/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080714.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 14, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 138 Headlines ACTION PRODUCTS: Recalls Charm Craft Kits on Lead Exposure Risk ALLERGAN INC: Botox Kills and Injures Consumers, Suit Claims AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls Lawn Mowers Due to Laceration Hazard CHRYSLER LLC: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Sebring Engines Warranties CONVECA ASSOCIATES: Faces Lawsuit Over Severely Damaged Building CROCS INC: More Lawsuits Loom Over "Dangerous" Footwear FAF INC: Recalls Lip Gloss-Jewelry Sets on Lead Exposure Risk FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Florida Securities Suit for $6.87MM FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Judge Recuses Himself from 3 Lawyers' Trial IOWA: Law Firms Voluntarily Dismiss Suit Over Immigration Raid JOSEPH GRANT: Faces Suit in Ontario Over "C. Difficile" Outbreak LEVI STRAUSS: Parties Seek Approval for Calif. Suit Settlement LOUIS VUITTON: Ill. Judge Won't Dismiss Dior Lipstick Lawsuit NEBRASKA BEEF: Faces Lawsuit in Ohio Over E. Coli Food Poisoning OSB LITIGATION: Settles Pennsylvania Antitrust Suit for $45 Mln. PACIFICARE LIFE: Faces California Suit Over Breach of Contracts PACIFICARE: Faces Lawsuit in Nevada for Reusing Syringes PARRAGON INC: Recalls Kids' Necklaces Due to Lead Exposure Risk PHILIPPINE MAGAZINES: Sued by Baptist Sect for Obscene Content SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Faces California Suit Over "QuickPick" Program TOMOTHERAPY INC: Roy Jacobs Amends Wis. Securities Fraud Lawsuit VIRGINIA: Fairfax County Defendant in Huntington Flood Lawsuit WACHOVIA CORP: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in New York WASHINGTON NATIONAL: Faces Fla. Home Health Care Insurance Suit New Securities Fraud Cases MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Lawsuit ********* ACTION PRODUCTS: Recalls Charm Craft Kits on Lead Exposure Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- Action Products International Inc., of Ocala, Fla., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 18,500 units Children's Charm Craft Kits. The company said the clasp in the charm craft kits contains high levels of lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves "Super Dooper Charms" (item #63403) and "Shoelace Charms" (item #67310) children's charm craft kits. The craft kits contain components (i.e., charms, beads, wire, clasps) to assemble necklaces, jewelry accessories, or charms that can be hooked on shoelaces, backpacks, or used as zipper pulls. The item number can be found on the back of the package. These recalled craft kits were manufactured in China and were being sold through various retailers nationwide from July 2007 through April 2008 for about $17 for the "Super Dooper Charms" kit and $6 for the "Shoelace Charms" kit. Pictures of the recalled craft kits are found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08327a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08327b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08327c.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08327d.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled product away from children and contact Action Products International for instructions on returning it for a free replacement. For more information, contact Action Products International at 800-772-2846 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the company's Web site at http://www.apii.com/ ALLERGAN INC: Botox Kills and Injures Consumers, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Botox users and their families have filed a class action lawsuit against Allergan, Inc., claiming the company failed to adequately warn users of the drug's dangers, Consumer Affairs reports. According to Consumer Affairs, the suit claims that the drug killed at least three people, including a seven-year-old girl with cerebral palsy who got Botox injections to help control spasticity in her limbs. The report recounts that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said in February this year that Botox was being injected at an alarming rate among children, especially those who are being treated for limb spasticity associated with cerebral palsy. The FDA noted that neither Botox nor a similar product, Myobloc, was approved for such use in the U.S. and said there have been deaths associated with the usage of the two treatments among children. In March, Allergan said it had received a subpoena from the U.S. Justice Department seeking documents regarding Botox promotional practices, the report further recalls. The company said its understanding was that the inquiry involves questions regarding alleged off-label promotion relating to the use of Botox for the treatment of headache. The FDA earlier said that it knew of no deaths among adults. However, the class action suit, filed in California's Orange County Superior Court, stated that a 69-year-old Texas nurse and a 71-year-old woman both died after receiving Botox injections. According to the report, the nurse had been receiving injections for neck and shoulder pain, while the 71-year-old, who lived in Arizona, was taking Botox at a mall clinic for wrinkles around her mouth. The suit says she had trouble breathing and swallowing after the treatment and died a short time later. All three cases of death involved uses of Botox that are not approved by the FDA, Consumer Affairs points out. In addition, the suit charges that Botox left at least 12 other patients with a range of disabilities, including some who were taking the drug for approved uses, such as smoothing frown lines. The suit also charges that several of the plaintiffs were hospitalized and now suffer from chronic, life-altering conditions, including difficulty swallowing. "Thousands of people are getting these injections with no warning to speak of," Ray Chester, Esq., one of the lawyers representing plaintiffs in the suit, told Consumer Affairs. The report explains that Botox and Myobloc are designed to block nerve impulses to certain muscles, causing them to relax. Both products are approved to treat cervical dystonia, or uncontrolled muscle contractions of the neck and shoulder muscles. Botox is also approved for cosmetic use to treat wrinkles between the eyebrows and to help control excessive underarm sweating. Consumer Affairs further notes that in some cases, the toxic, active ingredient in Botox and Myobloc -- a derivative of botulism toxin Type A, one of the deadliest poisons known -- can affect respiratory muscles and cause difficulty swallowing, a condition known as dysphagia. Both products warn doctors and consumers of that side effect. The FDA said in February that what is new is that it appears the active ingredient in Botox can spread from distant parts of the body -- such as children's leg muscles -- to muscles that affect breathing rather than being just a local event as previously believed. The report also relates that in January 2008, consumer group Public Citizen said it found 16 deaths reported with usage of Botox or Myobloc from November 1997 through 2006. The group filed a petition with the FDA seeking the agency's strictest black-box warning discussing difficulty swallowing, pneumonia as a result of food getting into the lungs and, in rare instances, death from pneumonia. Allergan maintains the drug is safe and says millions of people have taken it with no problems, the report notes. AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls Lawn Mowers Due to Laceration Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ American Honda Motor Corp., of Torrance, California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 20,500 Honda Lawn Mowers. The company said the lawn mower's rear shield can break off allowing debris to be thrown toward the operator, which poses a laceration hazard to consumers. American Honda has received one report of a shield breaking off the lawn mower. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves HRX walk-behind lawn mowers with model numbers HRX217(K)2HXA and HRX217(K)2HMA. The model and serial number are printed on a label located on the upper rear of the mower deck. Serial numbers included in the recall are MAGA- 1500001 through 1520532. The recalled lawn mowers are red with "HONDA" written on the bag. These recalled lawn mowers were manufactured in the United States and were being sold by authorized American Honda Motor Corp. dealers and Home Depot stores nationwide from October 2007 to June 2008 for about $900. Pictures of the recalled lawn mowers are found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08328a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08328b.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled lawn mowers and contact their local Honda Lawn and Garden dealer to schedule a free repair. Registered owners of the recalled lawn mowers have been contacted by direct mail notification. For additional information, contact Honda at 800-426-7701 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit Honda's Web site at http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/ CHRYSLER LLC: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Sebring Engines Warranties ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chrysler LLC is facing a class-action complaint before the District Court of Manhattan over allegations that the 2.7 liter engine used in Chrysler's Sebring and other models fails prematurely and Chrysler won't honor its warranty to fix or replace the engine, CourtHouse News Service reports. According to the complaint, the engine was used in 1998-2003 Chrysler Sebrings and Concordes, and Dodge Intrepids and Stratuses. Named plaintiff Stephanie Newman Durst says she bought a new 2003 Sebring with a 70,000 mile warranty. She says the engine seized up under normal conditions at 52,000 miles, and when she took it to her dealer in Newburgh, she "was informed by that dealership that they were instructed by representatives of DaimlerChrysler Corporation not to honor the warranty by repairing the vehicle." The complaint claims the engines require "enhanced maintenance" because, "among other things, the engine was prone to accumulation of oil sludge in the passageways of the cinder block, resulting in inadequate oil circulation to the engine valves, pistons and camshafts. This caused the engine parts to eventually seize, resulting in catastrophic engine failure and permanent seizure of the engine." Headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan, Chrysler LLC -- http://www.chrysler.com/-- offers cars and minivans, pick-up trucks, sport utility vehicles, and vans under the Chrysler, Jeep, and Dodge brand names. It also sells parts and accessories under the MOPAR brand. The company has dealers worldwide, including Canada, Mexico, U.S., Germany, France, U.K., Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, China, Japan and Australia. CONVECA ASSOCIATES: Faces Lawsuit Over Severely Damaged Building ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit, filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County (Penna.), claims that the Grandview Condominiums were built in a severely damaged building, CourtHouse News Service reports. The case arises out of the purchase of condominium units by buyers who had no knowledge, or means of knowing, at the time of their purchases that the condominium had severe structural damage; structural damage that will now cost over $2 million to repair. The complaint alleges that each purchaser paid for a condominium unit on the seller's express promise and warranty that there were no structural problems; and on the express report of an export consultant and engineer that there were no structural problems; and on the express report of an expert consultant engineer that there were no visible structural problems despite the fact that such problems did exist and the experience and expertise of the seller and the consulting engineer made such problems known to them and recklessly disregarded. The plaintiffs demand more than $2 million from: -- Conveca Associates Limited Partnership, -- JMB Investors, -- Landamerica Assessment Corp., -- Landamerica Commercial Services, -- National Assessment Corp., and -- Conveca general partner Michael Grasso. The plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all unit purchasers in the Grandview who purchased their units either directly from Conveca or from another unit owner that had purchased directly from Conveca. The plaintiffs demand judgment for: -- damages in the amount of their cost of repairing the structural damage to the common elements; -- interest thereon; -- treble damages pursuant to 73 Pa. C.S. Section 201- 9.2(a); -- reasonable attorneys fees and legal costs pursuant to 73 Pa. C.S. Section 201-9.2(a); and -- any other relief that the court deems just and proper. The suit is "Ronald T. Kelly, et al. v. Conveca Associates Limited Partnership et al.," filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County (Penna.). Representing the plaintiffs are: S. David Fineman, Esq. Gary A. Krimstock, Esq. Lee Applebaum, Esq. Joshua B. Horvitz, Esq. Fineman, Krekstein & Harris, PC Mellon Bank Center, 6th Floor 1735 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-893-9300 Fax: 215-893-8719 CROCS INC: More Lawsuits Loom Over "Dangerous" Footwear ------------------------------------------------------- Crocs Inc., the manufacturer of the popular shoes, "Crocs," is facing several lawsuits claiming the company knew the shoes were dangerous but continued making them, 10News.com reports. According to 10News, the latest of these legal actions against the Crocs maker could be a class suit which a South Bay family plans to file. The father, who asked not to be identified to protect his family, shared with 10News that his 6-year-old daughter had a terrifying experience while going down an escalator at Macy's in Fashion Valley last month. The girl was wearing a pair of Crocs sandals. "As she got to the bottom, apparently, it sucked her foot into the escalator and my wife pulled it out," the father told 10News. The girl's mother then pulled out the damaged shoe. Her father said the small gaping hole on the left shoe is proof of the accident. "Her foot went down with that shoe. That shoe is mangled," the father said. He added that her daughter's "toes were black and blue and it scrapped off skin off her toes." "It was awful. She was crying and screaming," he said. The father said that he wants the manufacturer to take the extra step and warn parents. "I'd like to see Crocs change their manufacturing so that this doesn't pose a danger to anybody," he said. The father further told 10News that he expects the lawsuit to seek class-action status soon. The Colorado-based Crocs, according to 10News, has not returned phone calls for comments. The report recounts that a few years ago, ABC News did a story about the Crocs shoes, which come in all shapes, sizes and colors. The Crocs company told the network then "the shoes are completely safe. Escalators and sidewalks, in particular those that have not received proper care and maintenance, can be dangerous and pose a risk to the riders." FAF INC: Recalls Lip Gloss-Jewelry Sets on Lead Exposure Risk ------------------------------------------------------------- F.A.F. Inc., of Greenville, R.I., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 30,000 Faded Glory Lip Gloss, Locket, and Bracelet Sets. The company said the lobster claw clasp on the bracelet contains high levels of lead, which is toxic if ingested and can cause adverse health effects. No injuries have been reported. The recalled three-piece sets contain a rectangle-shaped lip gloss container, a heart-shaped locket necklace, and a charm bracelet. The following models are included in the recall: Item Model Number UPC Frog Set 6709-4250 72783357703 Monkey Set 6709-4251 72783357704 Cat Set 6709-4252 72783357705 "Faded Glory", the model number, and UPC are printed on the product's hangtag. These recalled lip gloss-jewelry sets were manufactured in China and were being sold at Wal-Mart stores nationwide from May 2008 through June 2008 for about $6. Pictures of the recalled lip gloss-jewelry sets are found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08329a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08329b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08329c.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately take the bracelet away from children and return the set to any Wal-Mart store for a full refund. For additional information, contact F.A.F. Inc. at 800-949-3311 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.faf.com/ FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Florida Securities Suit for $6.87MM -------------------------------------------------------------- FARO Technologies, Inc., settled for $6,875,000 a securities fraud class action lawsuit filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District Court of Florida. On Dec. 6, 2005, the first of four essentially identical class action securities fraud lawsuits was filed against the company and certain of its officers. On April 19, 2006, the four lawsuits were consolidated, and Kornitzer Capital Management, Inc., was appointed as lead plaintiff. On May 16, 2006, Kornitzer filed its consolidated amended class action complaint against the company and the individual defendants. The Amended Complaint also named Grant Thornton LLP, the company's independent registered public accounting firm, as an additional defendant. On July 31, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, which request the court granted on Feb. 3, 2007, without prejudice. As to the company and the individual defendants, the Court's decision primarily was based on its findings that the Amended Complaint failed to adequately allege: -- scienter (i.e., intentionally fraudulent or severely reckless conduct) with respect to certain claims; and -- that certain supposed misrepresentations or omissions actually caused economic loss. The Court granted Kornitzer leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by Feb. 22, 2007. On Feb. 22, 2007, Kornitzer filed its consolidated second amended class action complaint against the company, the individual defendants and Grant Thornton LLP. In the Second Amended Complaint, as in the Amended Complaint, Kornitzer seeks to represent a class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between April 15, 2004, and March 15, 2006. On behalf of the alleged class, Kornitzer seeks an unspecified amount of damages, premised on allegations that each defendant made misrepresentations and omissions of material fact during the class period in violation of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Among other things, Kornitzer alleges: -- that the company's reported inventory, gross margins and profits were false and misleading during a portion of the class period because the company consciously overstated the value of its inventory; -- that the company misstated during 2005 certain of the selling expenses it had accrued and had expected to incur; -- that certain Asian sales that the company had reported during the class period had been the product of unlawful payments made in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and that the company failed to disclose that it was utilizing unlawful means to achieve such sales; and -- that certain of the company's statements regarding the company's systems of internal controls had been false and misleading. On Feb. 26, 2008, the parties to the securities litigation entered into a Memorandum of Understanding stating the principal terms of an agreement to settle the Securities Litigation (Class Action Reporter, April 15, 2008). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Judge Anne C. Conway, of United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, at 9:00 a.m., on October 3, 2008, to determine whether the proposed settlement and the Plan of Allocation of settlement proceeds should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, to consider the application of plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, and to consider the application for reimbursement of expenses of the lead plaintiff. Deadline to file for exclusion is on September 12, 2008. Deadline to file for claims is on October 30, 2008. The suit is "Goldberger v. Faro Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:05-cv-01810-ACC-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District Court of Florida, Judge Anne C. Conway presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: John F. Edgar, Esq. (jfe@edgarlawfirm.com) John M. Edgar, Esq. (jme@edgarlawfirm.com) Edgar Law Firm, LLC 4520 Main St., Suite 1650 Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: 816-531-0033 Fax: 816-531-3322 - and - Patrick A. Klingman, Esq. (pklingman@sfmslaw.com) Karen M. Leser, Esq. (kleser@sfmslaw.com) James E. Miller, Esq. (jmiller@sfmslaw.com) James C. Shah, Esq. (jshah@classactioncounsel.com) Nathan Zipperian, Esq. (nzipperian@classactioncounsel.com) Scott R. Shepherd, Esq. (sshepherd@classactioncounsel.com) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC Phone: 860-526-1100 610-891-9880 954-943-9191 Fax: 860-526-1120 610-891-9883 954-943-9173 Representing the defendants are: Richard S. Davis, Esq. (rdavis@foley.com) Robert A. Scher, Esq. (rscher@foley.com) Foley & Lardner, LLP Phone: 407-244-3260 212-682-7474 Fax: 407-648-1743 212-687-2329 - and - Daniel A. Casey, Esq. (dcasey@klng.com) Jeffrey T. Kucera Esq. (jkucera@kl.com) Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham, LLP 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131-2399 Phone: 305-539-3324 305-539-3322 Fax: 305-358-7095 FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Judge Recuses Himself from 3 Lawyers' Trial ---------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge who oversaw the trial of three lawyers accused of taking millions of dollars from their former clients has recused himself from the case, Beth Musgrave writes for Kentucky.com. According to an order entered July 7, U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman will step down as the judge in the criminal case against the lawyers. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 25, 2008, and in other earlier reports, three lawyers were accused of taking more than $65 million from their former clients in a diet drug (fen-phen) suit settlement. Specifically, William Gallion, Shirley Cunningham Jr., and Melbourne Mills were accused of taking $65 million more than what their individual contracts with 440 clients said they should receive. Specifically, court records say that the lawyers were entitled to about $60 million in fees, but took an additional $45 million and put another $20 million into a charity they created and controlled. Messrs. Mills, Gallion and Cunningham have been suspended by the Kentucky Bar Association. A judge in a civil lawsuit regarding the same fen-phen settlement has said the lawyers have to repay at least $42 million to their former clients. A subsequent CAR report on July 4, 2008, stated that a federal jury acquitted Mr. Mills of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in the fen-phen settlement, but was sent back to deliberate on the case against Messrs. Gallion and Cunningham. Kentucky.com relates that Judge Bertelsman, in an order, said that as a senior status judge or a judge who is semi-retired, he will no longer hear criminal cases except for some limited cases. The case against Messrs. Gallion and Cunningham will thus be transferred to U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves. According to Kentucky.com, Judge Bertelsman declared a mistrial in the case of Messrs. Gallion and Cunningham earlier this month after a jury deadlocked on whether the two men were guilty or innocent of conspiring to commit wire fraud. Defense lawyers argue that the lawyers were following the advice of a more experienced class-action attorney and that a judge approved their fees in the case. Prosecutors have said they will retry the case, but a date for that trial has not been set, the report says. IOWA: Law Firms Voluntarily Dismiss Suit Over Immigration Raid -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firms behind a purported class action lawsuit against several federal agencies and officials over a May 2008 raid at a kosher meatpacking plant in northeast Iowa have voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit, The Chicago Tribune reports. Nearly 400 people were arrested as a result of the raid on May 12, 2008, at Agriprocessors, Inc., in Postville, Iowa, which federal officials described as the largest single Immigration raid in the nation's history. The suit, "Candido et al. v. US Immigration and Customs, Enforcement et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-01015-MWB," was brought on behalf of Antonin Trinidad Candido, Roman Trinidad Candido and Maria del Refugio Masias -- all Agriprocessors employees -- by the Peck Law Firm and Dornan & Lustgarten firm in Omaha, Nebraska. Trish Mehaffey of The Gazette relates that the defendants named in the suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, are: -- U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement; -- Department of Homeland Security; -- Julie Myers, assistant secretary of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement; -- Claude Arnold, Immigration and Customs special agent in charge at Postville; -- Michael Chertoff, secretary of Department of Homeland Security and -- Michael Mukasey, Attorney General of the United States. In general, the suit alleged that government agencies and officials violated the detainees' constitutional rights, accusing defendants of arbitrary and indefinite detention. It said that the immigrant workers' rights to consult with counsel had been violated, among other claims. The suit alleges the detainees have not had adequate time for legal services and moving them out of Iowa to various detention centers, as Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said, would interfere with and effectively destroy the ongoing relationship between detainees and their attorneys (Class Action Reporter, May 19, 2008). Joshua Weir, Esq., of the Peck Law Firm in Omaha, Neb., one of the firms representing the workers, told Chicago Tribune that the action was dismissed on July 1, 2008, because the demands of the lawsuit were met. That included keeping the detainees in the area so they would have access to their attorneys and be closer to their families. The suit is "Candido et al. v. US Immigration and Customs., Enforcement et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-01015-MWB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Judge Mark W. Bennett, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Amy L. Peck, Esq. (amy_peck@pecklaw.net) Peck Law Firm 12020 Shamrock Plaza, Suite 333 Omaha, NE 68154 Phone: 402-333-4884 Fax: 402-330-4734 Representing the defendants is: Sean R. Berry, Esq. (sean.berry@usdoj.gov) U.S. Attorney's Office Northern District of Iowa 401 First Street SE Hach Building, Suite 400 Cedar Rapids, IA 52401-1825 Phone: 319-363-0091 Fax: 318-363-1990 JOSEPH GRANT: Faces Suit in Ontario Over "C. Difficile" Outbreak ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital is facing a $50-million class- action lawsuit before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in connection with the hospital's 2006-07 C. difficile outbreak, The Burlington Post reports. Burlington Post explains that C. difficile is a bacteria which infects the intestines and causes illness ranging from diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, weight loss, fever, colitis and, in some cases, death. The plaintiffs in the case are being represented by the law firms of Stanley M. Tick & Associates, and Sutts Strosberg LLP, which both specialize in class-action lawsuits. In a joint press release, the law firms stated, "The plaintiffs allege that the defendant was negligent in the manner in which it cleaned, maintained and disinfected Brant Hospital. As a result, approximately 177 patients were infected with C. difficile and approximately 91 patients died." For more details of the suit, contact: Stanley M. Tick & Associates Barristers & Solicitors, Notaries Public 108 John Street North Hamilton, ON Phone: 905-523-6464 Fax: 905-523-8080 e-Mail: tickinfo@smtick.com Web site: http://www.smtick.com/ - and - Sutts Strosberg LLP 600 Westcourt Place 251 Goyeau Street Windsor, ON N9A 6V4 Phone: 519-258-9333 Fax: 519-258-9527 Web site: http://www.strosbergco.com/ LEVI STRAUSS: Parties Seek Approval for Calif. Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in a consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit against Levi Strauss & Co. are asking the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to approve on interim basis a tentative settlement of the matter. The suit, "In re Levi Strauss & Co., Securities Litigation, Case No. C-03-05605 RMW," is in connection with the company's April 6, 2001 and June 16, 2003 registered bond offerings. Aside from Levi Strauss, the suit also names as defendants: -- the company's chief executive officer, -- its former chief financial officer, -- its corporate controller, -- its directors, and -- its underwriters. The court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the selection of lead counsel in the matter. The action purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's bonds who made purchases pursuant or traceable to the company's prospectuses dated March 8, 2001, or April 28, 2003, or who purchased the company's bonds in the open market from Jan. 10, 2001, to Oct. 9, 2003. The action makes claims under the federal securities laws, including Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, relating to the company's U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings and other public statements. Specifically, the action alleges that certain of the company's financial statements and other public statements during this period materially overstated its net income and other financial results and were otherwise false and misleading, and that the company's public disclosures omitted to state that it made reserve adjustments that plaintiffs allege were improper. The plaintiffs contend that these statements and omissions caused the trading price of the company's bonds to be artificially inflated. They seek compensatory damages as well as other relief. On July 15, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case. The matter came before the court on Oct. 15, 2004, and, after oral arguments had concluded, the court took the matter under submission. On Sept. 11, 2007, the Court dismissed the Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims in the case and dismissed the tax fraud aspects of the Section 11 and 15 claims. The Court also limited the plaintiff class on the Section 11 and 15 claims by eliminating from the class those bondholders who purchased the bonds in private offerings and then exchanged them for registered bonds in the subsequent exchange offer. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with respect to the tax-fraud claims Jan. 14, 2008, and the company stipulated with the plaintiffs that its response will be due on or before March 21, 2008, subject to court approval. On Feb. 22, 2008, the parties agreed to settle the matter. The parties finalized their settlement agreement, and filed a request for preliminary approval of the settlement with the court on June 18, 2008, according to the company's July 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 25, 2008. The suit is "In re Levi Strauss & Co., Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:03-cv-05605-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Ronald M. Whyte, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert A. Jigarjian, Esq. Green Welling, LLP 235 Pine Street, 15th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-477-6700 Fax: 415-477-6710 e-mail: cand.uscourts@classcounsel.com Robert Gans, Esq. (robert@blbglaw.com) Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, LLP 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: 858-793-0070 - and - Jill Manning, Esq. (jmanning@kmslaw.com) Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP 7665 Redwood Blvd., Suite 200 Novato, CA 94945 Phone: 415-898-8160 Representing the defendants are: Erin E. Schneider, Esq. (eschneider@gibsondunn.com) Austin Van, Esq. (aschwing@gibsondunn.com) Schwing of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP One Montgomery St., 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-393-8276 415-393-8210 Fax: 415-374-8458 LOUIS VUITTON: Ill. Judge Won't Dismiss Dior Lipstick Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Bucklo of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has rejected LVMH Perfumes and Cosmetics (Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy) USA, Inc.'s appeal to dismiss a class action lawsuit accusing the company of selling lipstick containing lead under the Christian Dior brand, the Cosmetics Business reports. On Nov. 16, 2007, LMVH was faced with a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that its lipsticks, including Christian Dior "Addict Positive Red," contain dangerous levels of lead. The suit was filed by Cook County resident Pamela Stella, who bought the lipstick in question from a Nordstrom store this summer. She is seeking class-action status for the suit filed in federal court. According to the report, Ms. Stella claims the company knew or should have known that the Christian Dior "Addict Positive Red" lipstick had dangerous levels of lead and LVMH has failed to list lead as an ingredient and has not issued a recall. The plaintiff brings the suit as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a),(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons who purchased lipstick that manufactured, marketed, and distributed by LVMH, from the offering of sale of the concerned lipstick products to the present, containing lead. The plaintiff asked the court to enter an order of judgment against LVMH, including: -- certification of the action as class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1),(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and appointment of plaintiff as class representative and plaintiff's counsel of record as class counsel; -- damages in the amount of monies paid for the concerned lipstick products; -- damages in the amount of monies paid or to be paid for medical testing for lead poisoning of plaintiff and other members of plaintiff class; -- actual damages, statutory damages, punitive or treble damages, and such other relief as provided by the statutes cited; -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary relief; -- injunctive relief enjoining LVMH from distributing, selling, and manufacturing adulterated cosmetics; -- the costs of bringing this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees; and -- all other relief to which plaintiff and members of the class may be entitled at law or in equity. According to the Cosmetics Business, the Chicago judge recently rejected LVMH's appeal not to go ahead with the case. LVMH is an American subsidiary of the French corporation that also make Hennessy cognac, Dom Perignon champagne and Christian Dior perfumed and cosmetic. The suit is "Pamela STella et al. v. LVMH Perfumes and Cosmetics USA, Inc., Case No. 07CV6509," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Bucklo. Representing the plaintiffs are: Ben Barnow, Esq. Sharon Harris, Esq. Erich Schork, Esq. Barnow and Associates, PC One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312-621-2000 Fax: 312-641-5504 Kevin Rogers, Esq. Law Offices of Kevin Rogers 307 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 305 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-332-1188 Fax: 312-332-0192 - and - Aron D. Robinson, Esq. The Law Office of Aron D. Robinson 19 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-857-9050 Fax: 312-857-9054 NEBRASKA BEEF: Faces Lawsuit in Ohio Over E. Coli Food Poisoning ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nebraska Beef, Ltd., is facing a class-action complaint before the Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio over allegations that it id not recall 530,000 lbs. of meat in time to prevent people from getting e. coli food poisoning, CourtHouse News Service reports. This is a class action based upon the June-July 2008 e. coli outbreak in Ohio caused by Nebraska Beef producing, selling and distributing hundreds of thousands of pounds of tainted ground beef to stores in Ohio. The report recounts that on July 1, Nebraska Beef recalled more than 531,000 pounds of ground beef contaminated with e. coli. On July 3, the company widened the recall to include more than 5 million pounds of meat. Accoridng to CourtHouse, for many Ohioans, the recalls came too late. More than 39 cases of e. coli illness have already been confirmed in Ohio and Michigan from Nebraska Beef's tainted Meat. This is a class action brought under Ohio R. Civ. P. 23(A), (B)(1), and (B)(3), seeking monetary relief. Named plaintiff Nina Schlaegal brings this action on behalf of all Ohio claimants who have suffered personal injury caused by Nebraska Beef's contaminated e. coli meat. She demands a court order: -- certifying this case as a class action under Ohio R. Civ. P. 23 (A), (B)(1), and (B)(3); -- awarding plaintiff and the class compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and all litigation costs; -- awarding plaintiff and the class pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest as provided by law; and proper. -- awarding such other and further relie as may be just and The suit is "Nina Schlaegel, et al. v. Nebraska Beef, Ltd., Case No. 08CV C 07 9676," filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio. Representing the plaintiff are: Mark Lewis, Esq. Mark Kitrick, Esq. Sean Harris, Esq. Kitrick, Lewis & Harris Co., LPA 515 East Main Street, Suite 515 Columbus, OH 43215-5398 Phone: 614-224-7711 Fax: 614-225-8985 OSB LITIGATION: Settles Pennsylvania Antitrust Suit for $45 Mln. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Louisiana-Pacific Corp. agreed to pay more than $45 million to settle the class action lawsuit entitled "In re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv-00826-PD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Reuters reports. According to the report, the company, which vehemently denies that it broke any laws in its actions said it will pay $44.5 million into an escrow account to a class of direct purchasers of OSB -- an engineered wood made from wood chips and used in construction. In addition, it will pay another $2.3 million into an escrow account for indirect purchasers of OSB. In a statement released to Reuters, Louisiana-Pacific Corp. Chief Executive Rick Frost said they are prepared to continue to vigorously defend this matter and believe they would have prevailed. "However . . . the magnitude of the plaintiffs' claims and the fact that any damages would be tripled under U.S. antitrust laws made even a small risk of losing at trial one we couldn't afford to take as it would have put the entire company and our shareholders at risk," the statement added. Case Background As reported in the April 10, 2008 edition of the Class Action Reporter, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania certified a class in the lawsuit composed of consumer end-users of Oriented Strand Board who indirectly purchased new OSB manufactured and sold by one or more of the following manufacturers in the U.S. from June 1, 2002, through Feb. 24, 2006: -- Louisiana-Pacific Corp., -- Weyerhaeuser Co., -- Georgia-Pacific LLC f/k/a Georgia-Pacific Corp., -- Potlatch Corp., -- Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd., -- Norbord Industries, Inc., -- Tolko Industries, Inc., and -- J.M. Huber Corp. and Huber Engineered Woods LLC Initially, several complaints were brought on behalf of direct purchasers of OSB during the period from June 1, 2002, through the present, and allege violations of the antitrust laws by defendants' actions in reducing the available supply of OSB and fixing the price at which it was sold. The cases were later consolidated and a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on March 31, 2006. Discovery of millions of pages of documents and nearly 100 depositions were later completed. The Court granted the plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and denied the defendants' Motion to Dismiss the complaint and for judgment on the pleadings in August 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2007). For more details, contact: OSB Class Notice Request c/o The Notice Company P.O. Box 778 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: 1-800-401-0819 e-mail: http://www.OSBnotice.com The suit is "In re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv- 00826-PD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Paul S. Diamond presiding. Representing the defendants are: William P. Butterfield, Esq. (wbutterfield@cmht.com) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll 1100 New York Avenue N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-408-4600 - and Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. (jcorrigan@srk-law.com) Spector Roseman and Kodroff 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-496-0300 Representing the company are: Barack S. Echols, Esq. (bechols@kirkland.com) James Howard Mutchnik, Esq. (jmutchnik@kirkland.com) James H. Schink, Esq. (kschink@kirkland.com) Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 7500 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-861-3144 312-861-2350 - and - Sherry A. Swirsky, Esq. (sswirsky@schnader.com) Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP 1600 Market St., Ste. 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-751-2000 Fax: 215-972-7475 PACIFICARE LIFE: Faces California Suit Over Breach of Contracts --------------------------------------------------------------- Pacificare Life and Health Insurance and American Medical Security Life Insurance breach are facing a class-action complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, CourtHouse News Service reports. The complaint alleges that the companies breached and canceled contracts, in bad faith, in response to claims from policyholders, and set them up with confusing applications. PACIFICARE: Faces Lawsuit in Nevada for Reusing Syringes -------------------------------------------------------- PacifiCare of Nevada, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint before the Eighth Judicial District Court, State of Nevada, in and for the County of Clark over allegations that its syringes may have been reused, Nick Divito writes for CourtHouse News Service. The class action suit arises from the unconscionable failure of the defendants to properly establish and implement a quality assurance program to monitor, evaluate and regulate the medical providers within their HMO network as required by Nevada Administrative Code 695C.400 et seq. The complaint alleges that PacifiCare failed to monitor and regulate doctors in its HMO who reused syringes and may have exposed as many as 40,000 patients to HIV and Hepatitis B and C. This action is brought as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all natural persons, current spouses and natural born children of those persons who received anesthesia via injection from the defendants including without limitation, the Endoscopy Center Providers, between March2004 and Jan. 2008. The class claims that after disease caused by the reused syringes became public knowledge, a state investigation "revealed that identical injection practices were followed by (PacifiCare's) health care provides located in Northern Nevada." Named plaintiffs Susan and Jack Sadler say PacifiCare, as an HMO, was obligated under Nevada law to establish and implement a quality assurance program to monitor, evaluate and regulate its health care providers, but failed to do so. The HMO "completely ignored (its) statutorily mandated duty to establish and/or implement a quality assurance program," the lawsuit states, and such negligence "resulted in the utterly substandard, unprofessional and unsafe conditions present at the facilities of its health care providers." According to the complaint, the Southern Nevada Health District in January urged about 40,000 patients to get tested for blood- borne diseases after an investigation found that syringes and single-use vials of anesthetics were being reused on patients at the Endoscopy Center of Nevada-East, Desert Shadow Endoscopy Center, the Gastroenterology Center of Nevada, the Gastroenterology Center and the Spanish Hills Surgical Center. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether the plaintiffs and putative class members are covered by health insurance plans issued by the defendants; (b) whether each of the directly exposed plaintiffs received medical treatment or care from a medical provider under the defendants' health insurance plans or programs between March 2004 and Jan. 2008; (c) whether defendants failed to establish a quality assurance program as required pursuant to NAC 695C.400, et seq; (d) whether defendants were negligent in failing to properly establish a quality assurance program as required pursuant to NAC 695C.400, et seq.; (e) whether defendants were negligent in failing to implement a quality assurance program as required pursuant to NAC 695C.400 et seq.; (f) whether defendants' failure to properly establish and implement the quality assurance procedures required by NAC 695C.400 et seq., allowed the unsafe injection practices and procedures to occurred at the facilities of defendants' Endoscopy Center Providers and other Health Care Providers; (g) whether the plaintiffs and the putative class members, as identified, will require medical monitoring for a potential exposure to Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, HIV, and other blood-borne diseases as a result of defendants' conduct; and (h) whether the plaintiffs and the putative class members will require medical monitoring for emotional stress. The plaintiffs ask the court for: -- certification of the class as defined pursuant to Nev. R. Civ. P 23(a) and 23(b)(2); -- declaratory and equitable relief in the form of the establishment of a court supervised program for medical monitoring of all class members as the defendants' expense in excess of $10,000; -- their attorneys' fees and costs incurred; and -- all such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper under the circumstances, including, without limitation, post-judgment attorneys' fees and costs. The suit is "Susan Sadler, et al. v. PacifiCare of Nevada, Inc., et al., Case No. A566980," filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court, State of Nevada, in and for the County of Clark. Representing the plaintiffs is: Craig a. Marquiz, Esq. Marquiz Law Office 3088 Via Flaminia Court Henderson, NV 89052 Phone: 702-263-5533 Fax: 707-263-5532 PARRAGON INC: Recalls Kids' Necklaces Due to Lead Exposure Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- Parragon Inc. in New York, New York, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 500,000 Children's Necklaces with Ballet Shoes Charms, imported by Parragon Books Ltd., of the United Kingdom. The company said the solder on the charm of the necklace may contain high levels of lead, which if ingested by young children can cause adverse health effects. No injuries have been reported. The recalled necklace has a silver-colored chain with a silver- colored charm consisting of a pair of ballet shoes and a bow. The necklace was provided with the purchase of a children's book entitled, The Magical Ballet Slippers (alternatively titled Ballerina's Magical Shoes), ISBN 1405411449, published by Parragon Books, Ltd. UPC 9781405411448 is printed on the back of the book. Spanish version, Las zapatillas magicas de la bailarina ISBN 1405448385; UPC 9781405448383. French version, Les petits chaussons magiques ISBN 1405449527; UPC 9781405449526. These recalled necklaces with ballet charms were manufactured in China and were being sold at retail chains and independent bookstores nationwide from January 2003 through June 2008 for about $7. Pictures of the recalled necklaces with ballet charms are found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08326a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08326b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08326c.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08326d.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled necklaces away from children and contact Parragon for instructions on how to return the necklace and receive a free children's book. For more information, consumers can contact Parragon 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, toll-free at 888-480-2854, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.parragonrecall.com/ PHILIPPINE MAGAZINES: Sued by Baptist Sect for Obscene Content -------------------------------------------------------------- A conservative religious denomination has filed a class action lawsuit against several magazines in the Philippines for allegedly corrupting the youth, Gilbert Felongco writes for GulfNews. According to the report, pastors and preachers of the Baptist Christian sect last week commenced a case of "grave scandal and publication of obscene materials" against executives of the Philippine edition of Playboy and two other equally popular magazines -- Maxim and FHM -- besides three local tabloids. The case was filed before the Manila Prosecutor's office by the group, which was led by city councilor Bienvenido Abante, who, the report notes, is known for his conservative Christian views. "This marks the first time that a class suit will be filed against these magazines and tabloids," Mr. Abante said in interviews aired by various television stations on July 8. Top editorial staff of Playboy, and the editors and publishers of Maxim and FHM, as well as local tabloids Sagad, Hataw and Toro, were named as respondents in the case. Mr. Abante argued that distribution of the publications in Manila violated an ordinance that prohibited the printing, publication, sale, distribution and exhibition of obscene and pornographic acts and materials. The complaint also stated that the publications were promoting pornographic literature with "no educational, artistic, cultural or scientific value." "The publications clearly . . . intended . . . to . . . arouse prurient interest," the complaint added. Mr. Abante said that the class action suit would serve as a "test case" that would facilitate new laws against the publication of obscene material. Earlier this year, GulfNews recounts, Roman Catholic bishops had led mass protests against Playboy's arrival in the country. The opposition to the magazine eventually lost steam and the popular men's publication finally came to be printed and published in the country. SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Faces California Suit Over "QuickPick" Program ---------------------------------------------------------------- On June 30, 2008, Carl Woodmansee filed a class action lawsuit before the United Stated District Court for Central District of California, seeking at least $5 million from Scientific Games, Frank Angst writes for the Thoroughbred Times. The Class Action Reporter, on June 5, 2008, reported a similar complaint against Scientific Games in the Superior Court in Los Angeles. According to the CAR report, Scientific Games' machines excluded the last horse from every race in its "QuickPick" program for more than six months. Both complaints state that "the QuickPick program excluded the last horse in every race from the betting slips." Mr. Woodmansee claims that he purchased Quick Pick tickets on numerous occasions since November 1, 2007, with the understanding that each ticket would offer a random selection of numbers. Thoroughbred Times notes that the suit also alleges that "there are tens of thousands of class members," affected. In its investigation, the California Horse Racing Board determined that Scientific Games was aware of the programming error in October 2007 but did not disclose the problem, Thoroughbred Times says. The suit is "Woodmansee v. Scientific Games Racing, LLC, et al., Case Number: 2:2008cv04311," filed in the United Stated District Court for Central District of California. TOMOTHERAPY INC: Roy Jacobs Amends Wis. Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roy Jacobs & Associates amended its previously filed class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, to add an insider trading claim on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of TomoTherapy, Inc., from October 10, 2007, through October 22, 2007. On October 10, 2007, the Company's secondary share offering of 8.5 million shares became effective at $22.25 per share. None of the proceeds of the Offering were received by the Company. Rather, the Company's Chairman, its Chief Executive Officer, its President and its Chief Financial Officer sold a very significant number of shares and together received tens of millions of dollars in proceeds. In June, Roy Jacobs & Associates has filed a class action lawsuit charging TOMO and the officers referenced above with violations of the Federal Securities Laws (Class Action Reporter, June 13, 2008). It is alleged, inter alia, that defendants concealed in the Offering and thereafter that a larger percentage of TOMO's revenue backlog was from for-profit entities which had ordered multi-unit Hi-Art X-ray medical treatment systems and could be anticipated to take delivery of the units sequentially throughout 2008 and 2009. Thus, contrary to defendants' representations that order backlog would generally be recognized as revenue within 12 months of order placement, this was not the case with respect to the multi-unit orders, which represented an increasingly large percentage of total backlog. On April 17, 2008, the defendants issued a press release announcing that TOMO would suffer a net loss for the first quarter of 2008, and that defendants had revised materially downward their revenue and earnings outlook for fiscal 2008. The defendants finally admitted that that a greater percentage of TOMO's backlogged orders were for multi-unit Hi-Art systems ordered by for profit entities who would be expected to take delivery of the units sequentially. Thus, these units would remain in backlog longer than single-unit orders and delivery would be pushed further back in 2008 and even into 2009. The representation that backlog could ordinarily be converted into recognized revenue within 12 months from order placement was finally revealed as false, incomplete, and misleading. Interested parties may move the court no later than July 29, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. (rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com) Roy Jacobs & Associates 60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor New York, NY 10165 Phone: 1-888-884-4490 VIRGINIA: Fairfax County Defendant in Huntington Flood Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firms of Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca and The Dominion Law Center filed a lawsuit under the Virginia Constitution against Fairfax County and the Virginia Department of Transportation on behalf of over 100 residents of Fairfax County's Huntington neighborhood for $20 million in compensation for damages caused by the massive flood of Cameron Run on June 25, 2006. In the 2006 Flood, the flow depth of Cameron Run jumped more than seven fold, rising from about one foot deep to almost 14 feet deep. At that magnitude, the flood waters overwhelmed the southern bank of the Run and engulfed much of the Huntington neighborhood. The flood waters burst basement windows, backed up through the storm and sanitary sewer system, and completely filled the basements of many homes right up to the first floor with sewage-laced water. The 2006 Flood exposed the families living in Huntington -- many of whom included babies, small children, and the elderly -- not only to the immediate dangers of rapid flood waters, but to the health risks of sewage and bacteria in the flood waters, and in the resulting brown/gray slime left on the walls, floors, carpets, furniture, and other household items. The flood caused extensive personal property damage and permanently reduced the value of these homes. The Virginia Constitution guarantees just compensation for citizens when their property is damaged as a result of a public project or action. The Huntington complaint alleges that the flood -- and the level of damage it caused -- was the direct result of the building of the Beltway, which occurred before modern environmental laws had been enacted: -- to build the Beltway, Cameron Run was actually moved from its original location to a point over 380 yards closer to the Huntington neighborhood. -- Marshland that served as an important drainage system for the area was also filled in to provide a base for the Beltway. -- the Beltway itself, built along the bank of the new channel for Cameron Run opposite the Huntington neighborhood, acts as a concrete wall forcing any overflow from the Run towards the Huntington homes. -- the new channel dug for Cameron Run is significantly narrower than it was before it was moved, and that channel has not been dredged since it was dug. After decades of development in the area, Cameron Run has filled with what was estimated 10 years ago as 5 feet of sediment. "Our area has benefited from the Beltway, but the way it was built created a significant cost that the folks living in Huntington now have to bear," said Bob Cynkar, Esq., of Washington, DC's Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca. "These are not wealthy people, and it is not fair for them to pay this special price of danger to their families, and damage to their homes and property. With nothing being done to protect this neighborhood, the situation is only going to get worse. These people live in constant fear of being flooded every time the region experiences a major rain storm." To contact Mr. Cynkar: Robert J. Cynkar, Esq. (rcynkar@cuneolaw.com) Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca 507 C Street NE Washington, D.C. 20002 Phone: 202-587-5063 Fax: 202-789-1813 WACHOVIA CORP: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in New York --------------------------------------------------------- Charles H. Johnson & Associates commenced a class action lawsuit against Wachovia Corp. for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended. The Complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Wachovia Savings Plan between January 23, 2007, and the present and whose accounts included investments in Wachovia common stock. The Complaint alleges that Wachovia and the various Defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to Plan participants and beneficiaries by: 1) failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's investment in Wachovia stock; 2) failing to properly monitor the performance of their fiduciary appointees; 3) failing to disclose necessary information to co- fiduciaries; 4) failing to provide complete and accurate information to the Class regarding the soundness of Wachovia stock and the prudence of investing and holding retirement contributions in Wachovia stock; 5) failing to prevent breaches by other fiduciaries of their duties of prudent and loyal management, complete and accurate communications, and adequate monitoring; and 6) knowingly participating in breaches. The suit is "Wright v. Wachovia Corp. et al., Case Number: 1:2008cv05324," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Denny Chin, presiding. For more information, contact: Neil Eisenbraun, Esq. Charles H. Johnson & Associates 2599 Mississippi Street New Brighton, MN 55112 Phone: 651-633-5685 e-mail: cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com WASHINGTON NATIONAL: Faces Fla. Home Health Care Insurance Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Washington National Insurance Corp., a unit of Conseco, Inc., is facing a purported class action lawsuit in Florida over an alleged failure to pay the maximum benefit for home health care insurance, Chris O'Malley writes for The Indianapolis Business Journal. The suit was filed by Anna M. Cohen, a resident of Broward County, Florida, on July 2, 2008, before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The suit seeks more than $5 million in damages from Washington National. Indianapolis Business Journal cites Ms. Cohen as stating that Washington National denied the claim on grounds she reached the original $250,000 lifetime maximum benefit stated in her policy. However, the suit claims, the policy also provides for an 8% annual increase for all benefits. According to the report, Ms. Cohen's attorney cited a 2007 case involving a nearly identical policy in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled, "it would be reasonable for an ordinary person to conclude that all benefits increase by 8 percent each year." The suit states that Washington National previously refunded premiums Ms. Cohen had paid after Feb. 22, 2008, when it took the position the lifetime maximum benefit had been reached. The suit is "Cohen v. Washington National Insurance Corporation, Case No. 0:08-cv-61017-WJZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge William J. Zloch, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jeffrey Michael Berman, Esq. (jberman@kpkb.com) Kluger Peretz Kaplan & Berlin Miami Center 201 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1700 Miami, FL 33131-8424 Phone: 305-379-9000 Fax: 305-379-3428 - and - Melissa L. Stewart, Esq. (mstewart@dreierllp.com) Dreier LLP 499 Park Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-328-6100 New Securities Fraud Cases MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- On July 8, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against MRV Communications, Inc. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from March 31, 2003, through June 5, 2008. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. For more information, contact: K. Lynn Nunn, Esq. (kln@federmanlaw.com) Federman & Sherwood 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/ ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent research, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Janice M. Mendoza, Freya Natasha F. Dy, and Peter A. 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 * * *