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- awarding the plaintiff and class members restitutionary and remedial relief; and -- awarding the plaintiff and class members pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as their reasonable attorneys fees, expert witness fees and other costs. The suit is "Robinette Anderson et al. v. Kilgore Co., Case 1:08-cv-01095-JDT-sta," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. Representing the plaintiff are: Justin S. Gilbert, Esq. (jgilbert@gilbertfirm.com) Michael L. Russell, Esq. (mrussell@gilbertfirm.com) Jonathan L. Bobbitt, Esq. (jbobbitt@gilbertfirm.com) Gilbert Russell McWherter PLC 101 North Highland Avenue Jackson, Tennessee 38301 Phone: 731-664-1340 Fax: 731-664-1540 LOUISIANA: Parish President Still Faces Lawsuits Over Katrina ------------------------------------------------------------- Louisiana District Judge John Peytavin recently refused to dismiss Jefferson Parish President Aaron F. Broussard from potential class-action suits that hold him personally responsible for Hurricane Katrina damage, Michael Kunzelman writes for Associated Press. The report recounts that on the eve of Katrina, massive pumps that keep water out of New Orleans suburb Jefferson, La., went silent when the roughly 100 workers who run them were allowed to flee under a "doomsday" evacuation plan. With the storm raging, flood water on the east bank of Jefferson Parish had nowhere to go, damaging thousands of homes, shopping malls and businesses between Lake Pontchartrain and the Mississippi River in Jefferson Parish. For Mr. Broussard, the evacuation of the workers could be make- or-break politically and legally, the AP report relates. While other government officials and agencies have persuaded courts they are immune from liability for Katrina damage or deaths, Mr. Broussard seemed to be the last still dogged in public and in court. AP says that after the storm, parish residents along the lake's east bank dried out and scraped the muck from their middle class and upscale homes. They then went to court against Mr. Broussard, with a judge recently refusing to dismiss him from lawsuits that hold him personally responsible. The report recalls that, at first, Mr. Broussard publicly accepted responsibility for the evacuation decision in August 2005. Over the years, he went about rebuilding a rapport with angry voters with support from residents who suffered less hurricane damage. In October 2007, Mr. Broussard managed to narrowly win re-election over a little-known challenger. However, AP notes, about a month after the election, Mr. Broussard swore under oath in lawsuit depositions that he did not know of the doomsday evacuation plan before Katrina, saying he learned the pump operators had gone only after the fact. Many constituents wonder where the truth lies. "He's changing his story to fit the legal situation," Debbie Settoon, a civil engineer and president of the civic group Citizens for a Safer Jefferson, told AP. Regarding a question on why he would defend a plan he did not know about, Mr. Broussard said it was because it "preserved life." On the question of why he had shouldered the blame for a decision he swears he did not make, Mr. Broussard said that it was the "burden of leadership." Both sides of the lawsuits, however, agree on the fact that for nearly 12 hours after Katrina struck, Jefferson's network of canals overflowed because pump operators were evacuated, AP relates. In refusing to dismiss Mr. Broussard, Judge Peytavin cited "unanswered" questions posed by storm victims' lawyers during a November deposition. Moreover, AP says, Mr. Broussard downplays comparisons between his public rhetoric and sworn testimony. "Part of the burden of leadership is accepting the public sentiment with respect," he said. "Legal accountability is a different standard." The parish's former emergency director, Walter Maestri, who retired about a year after Katrina, told victims' lawyers aslt month that he had not discussed evacuation of pump operators with Mr. Broussard on Aug. 28, 2005, the eve of the storm. But he contradicted Mr. Broussard's claim of ignorance of the doomsday plan. Mr. Maestri, who drafted the original plan in 1998, revised the document in 2005 to identify a new hurricane shelter for parish employees. Mr. Maestri said Mr. Broussard sought the change through a deputy, who quoted the parish president as saying he "wanted no one to die on his watch." Mr. Broussard said he did not recall voting on the plan in 1998, when he chaired the parish council. Mr. Maestri, however, said the council approved the plan as part of a larger emergency operations strategy that Mr. Broussard voted for in 2001, according to parish records. Blaine LeCesne, a Loyola University law professor, told AP that despite the progression of several lawsuits, plaintiffs against Mr. Broussard face long odds given legal protection afforded public officials. "Unless they commit some grossly negligent, highly reckless conduct, generally the courts are not quick to hold them responsible for those discretionary acts," Ms. LeCesne said. MASTER LOCK: Recalls Leash Locks for Lead Paint Standard Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Master Lock, of Oak Creek, Wis., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 27,000 Lock and Leash Locks. The company said red surface paint on the locks contains excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves red Lock and Leash locks with model number 1551D. The locks have a matching red coiled cable used to anchor items. Master Lock is printed in white above the combination display. Other colors are not affected by this recall. These recalled Lock and Leash Locks were manufactured in Taiwan and were being sold at Hardware stores and Internet retailers from March 2007 through January 2008 for about $8. A picture of the recalled Lock and Leash Locks is found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08236.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled locks and return them to Master Lock Company Return Goods c/o All in One Warehouse, 2050 North Smokey Lane, Suite B, Nogales, AZ 85621 for a full refund. For additional information, contact Master Lock at (800) 464- 2088 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. CT or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.masterlock.com/ MATTEL INC: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Product Liability Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a multi-district litigation pending in California captioned, "In re Mattel Inc. Toy Lead Paint Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 2:2007ml01897," which names Mattel, Inc., as a defendant. Initially, about 22 lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. asserting claims arising out of 2007 voluntary product recalls by Mattel and Fisher-Price, as well as the withdrawal of red and green toy blood pressure cuffs from retail stores or their replacement at the request of consumers. On September 5, 2007, Mattel and Fisher-Price filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation asking that all federal actions related to the recalls be coordinated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On Dec. 18, 2007, the JPML issued a transfer order, transferring six actions pending outside the Central District of California to the Central District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with five actions already pending in the same venue. The remaining cases, the so-called "potential tag-along actions," are either already pending in the Central District of California or have been transferred there pursuant to the Jan. 3 and Jan. 17, 2008 conditional transfer orders issued by the JPML. These matters are all currently pending under MDL proceeding captioned, "In re Mattel, Inc. Toy Lead Paint Products Liability Litigation, No. 2:07-ML-01897-DSF-AJW, MDL 1897 (C. D. Ca.)." On March 31, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in the MDL proceeding. The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all persons who, from May 2003 through the present, purchased and acquired certain allegedly hazardous toys. The Consolidated Complaint defines hazardous toys as: -- those toys recalled between Aug. 2, 2007, and Oct. 25, 2007, due to the presence of lead in excess of applicable standards in the paint on some parts of some of the toys; -- those toys recalled on Nov. 21, 2006, and Aug. 14, 2007, related to magnets; and -- the red and green toy blood pressure cuffs voluntarily withdrawn from retail stores or replaced at the request of consumers. The Consolidated Complaint refers to other, unidentified toys that allegedly contain lead in excess of applicable standards or unsafe magnets that have not been recalled. Aside from Mattel and Fisher-Price, the Consolidated Complaint names also names as defendants: -- Target Corp., -- Toys 'R" Us, Inc., -- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., -- KB Toys, Inc., and -- Kmart Corp. Mattel has offered to assume the defense of and to indemnify the retailers named in the Consolidated Complaint for the specific claims raised in the Consolidated Complaint, which claims relate to the sale of Mattel and Fisher-Price toys. In the Consolidated Complaint, the plaintiffs assert claims for breach of implied and express warranties, negligence, strict liability, violation of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Act and related Consumer Product Safety Rules, various California consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs seek: -- declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining defendants from continuing the allegedly unlawful practices raised in the Consolidated Complaint; -- restitution and disgorgement of monies acquired by defendants from the allegedly unlawful practices; -- costs of initial diagnostic blood lead level testing to detect possible injury to plaintiffs and members of the class; -- costs of treatment for those who test positive to the initial diagnostic blood lead level testing; -- reimbursement of the purchase price for the allegedly hazardous toys; and -- costs and attorneys' fees. Discovery has commenced and is ongoing, but is in the very early stages, according to the company's April 25, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. The suit is "In re Mattel Inc. Toy Lead Paint Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 2:2007ml01897," pending with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Dale S. Fischer presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Ivy D. Arai, Esq. (ivy@hbsslaw.com) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro 1301 5th Ave Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-623-7292 Ben Barnow, Esq. (b.barnow@barnowlaw.com) Barnow and Associates PC One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312-621-2000 Fax: 312-641-5504 - and - Mila F. Bartos, Esq. (mbartos@finkelsteinthompson.com) Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran Duvall Foundry, 1050 30th St NW Washington, DC 20007 Phone: 202-337-8000 Representing the defendants is: Thomas E. Fennell, Esq. (tefennell@jonesday.com) Jones Day 2727 North Harwood Street Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: 214-220-3939 MF GLOBAL: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set for May 6 ------------------------------------------------------------ Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, disclosed that shareholders of MF Global, Ltd. who purchased shares of MF Global in its Initial Public Offering on July 19, 2007, or in the open market from July 19, 2007, through February 28, 2008, inclusive, have only until May 6, 2008, to move for appointment as Lead Plaintiff in the securities class action lawsuit currently pending with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company, and one or more members of its senior management, violated the Securities Act of 1933 by including, or allowing the inclusion of, materially false and misleading statements in the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO. For more information, contact: Charles J. Piven, Esq. Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation The World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Phone: 410/986-0036 e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com NEW CENTURY: Faces Multiple Securities Litigation in California --------------------------------------------------------------- New Century Financial Corp., the parent of NC Capital Corp., one of the original loan sellers, is facing several purported securities class action suits filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, according to GSAMP Trust 2007-HE2's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. On Feb. 14, 2007, NCFC was served with a complaint for a purported securities class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against NCFC and certain of its officers and directors. The complaint alleges that NCFC and the other named defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material facts about NCFC, which resulted in artificially inflated market prices of NCFC's common stock, and that the plaintiff and the purported class members purchased the registrant's stock at these artificially inflated market prices between April 7, 2006, and Feb. 7, 2007. The complaint seeks money damages in favor of its purported class of purchasers of NCFC's securities, the costs and expenses of the action and other relief that may be granted by the court. Later on, nine additional purported class action suits were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California between Feb. 8, 2007, and Feb. 20, 2007. NCFC stated that these additional complaints present in large degree the same legal and factual issues as the Original Complaint and allege various class periods, the longest of which is from April 7, 2006, to Feb. 7, 2007. New Century Financial Corp. -- http://www.ncen.com-- is a real estate investment trust, and through its subsidiaries, operates one of the mortgage finance companies. The Company originates and purchases primarily first-mortgage loans worldwide. The Company focuses on lending to individuals whose borrowing needs are generally not fulfilled by traditional financial institutions because they do not satisfy the credit, documentation or other underwriting standards prescribed by conventional mortgage lenders and loan buyers. The Company originates and purchases mortgage loans through two divisions: Wholesale Division and Retail Division. In September 2005, the New Century acquired a mortgage origination platform from RBC Mortgage Co., which expands its offerings to include conventional mortgage loans, including Alt-A mortgage loans, loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration, and loans guaranteed by the Veterans Administration. QUALCOMM INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over State Antitrust Law Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Qualcomm Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego accusing it of violating state antitrust law by monopolizing the market for cell phone technology and components, CourtHouse News Service reports. This is a class action brought under 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 or that are compatible with the Universal Mobile Telecommunications System standard; and (2) purchased cellular service from any carrier in the United States which bundles its cellular service with subsidized UMTS-compliant devices. This complaint arises from Qualcomm's illegal and anticompetitive conduct in the markets for the technology and chipsets that operate cell phones employing DCDMA, a third generation (3G) technology that is implemented through the UMTS standard. Qualcomm, by its intentional deception of private standards-determining organizations has monopolized certain markets for cellular telephone technology and components. Named plaintiff Merdad Valikhani wants the court to rule on: (a) whether Qualcomm's patents are essential to manufacturing UMTS chipsets or UMTS devices; (b) whether Qualcomm has 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 participants involved in the selection and formulation of the UMTS standard; (d) whether Qualcomm intentionally 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 anticompetitive effects, including supracompetitive pricing and impair non-price competition in the form of deterred innovation; (i) whether the UMTS Licensing Practices' anticompetitive effects are passed on to end consumers of UMTS devices; (j) what portion of end-user prices for UMTS devices are attributable to Qualcomm's anticompetitive conduct alleged; (k) whether UMTS Licensing creates a trust in violation of the California Cartwright Act; (l) whether Qualcomm's UMTS Licensing Practices are unlawful and otherwise unfair, and thereby constitutes a violation of California's unfair competition law; and (m) whether plaintiff and the device class are entitled to relief, and the nature of such relief. The plaintiff requests that the court enter an order: -- certifying the action as a class action and designating plaintiff and his counsel as representatives of the device class and the service class; -- awarding treble damages in an amount to be determined at trial against Qualcomm and in favor of the Device class and the Service class; -- granting injunction against further anticompetitive acts, and the costs of the suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees; -- granting equitable relief including an accounting, a constructive trust and restitution, in an amount to be determined at trial, and attorneys' fees, against Qualcomm and in favor of the Injunctive class; and -- awarding pre- and post-judgment interest. The suit is "Merdad Valikhani et al. v. Qualcomm Inc., Case No. 37-2008-00082231-CU-AT-CTL," filed with the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego. Representing the plaintiff are: David C. Parisi, Esq. (dcparisi@parisihavenscom) Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq. (shavens@parisihavenscom) Parisi & Havens LLP 15233 Valleyheart Drive Sherman Oaks, California 91403 Phone: (818) 990-1299 Fax: (818) 501-7852 RETAIL VENTURES: Still Faces Suit Over Credit Card Data Thefts -------------------------------------------------------------- Retail Ventures, Inc., continues to face a purported class action suit arising from the theft of credit card and other purchase information from its database. On March 8, 2005, Retail Ventures announced that it had learned of the theft of credit card and other purchase information from a portion of DSW, Inc.'s customers. On April 18, 2005, Retail Ventures issued the findings from its investigation into the theft. The theft covered transaction information involving approximately 1.4 million credit cards and data from transactions involving approximately 96,000 checks. DSW and Retail Ventures contacted and continue to cooperate with law enforcement and other authorities with regard to this matter. The company is involved in several legal proceedings arising out of this incident, including a putative class action suit, which seeks unspecified monetary damages, credit monitoring and other relief. The lawsuit also seeks to certify a class of consumers that is limited geographically to consumers who made purchases at certain stores in Ohio. The company reported no development in connection with the case in its April 25, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 2, 2008. Retail Ventures, Inc. -- http://www.retailventuresinc.com-- operates its business in three segments: Value City Department Stores LLC, DSW Inc., and Filene's Basement, Inc. Value City is a full-line, value price retailer carrying men's, women's and children's apparel, accessories, jewelry, shoes, home fashions, electronics and seasonal items. DSW is a specialty branded footwear retailer operating 223 shoe stores in 35 states as of Feb. 3, 2007. Filene's Basement stores offer designer and name brand apparel, home goods and accessories. ROHM & HAAS: Faces Air & Groundwater Contamination Suit in Pa. -------------------------------------------------------------- Rohm & Haas Co. is facing a purported class action suit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania over alleged toxic contamination of air and groundwater by one of its installations located about one mile north of McCullom Lake Village, according to the company's April 25, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. The suit entitled, "Gates et al v. Rohm and Haas Company et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-01743-GP," was filed by Glenn and Donna Gates on April 25, 2006. It seeks certification of a class comprised of the owners and residents of about 500 homes in McCullom Lake Village, seeking medical monitoring and compensation for alleged property value diminution, among other things. The suit is "Gates et al v. Rohm and Haas Company et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-01743-GP," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Gene E.K. Pratter presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Aaron J. Freiwald, Esq. (ajf@layserfreiwald.com) Layser & Freiwald PC 1500 Walnut St., 18th Fl. Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: 215-875-8000 Representing the defendants are: Jennifer A. Battle (jbattle@schnader.com) Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP 1600 Market Street Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7286 Phone: 215-751-2647 - and - Albert G. Bixler, Esq. (abixler@eckertseamans.com) Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC Two Liberty Place 22nd Floor 50 South 16th Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: 215-851-8412 ROHM & HAAS: Supreme Court Denies Petition in Pension Plan Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court denied Rohm & Haas Co.'s petition to hear its appeal on a matter involving participants in its pension plan, according to the company's April 25, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. On Dec. 22, 2005, a federal judge in Indiana issued an order granting a class of participants in the Rohm and Haas pension plan the right to a cost-of-living adjustment as part of the retirement benefit for those who elect a lump sum benefit. The decision contravenes the plain language of the plan, which clearly and expressly excludes a discretionary COLA for participants who elect a lump sum benefit. In August 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision that participants in the plan who elected a lump sum benefit during a class period have the right to a COLA as part of their retirement benefit. In March 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the company's petition to hear its appeal, and the case now returns to the lower court for further proceedings. When the proceedings in the lower court have concluded, the pension trust will be required to pay certain COLA costs. Rohm & Haas Co. -- http://www.rohmhaas.com/-- is a global specialty materials company whose portfolio of global businesses includes specialty materials, electronic materials and salt. The Company's products enable the creation of consumer goods and other products found in a segment of dynamic markets, including building and construction, electronics, packaging and paper, industrial and other, transportation, household and personal care, water and food. It has operations with approximately 100 manufacturing and 33 research facilities in 27 countries. TYSON FOODS: Faces Suit in Arkansas Over "Drug-Free" Chickens ------------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc., is facing a class-action suit filed on April 25, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas over its "Drug-Free" chickens, CourtHouse News Service reports. The complaint claims Tyson cheats its customers in a "calculated and cynical fraudulent scheme," by falsely claiming that its chickens are raised without antibiotics, and charging more for them, "knowing full well that all of its products were in fact raised with antibiotics." The named plaintiffs, from five large states, claim that Tyson advertises and sells chicken "that it represents to be 'Raised Without Antibiotics'." The plaintiffs say the chicken behemoth "in fact uses a type of antibiotic known as 'ionophores' in raising its chickens," and that "it is undisputed that ionophores are antibiotics." The purportedly "raised without antibiotics" and "raised without antibiotics that impact antibiotic resistance in humans" chicken or chicken products were sold throughout the time period of May 16, 2007, through the date of filing this class action. The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all consumer residents and domiciliaries of New York, California, Florida, Illinois and Ohio, who purchased Tyson chicken products during the relevant time period, having been exposed to Tyson's false advertising. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether the alleged conduct by defendant violated laws as alleged in the complaint; (b) the duration and extent of any such violations or unlawful conduct in the complaint; (c) the amount by which defendant's illegal, inequitable and unfair trade practices have inflated the prices paid by members of the class for chicken or chicken products over the amounts they would otherwise have paid for ordinary chicken or chicken products; (d) whether defendant's conduct caused injury to plaintiff and the class members; and (e) whether plaintiffs and the class members are entitled to injunctive, declaratory and other equitable relief requested. The plaintiff asks the court to: -- determine that this action may be maintained as a class action and appoint plaintiffs and their counsel to serve as class representatives and class counsel; -- declare, adjudge and decree the conduct of the defendants as alleged to be unlawful; -- grant plaintiffs and all class members awards of actual, compensatory, statutory, punitive and exemplary damages in such amount to be determined at trial and as provided by applicable law; -- direct that defendant be forced to disgorge all profits by which it was unjustly enriched, at the expense of the plaintiffs; -- award plaintiffs attorney's fees and costs of suit; and -- grant plaintiffs and the class members such other, further, and different relief as the nature of the case may require or as may be determined to be just, equitable, and proper by the court. The suit is "Mariko Cohen et al v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No. 4:08-CV-0366," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Representing the plaintiff are: Damon Chargois, Esq. (damon@cmhllp.com) Che D. Williamson, Esq. (che@cmhllp.com) Chargois & Herron LLP 2201 Timberloch Place, Suite 110 The Woodlands, Texas 77380 Phone: (281) 444-0604 (866) 444-0604 Fax: (281) 440-0124 WARNER CHILCOTT: Settles Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Warner Chilcott Limited has reached an agreement in principle to settle a securities class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The terms of the settlement, which are subject to negotiation of definitive documentation and must be approved by the court, include a cash payment of $16.5 million, expected to be made in the second or third quarter of 2008. The majority of the settlement will be funded by insurance proceeds and it will not have a material financial impact on the Company. In November 2006, the company and certain of its officers, were named as defendants in the purported class action, "Albano v. Warner Chilcott Limited et al." Similar purported class actions have been filed subsequently. The complaints asserted claims under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a class consisting of all those who were allegedly damaged as a result of acquiring the Company's common stock in connection with its IPO between Sept. 20, 2006, and Sept. 26, 2006. A consolidated amended complaint, which adds as defendants the lead underwriters for the IPO, was filed on May 4, 2007. The consolidated amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company omitted and misstated certain facts concerning its planned transition from the sale of OVCON 35 to the sale of its new patented product, OVCON 35 FE (now FEMCON FE). The Company and the individual defendants answered the complaint on June 18, 2007. The District Court certified the plaintiff class on Feb. 4, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, March 26, 2008). The settlement will resolve all claims asserted against Warner Chilcott and the other defendants in this case. The settlement will not contain any admission of wrongdoing by the Company or any of the other defendants. Although Warner Chilcott believes this suit is without merit, the Company is pleased to put the uncertainty of the class action litigation behind it and believes that the decision to settle is in the best interest of its shareholders. The suit is "Angelo Albano, et al. v. Warner Chilcott Limited, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-11515-WHP" filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge William H. Pauley III, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. (malba@csgrr.com) Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP(LIs) 58 South Service Road Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 - and - Lawrence Donald Levit, Esq. (llevit@aftlaw.com) Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP One Penn Plaza Suite 1910 New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212)-279-5050 Fax: (212)-279-3655 Representing the defendants are: Daniel Shay Kirschbaum, Esq. (dkirschbaum@paulweiss.com) Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 373-3000 x3072 Fax: (212) 492-0072 - and - Mary Jane Eaton, Esq. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 728-8000 Fax: (212) 728-8111 e-mail: maosdny@willkie.com New Securities Fraud Cases LEHMAN BROTHERS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on April 29, 2008, with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. between September 13, 2006, and July 30, 2007, inclusive. The complaint names Lehman Brothers, Richard S. Fuld, Christopher M. O'Meara, and Joseph M. Gregory as defendants. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing various materially false and misleading statements about Lehman Brothers' financial well-being, business operations and prospects, which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. The complaint alleges, inter alia, that Defendants failed to fully disclose the nature and extent of the Company's exposure to losses incurred from trading in subprime mortgage-backed derivatives and that the Company failed to timely writedown its positions in these securities. On July 10, 2007, Lehman Brothers announced that it had "unrealized" losses of $459 million in the quarter ended May 31, 2007, from mortgages and mortgage-backed assets in its inventory. On the same day, it was reported that Standard & Poor's indicated that it may cut ratings on $12 billion of bonds backed by subprime mortgages, a move that would significantly cut into the Company's trading profits, since it is Wall Street's largest underwriter of mortgage bonds. As a result of the news, Lehman Brothers' stock fell $3.76 per share on July 10, 2007 on unusually high trading volume. Throughout the remainder of the Class Period, Lehman Brothers continued to downplay the risks associated with owning these mortgage-backed securities, and the nature and true extent of the Company's exposure to subprime-related assets and financial positions. On July 26, 2007, it was reported by Bloomberg that the risk of owning Lehman Brothers' bonds "soared" and its share price plunged "as concerns escalated that investment banks will be hurt by losses from subprime mortgages and corporate debt." The report detailed the soaring cost of credit-default swaps used to bet on Lehman Brothers' creditworthiness, signaling a significant deterioration in investor confidence. On this news, Lehman Brothers' shares fell an additional $3.16 per share on July 26, 2007, again on unusually heavy trading volume. Finally, on July 31, 2007, Bloomberg reported that ". . . Lehman Brothers (is) as good as junk" because the prices of credit- default swaps for the Company equated to a Ba1 rating, implying that the Company's credit ratings were below investment grade. On this news, the Company's shares fell an additional $2.80 on heavy trading volume. For more information, contact: Andrei V. Rado, Esq. Labaton Sucharow LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: 800-321-0476 - and - Darren J. Check, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 888-299-7706 ********* 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 * * *