/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/081002.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, October 2, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 196
Headlines
ACE LTD: April 2009 Hearing Set for Policyholders' Suit Appeal
ACE LTD: No Ruling Yet on Pa. Securities Suit Dismissal Motion
AT&T: Enjoined from Proceeding with Inadequate Settlement
BODISEN BIOTECH: Granted Initial Motion to Dismiss Lawsuits
BUILDING MATERIALS: Sued by Workers Over Unpaid Overtime
CANADA: Settlement Contributes $231,922 to Local Initiatives
CARTER'S INC: Faces Illinois Lawsuit Over Big Price Reductions
CHEMTURA CORP: Reaches $21MM Settlement in Conn. Securities Suit
CHEMTURA CORP: Works to Settle Antitrust Suits Over Ureathanes
CHEMTURA CORP: Lawsuits Over May 2004 Fire Still Pending in Ga.
CITI BANK: Accused of Cheating on Promised Gasoline Rebates
FIFTH THIRD: Faces Ohio Lawsuit Over Debit Card Transactions
HALLIBURTON CO: Class Status Denied in Texas Securities Lawsuit
ILLINOIS UNION: Massachusetts Suit Over B Quotes Remains Stayed
INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: April 24 Mediation Fails to Resolve Case
INTERMIX MEDIA: Court Dismisses Certain Claims in Calif. Lawsuit
INTERMIX MEDIA: Court Yet to Hear Arguments Nixed Suits Appeal
LAKES REGION: Uranium & E. Coli in Water Prompts Class Lawsuit
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Ongoing in ERISA Violations Lawsuit
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Suits Alleging ERISA Violations Pending in Md.
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Settles NYAG-Related Case; Still Faces Others
PACIFIC MARITIME: Settles Travel Time Lawsuit for $15.6 Million
PRUDENTIAL FEDERAL: Utah Sup. Ct. Favors Company in 33-Year Suit
RESOURCE LIFE: Policyholders' Suit Over Auto Loans Still Pending
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Keeps Selling Banned Chemicals, Suit Claims
TRAFIGURA: 30,000 Seek Damages for Toxic Waste-Related Ailments
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Settles Shareholder, Derivative Lawsuits
New Securities Fraud Cases
SPECTRANETICS: Hagens Berman Files Colo. Securities Fraud Suit
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Labaton Sucharow Files Del. Securities Suit
*********
ACE LTD: April 2009 Hearing Set for Policyholders' Suit Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit tentatively set
a hearing on April 20, 2009, in connection with an appeal in a
putative nationwide class-action suit filed by insurance
policyholders against ACE Ltd., ACE INA Holdings, Inc. ACE USA,
and a number of insurers.
Initially, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated several policyholders' cases for coordinated
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey
On Aug. 1, 2005, the plaintiffs in consolidated proceedings
filed two consolidated amended complaints, one concerning
commercial insurance and the other concerning employee benefit
plans. The employee benefit plans litigation against ACE has
been dismissed subsequently.
In the commercial insurance complaint, the plaintiffs named ACE,
ACE INA Holdings, ACE USA, ACE American Insurance Co., Illinois
Union Insurance Co., and Indemnity Insurance Co. of North
America. They allege that certain brokers and insurers,
including certain ACE entities, conspired to increase premiums
and allocate customers through the use of "B" quotes and
contingent commissions. In addition, the complaints allege that
the broker defendants received additional income by improperly
placing their clients' business with insurers through related
wholesale entities that acted as intermediaries between the
broker and insurer.
The plaintiffs also allege that the broker defendants tied the
purchase of primary insurance to the placement of such coverage
with reinsurance carriers through the broker defendants'
reinsurance broker subsidiaries.
The complaint asserts causes of action against ACE including
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, federal
antitrust law, state antitrust law, aiding and abetting breach
of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.
On Nov. 29, 2005, ACE and other property and casualty insurer
defendants filed motions to dismiss the commercial insurance
complaint.
On Feb. 13, 2006, the plaintiffs filed motions to certify a
class in the commercial insurance case (this motion has been
fully briefed and is pending).
On Oct. 3, 2006, the court ruled on the defendants' motions and
held that the McCarran Ferguson Act did not apply as a defense
to the allegations, but the Court also held that plaintiffs had
not adequately alleged an antitrust conspiracy or a RICO
enterprise and directed plaintiffs to submit supplemental
pleadings.
The plaintiffs filed their supplemental pleadings on Oct. 25,
2006. On Nov. 30, 2006, the defendants filed a renewed motion
to dismiss.
On April 5, 2007, the court granted the defendants' renewed
motion and dismissed the consolidated complaint without
prejudice for failure to state a claim under either the Sherman
Act or the RICO statutes. The court, however, permitted the
plaintiffs one final opportunity to re-plead and an amended
complaint was filed on May 22, 2007.
The amended complaint purported to add several new ACE
defendants, including ACE Group Holdings, Inc., ACE US Holdings,
Inc., Westchester Fire Insurance Co., INA Corp., INA Financial
Corp., INA Holdings Corp., ACE Property and Casualty Insurance
Co., and Pacific Employers Insurance Co.
The plaintiffs also added a new antitrust claim against Marsh &
McLennan Cos. Inc., ACE, and other insurers based on the same
allegations as the other claims but limited to excess casualty
insurance.
At the defendants' request, the court dismissed the plaintiffs'
antitrust and RICO claims with prejudice on Aug. 31, 2007, and
Sept. 28, 2007, respectively. Furthermore, the court declined
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state
law claims, and dismissed those claims without prejudice.
On Oct. 10, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the
antitrust and RICO rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit. The appeal is fully briefed. Oral argument is
tentatively scheduled for April 20, 2009, but the Third Circuit
has not yet decided whether oral argument will in fact be heard,
according to the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2008.
ACE Limited -- http://www.acelimited.com/-- along with its
direct and indirect subsidiaries (collectively, the ACE Group of
Companies) is a global property and casualty insurance and
reinsurance organization. The company provides a range of
products and services to commercial and individual customers in
more than 140 countries and jurisdictions. It operates through
the four segments: Insurance-North American, Insurance-Overseas
General, Global Reinsurance, and Life Insurance and Reinsurance.
ACE LTD: No Ruling Yet on Pa. Securities Suit Dismissal Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities
fraud class-action lawsuit against ACE, Ltd.
Initially, ACE Ltd. was named in four putative securities class
action suits filed on Oct. 14, 2004, following the filing of a
civil suit against Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc. by New York
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. Mr. Spitzer charged the
insurance brokerage arm of Marsh & McLennan with price fixing
and collusion.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the
four suits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania. The court appointed as lead plaintiffs Sheet
Metal Workers' National Pension Fund and Alaska Ironworkers
Pension Trust.
The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
Sept. 30, 2005, naming the company, Evan G. Greenberg, Brian
Duperreault, and Philip V. Bancroft as defendants.
The plaintiffs assert claims solely under Section 10(b) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Act (control
person liability). They allege that the company public
statements and securities filings should have revealed that
insurers, including certain company entities and brokers,
allegedly conspired to increase premiums and allocate customers
through the use of "B" quotes and contingent commissions and
that the company's revenues and earnings were inflated by these
practices.
On Oct. 28, 2005, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated suit. The defendants
argued that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged any
actionable misrepresentations under the securities laws, and
that the defendants could not be held liable for any failures to
disclose information. The defendants also argued that the
individual defendants could not be held liable for statements
they did not make, that the plaintiffs had not adequately pled
scienter, and that the plaintiffs had not adequately pled loss
causation.
Th plaintiffs filed a response and the motion to dismiss remains
pending.
The company reported no further development regarding the case
in its Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2008.
The suit is "In Re Ace Limited Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:05-md-01675-TJS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Timothy J. Savage,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Tor Gronborg, Esq. (torg@lerachlaw.com)
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-231-1058
- and -
Marc S. Henzel, Esq. (mhenzel182@aol.com)
Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel
273 Montgomery Avenue, Suite 202
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Phone: 610-660-8000
Representing the defendants are:
Johnny Carter, Esq.
Susman Godfrey LLP
1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77002-5096
Phone: 713-651-9366
- and -
George M. Gowen, III, Esq. (ggowen@cozen.com)
Cozen O'Connor
1900 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-665-2000
Fax: 215-665-2013
AT&T: Enjoined from Proceeding with Inadequate Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
SAN DIEGO, September 30, 2008 -- A Federal Judge in San
Diego enjoined AT&T from proceeding with a proposed settlement
for charges associated with deceptive marketing claims on its
customers' mobile phone bills.
AT&T entered into this settlement in a Georgia state case
less than two months after it was filed earlier this year. This
rushed settlement was an effort by AT&T to eliminate the
enormous exposure it faced in connection with a multi-district
litigation pending in San Diego, California, since 2005 and
which has been the subject of much media attention.
According to Robert W. Thompson, Esq., of Callahan, McCune
& Willis, APLC, lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the
multidistrict litigation in San Diego, "The proposed settlement
in Georgia was entirely unacceptable. It placed the entire
burden on AT&T customers to prove that the charges were
unauthorized and would have resulted in a very small payout. It
was just a method for AT&T to try and get out of their
wrongdoing cheaply."
In a sharply worded ruling, Judge Jeffrey Miller lambasted
the proposed settlement as inadequate to protect the rights of
the plaintiffs. "The structure of the settlement appears
designed to limit a consumer's incentive and ability to
adequately assess their claims." This comes on the heels of a
Federal Court Judge in the Northern District of Illinois
criticizing one of AT&T's lawyers for making false statements
under oath in connection with another case against AT&T.
This legal battle stems from a lawsuit filed by Charles
Ford against AT&T for unauthorized charges it placed on its
customers' cellular phone bills. According to the complaint,
AT&T placed charges on customers' bills whenever aggregators and
third party content providers, such as Jamster!, told AT&T that
its customers had ordered certain products without any oversight
by AT&T to ensure that the charges are authorized or accurate.
In fact, the complaint alleges many customers did not order
products or that charges were the result of fraudulent
advertisements directed mostly to children such as Mr. Ford's
daughter. Because AT&T kept a percentage of the amount billed
on behalf of third party providers, AT&T had no incentive to
stop this practice or help its customers. Since these practices
started, consumers have paid billions of dollars for third party
charges on their cellular phone bills.
After the Ford lawsuit was filed, various similar lawsuits
sprung up across the nation. In 2006, a judicial panel
coordinated these lawsuits in a multidistrict litigation in San
Diego, California. The coordinated actions seek to have all
third party charges that were improperly placed on consumer
bills by AT&T given back to the customers. AT&T has vigorously
fought this class action lawsuit. For more than three years
AT&T has sought to have the lawsuit thrown out of court by
arguing customers were obligated to arbitrate their claims and
not to bring a class action. This argument was thrown out of
court and AT&T appealed. According to Mr. Thompson, "First AT&T
failed to avoid liability to millions of consumers through their
unconscionable arbitration agreement. When that failed, AT&T
tried to get out from under this litigation by selling out the
class."
In order to accomplish its goal, AT&T turned to a small
plaintiff's law firm out of Chicago that had filed a case
against AT&T many months after the Ford action. After their
initial discussions with AT&T, the Chicago lawyers filed a
lawsuit in Atlanta, Georgia, where AT&T is headquartered, and
entered into a settlement agreement in that case that would
release AT&T and all of its third party providers from any
liability for claims of unauthorized billing in exchange for
$4.3 million in attorneys fees and a claims process that is sure
to result in little payout to AT&T's customers. AT&T obtained
Court approval of the settlement without ever having advised the
counsel or the court in the nationwide multidistrict lawsuit
what they were doing.
In light of the Court's ruling, the multidistrict
litigation will go forward and AT&T will be forced to provide
certain information regarding its practices. The plaintiffs in
San Diego will be seeking class certification on behalf of the
class as soon as such information has been provided.
For more information, contact:
Robert W. Thompson or Kathleen Hartman
Callahan, McCune & Willis, APLC
111 Fashion Lane
Tustin, CA 92780
Phone: 714-730-5700
Fax: 714-730-1642
BODISEN BIOTECH: Granted Initial Motion to Dismiss Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
SHAANXI, China, Sept. 30, 2008 -- The New York Federal
Court presiding over the eight consolidated class action suits
against Bodisen Biotech, Inc., and its management granted
initial motion to dismiss the cases.
In addition, the court has notified Bodisen that it also
granted our second motion to dismiss, which challenged the
subject matter jurisdiction of the court over about 40% of the
class and thus sought to reduce the number of potential class
plaintiffs significantly. The court has not provided us this
written decision, however, we hope to receive it soon.
The court had initially given plaintiffs 20 days to amend
the complaint to see if they can fix the defects in the
allegations that formed the basis for our motion and the
decision of court. However, on September 25, 2008, the court
entered an order directing the Clerk of the Court to enter
judgment and close the case. On September 26, 2008, the Clerk
of the Court entered judgment saying "the complaint is dismissed
in this action; accordingly, the case is closed."
Mr. Bo Chen, Company CEO and Chairman, stated "we are
extremely pleased with the court's ruling, which gives Bodisen
the opportunity to focus on re-building the Company. We have
waited a long time and spent a lot of money fighting these
suits. We are not 100% cleared of all legal liabilities,
however, we are satisfied with the direction these cases are
taking. This is all very good news for Bodisen, and we are very
happy to get on with our lives."
Bodisen Biotech, Inc. -- http://www.bodisen.com-- is a
leading manufacturer of liquid and organic compound fertilizers,
pesticides, insecticides and agricultural raw materials
certified by the Petroleum Chemical Industry Administrative
office of China (Chemical Petroleum Production Administrative
Bureau), Shaanxi provincial government and Chinese government.
The Company is headquartered in Shaanxi province and is a
Delaware corporation. The Company's environmentally friendly
"green" products have been proven to improve soil and plant
quality and to increase crop yields.
BUILDING MATERIALS: Sued by Workers Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
A group of construction workers has filed a class-action lawsuit
against Building Materials Holding Corp., claiming the
distributor coerced them into working unpaid overtime, among
other alleged violations, SmartBrief reports.
According to SmartBrief, the company declined to comment, but
denied the suit's allegations in a statement.
SmartBrief did not report further details regarding the case.
CANADA: Settlement Contributes $231,922 to Local Initiatives
------------------------------------------------------------
TORONTO, Sept. 30, 2008 -- Toronto Community Foundation is
distributing $231,922 to local initiatives as part of the latest
settlement in a longstanding class action lawsuit involving
price fixing by manufacturers of a rubber product known as EPDM
(Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer) used in transportation and
other areas.
"This type of settlement is one way for the courts to
compensate consumers affected by class action lawsuits, since
there is no way to locate everyone that made a purchase," said
Rahul Bhardwaj, President and CEO at Toronto Community
Foundation. "In Toronto's Vital Signs(R), the Foundation's
annual report, we've identified transportation as one of the key
issues impacting quality of life. Over the years we've
witnessed trends and concerns involving commuting times, access
to public transit, gridlock and traffic congestion. We've done
our research and these grants will be distributed in order to
maximize impact on the quality of life in Toronto."
Toronto Community Foundation is providing grants to the
following groups to meet transportation needs in the community:
* Centre for City Ecology - Walkability Studies in High-
Rise Apartment Neighbourhoods for the Tower Renewal Pilot
Sites, a two-year urban literacy, civic engagement and
community leadership project in partnership with U of T
and ERA Architects that will engage residents in high-
rise communities in the revitalization process of high-
density neighborhoods.
* Pollution Probe - Moving Towards an Electric Mobility
Master Plan for the City of Toronto, a two-year research
and planning project exploring electric vehicles and the
implementation of necessary integrated energy supports.
* Clean Air Partnership - Toronto Coalition for Active
Transport for a two-year project that includes research
on bike lanes, on-street parking and the impact on
commercial business, a comprehensive comparison study
looking at how Toronto fares internationally against
other cities implementing cycling and pedestrian-friendly
policies, and laying the groundwork for N/S and E/W
commuter cycling arteries.
* Toronto Cyclists Union - Toronto Cycling a one-year
project in partnership with CultureLink to research,
write and edit a resource to encourage and support
cycling among newcomers in Toronto.
"Community foundations have now distributed more than
$1.2 million to charities from coast to coast from various class
action settlements, said Monica Patten, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Community Foundations of Canada. "We're
pleased to see dollars making their way back into communities
and are happy to assist the courts in whatever way we can."
A total of 41 grants have been made in 22 communities
across Canada as a result of the various lawsuits.
Toronto Community Foundation
The Toronto Community Foundation is one of Canada's largest
public Foundations and is an interesting alternative for
individuals and families interested in establishing their own
private foundation. By partnering with the Foundation, donors
become engaged with a vital organization that is dedicated to
improving the quality of life in Toronto and making it the best
place to live, work, learn and grow.
Community Foundations of Canada
Community Foundations of Canada (CFC) is the national
membership organization for the 164 community foundations found
in cities, towns and rural areas across the country. With more
than $2.9-billion in assets, the community foundation movement
is one of Canada's largest grantmakers, providing more than
$176-million in grants last year to thousands of charities.
CARTER'S INC: Faces Illinois Lawsuit Over Big Price Reductions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carter's Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging it cheats customers by advertising big price reductions
but reducing them from prices that are "substantially higher"
than it actually sells the products, CourtHouse News service
reports.
According to the report, this is an action for breach of
contract brought against the defendant for its failure to
provide the percentage or dollar off discounts contractually
promised to purchasers of Carter's brand products (Carter's
Brand Products) sold at Carter's company-owned retail outlets
(Carter's Retail Stores).
The suit says Carter's promises and contracts with all its
customers, at the time of purchase, that Carter's Brand Products
sold in Carter's Retail Stores are being sold at special sale
prices. Through standard signage and its price tags, Carter's
promises set dollar or percentage discounts on Carter's Brand
Products purchased in Carter's Retail Stores.
According to the complaint, a discount, to be real, meaningful,
and to provide savings for consumers, must be based on an actual
"regular" or "suggested price" at which sales actually occur in
the ordinary course of business, to which the discount is
applied. 16 C.F.R. 233.2-.3; 14 Ill. Admin. Code Section 470.220
and 14 Ill. Admin. Code Section 470.260 (2007).
However, Carter's discounts on the Carter's Brand Products it
sells in its stores are based on fictional Carter's Suggested
Prices, which are substantially higher than the prices at which
it or other retailers actually sell Carter's Brand Products, the
complaint contends.
The suit says Carter's does not provide the agreed upon
percentage off or dollar discounts, which it has agreed to
provide on the price tags on each item and on signs displayed
prominently throughout its 228 owned and operated Carter's
Retail Stores. These signs are located on or near the display
racks holding the Carter's Brand Products. Carter's describes
the savings promised in the store displays and price tags, as
follows: "The percentage of your savings (for example 30%, 40%,
and 50%) . . . will be taken off . . . at the register. . . .
You will find the exceptional price . . . right on the sign
every day."
Carter's failure to apply the promised discounts to its true
regular prices as opposed to fictional offering prices, are
breaches of its contracts with customers throughout the country,
the suit asserts.
The plaintiff brings this case as a national breach of contract
class action on her own behalf and on behalf of all persons that
purchased Carter's Brand Products at Carter's Retail Stores and
did not receive the agreed-upon discounts from the true regular
price of Carter's Brand Products.
The plaintiff asks the court for:
A. certification of the requested nation-wide breach of
contract class;
B. actual damages, pre-judgment interest, and court
costs;
C. temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive
relief ordering Carter's to stop falsely representing
its prices or, in the alternative, that Carter's sell
Carter's Brand Products at the promised and agreed-upon
discounts from their true regular prices; and
D. such other and further relief as this Court deems
necessary and just.
The suit is "Gina Polubinski, et al. v. Carter's Inc., Case No.
08 CV 5547," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Vincent L. DiTommaso, Esq.
Peter S. Lubin
Janice L. Morrison Chicago,
DiTommaso - Lubin
17W 220 22nd Street - Suite 200
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Phone: 630-333-0000
CHEMTURA CORP: Reaches $21MM Settlement in Conn. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corp. reached a tentative $21-million settlement in the
consolidated securities fraud lawsuit captioned "In Re Crompton
Corp Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:03-cv-01293-EBB," which
was filed against the company and certain of its former officers
and directors (Crompton Individual Defendants), and certain
former directors of the company's predecessor, Witco Corp.,
according to the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.
The lawsuit was filed on July 20, 2004, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut. It was brought by the
plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of all
purchasers or acquirers of the company's stock between October
1998 and October 2002.
The consolidated amended complaint principally alleges that the
company and the Crompton Individual Defendants caused the
company to issue false and misleading statements that violated
the federal securities laws by reporting inflated financial
results resulting from an alleged illegal, undisclosed price-
fixing conspiracy.
The putative class includes former Witco Corp. shareholders who
acquired their securities in the Crompton Corp.-Witco merger
pursuant to a registration statement that allegedly contained
misstated financial results.
The complaint asserts claims against the company and the
Crompton Individual Defendants under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The plaintiffs also assert claims for control person liability
under Section 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and Section
20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the
Crompton Individual Defendants.
The complaint also asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty
against certain former directors of Witco Corp. for actions they
allegedly took as Witco Corp. directors in connection with the
Crompton-Witco merger.
The plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
The company and the Crompton Individual Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on Sept. 17, 2004, which motion is now fully
briefed and pending. The former directors of Witco Corp. filed
a motion to dismiss in February 2005, which motion is pending.
On July 22, 2005, the court granted a motion by the company and
the Crompton Individual Defendants to stay discovery in the
related Connecticut shareholder derivative lawsuit, pending
resolution of the motion to dismiss by the company and Crompton
Individual Defendants.
On April 30, 2008, the parties entered a memorandum of
understanding to settle the lawsuit. Under the proposed
settlement, the defendants will pay or cause to be paid
$21 million and deny any wrongdoing or liability. The
settlement's terms are being finalized by the parties.
The suit is "In Re Crompton Corp Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:03-cv-01293-EBB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Judge Ellen Bree Burns, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. (nancy@snlaw.net)
Jeffrey S. Nobel, Esq. (jnobel@snlaw.net)
Schatz & Nobel
One Corporate Center, 20 Church St., Suite 1700
Hartford, CT 06103
Phone: 860-493-6292
Fax: 860-493-6290
Representing the defendants are:
Bradford S. Babbitt, Esq. (bbabbitt@rc.com)
Robinson & Cole
280 Trumbull St.
Hartford, CT 06103-3597
Phone: 860-275-8209
Fax: 860-275-8299
Andrew J. Frackman, Esq. (afrackman@omm.com)
O'Melveny & Myers, LLP
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10033
Phone: 212-326-2000
Fax: 212-326-2061
- and -
Thomas D. Goldberg, Esq. (tdgoldberg@dbh.com)
Day, Berry & Howard
One Canterbury Green
Stamford, CT 06901-2047
Phone: 203-977-7383
Fax: 203-977-7301
CHEMTURA CORP: Works to Settle Antitrust Suits Over Ureathanes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corp. is working to settle several purported antitrust
class-action lawsuits involving the sale of urethanes and
urethane chemicals, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
Chemtura Corp. and its subsidiary, Uniroyal Chemical Company,
Inc. -- now merged into Chemtura Corp. -- were named as
defendants in certain indirect purchaser antitrust class-action
lawsuits filed in state courts involving the sale of urethanes
and urethane chemicals.
The complaints in these actions principally allege that the
defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices
for urethanes and urethane chemicals, sold in the U.S. In
violation of certain antitrust statutes and consumer protection
and unfair or deceptive practices laws of the relevant
jurisdictions and that this caused injury to the plaintiffs who
paid artificially inflated prices for such products as a result
of such alleged anticompetitive activities. There are currently
16 state complaints pending.
The company has received preliminary court approval of a
settlement agreement covering four of these actions and is
awaiting final approval.
In addition, the company has reached a settlement agreement
covering the remaining 12 complaints, all of which are pending
in a coordinated proceeding in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of San Francisco.
Chemtura Corp. -- http://www.chemtura.com/-- is a global
producer of specialty chemicals and polymer products and
supplier of home pool and spa chemicals. The products are used
in a variety of markets, including automotive, transportation,
construction, packaging, agriculture, lubricants, plastics for
durable and non-durable goods, electronics and the home pool and
spa chemical markets. The segments of the company include
Polymer Additives, Performance Specialties, Consumer Products,
Crop Protection, and Other.
CHEMTURA CORP: Lawsuits Over May 2004 Fire Still Pending in Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corp. is still facing several purported class-action
lawsuits in connection with a fire that struck its Conyers,
Georgia warehouse on May 25, 2004.
The company and certain of its former officers and employees
were named as defendants in five putative state class action
suits filed in three counties in Georgia and one putative class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia pertaining to the fire. These lawsuits seek
recovery for economic and non-economic damages allegedly
suffered as a result of the fire (Class Action Reporter, May 4,
2007).
Of the five putative state class-action lawsuits, the plaintiffs
in two cases voluntarily dismissed theirs, leaving three
lawsuits remaining.
These remaining putative state class-action lawsuits, as well as
the putative class-action suit pending in federal district court
seek recovery for economic and non-economic damages allegedly
arising from the fire.
Punitive damages are sought in the Davis case in Rockdale
County, Georgia and the Martin case in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia. The Martin case also
seeks a declaratory judgment to reform certain settlements, as
well as medical monitoring and injunctive relief.
The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
Chemtura Corp. -- http://www.chemtura.com/-- is a producer of
specialty chemicals and polymer products, and a supplier of home
pool and spa chemicals in the U.S.
CITI BANK: Accused of Cheating on Promised Gasoline Rebates
-----------------------------------------------------------
Citi Bank is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
Superior Court of New Jersey alleging it pushed its Mastercards
by promising to rebate up to 5% of customers' gasoline purchases
at participating gas stations, but refused to issue the rebates,
CourtHouse News Service reports.
Three Citgo stations and a Valero station also were named as
defendants.
The plaintiffs seek to maintain this action as a class action
under New Jersey Court Rule 4:32 on behalf of all individuals
who secured a Citi Mastercard credit card from defendant Citi,
and who were denied proper rebates by both Citi and the
defendant gas stations.
The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:
(a) whether they applied for and receive a Citi Mastercard;
(b) whether they applied for said cards in reliance of
defendants' promise to pay rebates; and
(c) whether defendants properly honored their promise to
pay rebates for qualifying purchases.
The plaintiffs request judgment for damages, costs of suit,
counsel fees, and such other just and equitable relief that may
be granted.
The suit is "Patricia L. Devone, et al. v. Citi Bank, et al.,
Docket No. CAM -L 4726 08," filed in the Superior Court of New
Jersey.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Patrick Cronin, Esq.
Cronin and Musto
5 North Haddon Avenue
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Phone: 856-857-1776
FIFTH THIRD: Faces Ohio Lawsuit Over Debit Card Transactions
------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp is facing a class-action complaint before
the Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio, over
allegations that it rearranges debit card transactions from
highest amount to lowest to reap maximum overdraft charges,
though the bank's computers calculate transactions in their true
order virtually instantaneously, CourtHouse News Service
reports.
According to the report, this action is brought as a class
action by a bank customer against Fifth Third and its subsidiary
that extended credit to its depositor-customers in the disguised
form of "Overdraft Protection."
CourtHouse notes that named plaintiff Dennis Charlton and
members of the class claimed they were damaged when the bank
manipulated the depositor-customer accounts to benefit the bank
by re-ordering debit card transactions from highest to lowest to
the substantial detriment of its depositor-customers.
Mr. Charlton seeks to represent all debit cardholders of Fifth
Third who incurred overdraft fees on debit card transactions as
a result of the bank's practice of re-sequencing transactions
from highest to lowest.
Mr. Charlton wants the court to rule on:
(a) whether Fifth Third has engaged in a common scheme or
course of conduct in its practices whereby class
members have been wrongly charged multiple overdraft
fees;
(b) whether Fifth Third deceptively described the nature of
a rationale for its policy of crediting the largest
overdraft charges first;
(c) whether Fifth Third has engaged in breach of contract
with respect to all class members with respect to their
policies and practices as alleged;
(d) whether Fifth Third has been unjustly enriched by the
policies and practices described;
(e) whether Fifth Third engaged in the conversion of class
members' money by the policies and practices alleged;
(f) whether Fifth Third breached its fiduciary duties to
class members;
(g) whether Fifth Third's conduct constitutes a violation
of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act;
(h) whether Fifth Third's acts were so reckless,
intentional, and unconscionable, that they constitute
a species of conduct such as theft, manipulation, or
misappropriation of depositor's funds entrusted to its
control and thereby justify imposition of punitive
damages, disgorgement of profits or other extraordinary
relief; and
(i) whether the class members are entitled to injunctive
relief.
Mr. Charlton demands:
-- that the court, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Ohio Rules of
Civil Procedure, certify the class;
-- compensatory damages against defendants in favor of the
plaintiff and members of the class, in such amounts as
are warranted by the evidence, in excess of $25,000 to
compensate plaintiff and each class member of their
injuries;
-- punitive damages against defendants, in favor of the
plaintiff and members of the class, in such amounts as
are warranted by the evidence;
-- an injunction against defendants, barring them from
continuing the deceptive and manipulative practice of
re-sequencing customers' pending transactions so that
the largest transactions are processed and posted first,
and requiring them to make proper disclosure;
-- declaratory relief that defendant's method of charging
accounts for overdrafts and disclosure of same is
illegal, unconscionable, fraudulent and/or invalid;
-- the costs of this action, including reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs; and
-- any other relief the court deems appropriate.
The suit is "Dennis Charlton et al. v. Fifth Third Bancorp, Case
No. A0809061," filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton
County, Ohio.
Representing the plaintiff are:
Richard S. Wayne, Esq. (rswayne@strausstroy.com)
William R. Jacobs, Esq. (wrjacobs@strausstroy.com)
John M. Levy, Esq. (jmlevy@strausstroy.com)
Strauss & Troy
The Federal Reserve Building
150 East Fourth Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202-2120
Phone: 513-621-2120
Fax: 513-241-8259
HALLIBURTON CO: Class Status Denied in Texas Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court for the Northern District of Texas has denied
class-action status to a six-year-old case against Halliburton
Co. over securities law violations, Reuters reports.
Reuters recounts that the class action suit was filed in June
2002 against the company with the federal court on behalf of
purchasers of its common stock during the period starting
approximately May 1998 until approximately May 2002. The suit
alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection
with the accounting change and disclosures involved in the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission investigation.
In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the company overstated
its revenue from unapproved claims by recognizing amounts not
reasonably estimable or probable of collection, the report
notes.
In the weeks that followed the suit filing, approximately 20
similar class actions were commenced against the company.
Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants Arthur
Andersen LLP -- the company's independent accountants for the
period covered by the lawsuits -- and several of the company's
present or former officers and directors: David J. Lesar,
Douglas L. Foshee, Gary V. Morris, and Robert Charles Muchmore,
Jr.
The class actions were later consolidated, and the amended
consolidated class action complaint, entitled "Richard Moore, et
al. v. Halliburton Co., et al.," was filed and served upon the
company in April 2003. However, as a result of a later
substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case is now styled,
"Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton
Company, et al."
In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted
by the court. In addition to restating the original accounting
and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of Halliburton's 1998 acquisition of
Dresser Industries, Inc., including that the company failed to
timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure.
Settlement Attempts
According to Reuters, a memorandum of understanding contemplated
settlement of the Dresser claims as well as the original claims.
In June 2004, the court entered an order preliminarily approving
the settlement. Following the transfer of the case to another
district judge, the court held that evidence of the settlement's
fairness was inadequate, denied the motion for final approval of
the settlement, and ordered the parties to mediate. The
mediation was unsuccessful.
Motion to Dismiss
Reuter recalls that in April 2005, the court appointed new co-
lead counsel and named AMSF the new lead plaintiff, directing
that it file a third consolidated amended complaint and that the
company file a motion to dismiss. The court held oral
arguments on that motion in August 2005, at which time the court
took the motion under advisement.
In March 2006, the report relates, the court entered an order in
which it granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims
arising prior to June 1999 and granted the motion with respect
to certain other claims while permitting AMSF to replead some of
those claims to correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint.
AMSF then filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint. The
company filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the
complaint that had been replead. A hearing was held on that
motion in July 2006, and in March 2007, the court ordered
dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other
than the company's CEO.
The court ordered that the case proceed against Haliburton and
the company's CEO.
In June 2007, upon becoming aware of a U.S. Supreme Court
opinion issued in that month, the court allowed further briefing
on the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the company's CEO.
The court again denied the motion to dismiss in March 2008.
In September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification,
and the company's response was filed in November 2007 (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 4, 2008).
According to Reuters, the court decided that the lead plaintiff
will have to pursue on its own the lawsuit, which claims
Halliburton defrauded investors through questionable accounting
practices from 1998 to 2001.
The U.S. Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas will
elaborate by Nov. 3, 2008, when the plaintiffs will have the
option to file motions for reconsideration or an appeal, Reuters
further relates, citing Halliburton, which has headquarters in
Houston and Dubai.
The case is set for trial in July 2009.
The suit is "The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc.,
et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01152,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Richard S. Schiffrin, Esq. (rschiffrin@sbtklaw.com)
Schiffrin & Barroway
280 King of Prussia Rd.
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: 610-667-7706
Fax: 610-667-7056
Marc R. Stanley, Esq. (mstanley@smi-law.com)
Stanley Mandel & Iola
3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750
Dallas, TX 75205
Phone: 214-443-4301
Fax: 214-443-0358
- and -
Thomas Burt, Esq.
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
270 Madison Ave, Ninth Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: 212-545-4600
Representing the company is:
Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. (tbilek@hb-legal.com)
Hoeffner & Bilek
1000 Louisiana St., Suite 1302
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: 713-227-7720
Fax: 713-227-9404
ILLINOIS UNION: Massachusetts Suit Over B Quotes Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A state court class action suit, captioned "Van Emden Management
Corp. v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., et al.," which names
Illinois Union Insurance Co., a subsidiary of ACE Ltd., as
defendant, remains stayed, pending resolution of a consolidated
proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.
The "Van Emden" suit is Case No. 05-0066A, filed before the
Superior Court of Massachusetts on Jan. 13, 2005. The
allegations in this case are similar to the allegations in the
New Jersey consolidated class-action lawsuit pending against
ACE, ACE INA Holdings, Inc., and ACE USA, Inc.
The plaintiffs in the suits allege that insurers, including
certain ACE entities, and brokers conspired to increase premiums
and allocate customers through the use of "B" quotes and
contingent commissions. In addition, the complaints allege that
the broker defendants received additional income by improperly
placing their clients' business with insurers through related
wholesale entities that act as intermediaries between the broker
and insurer.
The plaintiffs also allege that the broker defendants tied the
purchase of primary insurance with the placement of such
coverage with reinsurance carriers through the broker
defendants' reinsurance broker subsidiaries.
In the commercial insurance consolidated complaint, the
plaintiffs assert several causes of action against ACE,
including federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization
Act, federal antitrust law, state antitrust law, aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.
The "Van Emden" case has been stayed pending resolution of the
consolidated proceedings in the District of New Jersey or until
further order of the court
The company reported no further development regarding the case
at its Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2008.
ACE Limited -- http://www.acelimited.com/-- along with its
direct and indirect subsidiaries (collectively, the ACE Group of
Companies) is a global property and casualty insurance and
reinsurance organization. The company provides a range of
products and services to commercial and individual customers in
more than 140 countries and jurisdictions. It operates through
the four segments: Insurance-North American, Insurance-Overseas
General, Global Reinsurance, and Life Insurance and Reinsurance.
INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: April 24 Mediation Fails to Resolve Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
A mediation session held on April 24, 2008, has failed to
resolve a purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit
pending before the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California against Interlink Electronics, Inc.
The lawsuit, filed on Nov. 15, 2005, under the caption "Roger
Brooks, et al. v. Interlink Electronics, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-08133-PA-SH," was brought against the company and two of
its current and former officers. It alleges that between
April 24, 2003, and Nov. 1, 2005, the company and the individual
defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material information regarding the company's results of
operations and financial condition.
The complaint also alleges violations of federal securities
laws, Sections 10 (b) and 20(a) of the U.S. 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. It seeks
unspecified damages and legal expenses.
On Nov. 3, 2006, the court appointed new lead plaintiffs, who
later filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint
includes claims under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act.
In September 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part
a motion by the defendants to dismiss the operative complaint.
On April 24, 2008, the parties participated in a mediation with
Retired Justice Howard B. Wiener in Los Angeles. The parties
were unable to reach a resolution of their dispute and will
continue to litigate.
The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "Roger Brooks, et al. v. Interlink Electronics,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-08133-PA-SH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
Percy Anderson, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
Stull Stull and Brody
10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: 310-209-2468
e-mail: service@ssbla.com
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310-201-9150
- and –
Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
Roy L. Jacobs and Associates
60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Phone: 212-867-1156
Representing the defendants is:
Daniel S. Floyd, Esq. (dfloyd@gibsondunn.com)
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
333 S. Grand Ave., 45th Fl.
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Phone: 213-229-7000
INTERMIX MEDIA: Court Dismisses Certain Claims in Calif. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to
dismiss a consolidated lawsuit against several former officers
and directors of Intermix Media, Inc., which is an acquisition
of News Corp., according to the company's Aug. 12, 2008 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008.
LeBoyer Litigation
In November 2005, the plaintiff in a derivative action,
captioned "LeBoyer v. Greenspan et al.," pending against various
former Intermix directors and officers in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California filed a first
amended class and derivative complaint.
The original derivative action was filed in May 2003 and arose
out of Intermix's restatement of quarterly financial results for
its fiscal year ended March 31, 2003.
Until the filing of the amended complaint, the action had been
stayed by mutual agreement of the parties since its inception.
The plaintiff's November 2005 Amended Complaint added various
allegations and purported class claims arising out of the Fox
Interactive Media, Inc., Transaction which are substantially
similar to those asserted in the Intermix Media Shareholder
Litigation.
The amended complaint also added as defendants the individuals
and entities named in the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation
that were not already defendants in the matter.
On July 14, 2006, the parties filed their briefing on the
defendants' motion to dismiss and stay the matter. On Oct. 16,
2006, the court dismissed the fourth through seventh claims for
relief, which related to the 2003 restatement, finding that the
plaintiff is precluded from relitigating demand futility.
At around the same time, the court asked for further briefing
regarding the plaintiffs' standing to assert derivative claims
based on the Fox Interactive Media Transaction, including for
alleged violation of Section 14(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act, the
effect of the state judge's dismissal of the claims in the
matter, "Greenspan v. Intermix Media, Inc., et al.," and the
Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation on the remaining direct
class action claims alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and
other common law claims leading up to the Fox Interactive Media,
Inc. Transaction.
The parties filed the requested additional briefing in which the
defendants requested that the court stay the direct LeBoyer
claims pending the resolution of any appeal in the matter,
"Greenspan v. Intermix Media, Inc., et al.," and the Intermix
Media Shareholder Litigation.
The court took the matter under submission. By order dated
May 22, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the derivative claims arising out of the Fox Interactive
Media Transaction, and denied the defendants' request to stay
the two remaining direct claims.
As explained in more detail in the next paragraph, the court
subsequently consolidated this case with the matter, "Brown v.
Brewer," also pending before the court.
On July 11, 2007, the plaintiffs filed the consolidated first
amended complaint. Pursuant to the stipulated briefing schedule
ordered by the court, the parties' joint brief on defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was filed on
Oct. 11, 2007 and taken under submission.
By order dated Jan. 17, 2008, the court granted in part
defendants' motion to dismiss, with leave to amend, as explained
in greater detail under the discussion of the consolidated case,
"Brown v. Brewer," below.
On Feb. 8, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated second amended
complaint. The defendants filed motions to dismiss on Feb. 28,
2008.
The plaintiffs filed their consolidated opposition brief on
March 28, 2008, and the defendants filed their reply briefs on
April 18, 2008. By order dated July 15, 2008, the court granted
in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. The
court ordered the remaining defendants to answer the remaining
claims within 20 days.
Brown Litigation
On June 14, 2006, a purported class-action lawsuit, captioned,
"Jim Brown v. Brett C. Brewer, et al.," was filed against
certain former Intermix directors and officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.
The plaintiff asserted claims for alleged violations of Section
14a of the U.S. Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9, as well as
control person liability under Section 20a.
The plaintiff alleged that certain defendants disseminated false
and misleading definitive proxy statements on two occasions: one
on Dec. 30, 2003 in connection with the shareholder vote on
Jan. 29, 2004 on the election of directors and ratification of
financing transactions with certain entities of VantagePoint
Venture Partners, a former major Intermix stockholder, and
another on Aug. 25, 2005 in connection with the shareholder vote
on the Fox Interactive Media, Inc. Transaction.
The complaint named as defendants certain VantagePoint related
entities and the members of the Intermix Board who were
incumbent on the dates of the respective proxy statements.
Intermix was not named as a defendant, but has certain indemnity
obligations to the former officer and director defendants in
connection with these claims and allegations.
On Aug. 25, 2006, the plaintiff amended his complaint to add
certain investment banks, as defendants. Intermix has certain
indemnity obligations to the Investment Banks as well.
The plaintiff amended his complaint again on Sept. 27, 2006. On
Oct. 19, 2006, defendants filed motions to dismiss all claims in
the second amended complaint. These motions were scheduled to
be heard on Feb. 12, 2007.
On Feb. 9, 2007, the case was transferred from Judge John F.
Walter to Judge George H. King, the judge assigned to the
litigation, entitled, "LeBoyer v. Greenspan et al.," on the
grounds that it raises substantially related questions of law
and fact as LeBoyer, and would entail substantial duplication of
labor if heard by different judges.
Judge King took the Feb. 26, 2007 hearing date for the motions
to dismiss off-calendar. On June 11, 2007, Judge King ordered
the Brown case be consolidated with the LeBoyer action, ordered
plaintiffs' counsel to file a consolidated first amended
complaint, and further ordered the parties to file a joint brief
on defendants' contemplated motion to dismiss the consolidated
first amended complaint.
On July 11, 2007, the plaintiffs filed the consolidated first
amended complaint. Pursuant to the stipulated briefing schedule
ordered by the court, the parties' joint brief on defendants'
motion to dismiss was filed on Oct. 11, 2007, and was taken
under submission without a hearing.
By order dated Jan. 17, 2008, Judge King granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the 2003 proxy claims (concerning VantagePoint
transactions) and the 2005 proxy claims (concerning the Fox
Interactive Media, Inc. Transaction), as well as a claim against
the VantagePoint entities alleging unjust enrichment.
The court found it unnecessary to rule on dismissal of the
remaining claims, which are related to the 2005 Fox Interactive
Media, Inc. Transaction, because the dismissal disposed of those
claims.
On Feb. 8, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated second
amended complaint. The defendants filed motions to dismiss on
Feb. 28, 2008. The plaintiffs filed their consolidated
opposition brief on March 28, 2008, and the defendants filed
their reply briefs on April 18, 2008.
By order dated July 15, 2008, the court granted in part and
denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court
ordered the remaining defendants to answer the remaining claims
within 20 days.
News Corp. -- http://www.newscorp.com/-- is a diversified
entertainment company with operations in eight industry
segments, including Filmed Entertainment; Television; Cable
Network Programming; Direct Broadcast Satellite Television;
Magazines and Inserts; Newspapers; Book Publishing, and Other.
INTERMIX MEDIA: Court Yet to Hear Arguments Nixed Suits Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal has yet to hear arguments on the
motions filed in relation to the the dismissal of purported
class-action lawsuits against Intermix Media, Inc., which is an
acquisition of News Corp.
These purported class action lawsuits were filed on Aug. 26 and
30, 2005, before the California Superior Court, County of Los
Angeles:
-- "Ron Sheppard v. Richard Rosenblatt, et al.," and
-- "John Friedmann v. Intermix Media, Inc. et al."
Both lawsuits named as defendants all of the then-incumbent
members of the Intermix Media Board, including Intermix' former
chief executive officer, Richard Rosenblatt, and certain
entities affiliated with VantagePoint Venture Partners, a former
major Intermix stockholder.
The complaints alleged that, in pursuing the transaction wherein
Intermix Media was to be acquired by Fox Interactive Media,
Inc., and approving the related merger agreement, the director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Intermix
stockholders by, among other things, engaging in self-dealing
and failing to obtain the highest price reasonably available for
Intermix and its stockholders.
The complaints further alleged that the merger agreement
resulted from a flawed process and that the defendants tailored
the terms of the merger to advance their own interests. The Fox
Interactive Media Transaction was consummated on Sept. 30, 2005.
The lawsuits were subsequently consolidated and, on Jan. 17,
2006, a consolidated amended complaint was filed, known as
"Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation." The plaintiffs in the
consolidated action are seeking various forms of declaratory
relief, damages, disgorgement and fees and costs.
On March 20, 2006, the court ordered that substantially
identical claims asserted in a separate state action filed by
Brad Greenspan, captioned, "Greenspan v. Intermix Media, Inc.,
et al.," be severed and related to the Intermix Media
Shareholder Litigation.
The defendants have filed demurrers seeking dismissal of all
claims in the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation, which were
heard by the court on July 6, 2006.
On Oct. 6, 2006, the court sustained the demurrers without leave
to amend. On Dec. 13, 2006, the court dismissed the complaints
and entered judgment for the defendants.
The plaintiffs in the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation
filed notices of appeal, and subsequently filed respective
opening briefs on appeal in October 2007. The Defendants filed
opposing appellate briefs on April 16, 2008. The shareholder
appellant reply brief was filed on July 10, 2008. Mr. Greenspan
did not file a reply brief. The Court of Appeal has not yet
heard arguments in the matter.
News Corp. -- http://www.newscorp.com/-- is a diversified
entertainment company with operations in eight industry
segments, including Filmed Entertainment; Television; Cable
Network Programming; Direct Broadcast Satellite Television;
Magazines and Inserts; Newspapers; Book Publishing, and Other.
LAKES REGION: Uranium & E. Coli in Water Prompts Class Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lakes Region Water Co. is facing criminal charges and a class-
action lawsuit for allegedly pumping uranium-laden water to
hundreds of customers from a well in Tamworth that three years
earlier was ordered closed, Maddie Hanna writes for RedOrbit.
According to the report, the company, which has about 2,000
customers in the Lakes Region, is surrounded with legal troubles
following a slew of reported violations. RedOrbit recounts that
in Tamworth last year, investigators filed multiple complaints
against the company for not properly sealing its wells, letting
in insects and animals; for mouse feces littered on top of its
water storage tank; and for E. coli in one well, leaving the
town without drinking water for weeks.
However, the report notes, the criminal charges and class-action
lawsuit are based on what began with a 2004 violation, when
testing at the company's bedrock well in Tamworth turned up
elevated levels of uranium. The state Department of
Environmental Services ordered the well closed, and the company
assured the state that it had been, with all pipes and
electrical connections severed. The company began using a
different well to serve Tamworth, and the state took the old
well off its sampling schedule.
Three years later, in August 2007, a routine water test found E.
coli in the Tamworth well's water, RedOrbit relates. When DES
investigators showed up the next day to examine the well, they
also discovered that the old well, supposedly out of service,
was still being used and still had too much uranium.
Though the company shut down the old well in September 2007 in
the presence of DES officials, the court cases are only
beginning, RedOrbit says. The report recalls that last week,
Lakes Region Water pleaded not guilty to two felony charges:
supplying water with illegal levels of uranium and maintaining a
well unapproved by the state. The next hearing is scheduled for
the end of October.
According to RedOrbit, the class-action suit, which could
involve as many as 265 plaintiffs, was declared in August, but a
trial date has yet to be scheduled.
Moreover, Tamworth residents are still upset about the waterless
period in August and September 2007, when the E. coli, uranium
and other contaminants forced the company to temporarily close
its well. Business owners who went without water say they
endured crippling financial hardships.
RedOrbit explains that uranium, which can seep into wells from
bedrock, is associated with a number of health risks, including
kidney toxicity and cancer, according to state DES officials.
That is the reason the federal government began to regulate
uranium in 2000, a standard that went into effect in New
Hampshire in 2003, officials said. Unlike bacteria, when just a
little can make a person sick, uranium-related risks increase
along with the amount ingested, Dave Gordon, a health risk
assessor with the DES environmental health program, pointed out.
Still, Mr. Gordon said, "you're really generally talking about
many, many years" of exposure.
What is unclear is how long the well may have been pumping out
uranium, the report states. According to Christopher Meier,
Esq., an attorney with Cooper Cargill Chant in North Conway who
is representing Tamworth residents and business owners in the
lawsuit, Lakes Region Water said that it reconnected the well
not long before DES investigators showed up in August last year.
Mr. Meier, however, disputes the company's explanation.
"If they were telling the truth back in 2004, they would have
had to rewire the system and re-pipe the system in order to turn
the system back on," Mr. Meier said. "They couldn't just switch
it on. From the information we have, it looks like they never
took the system offline."
Steve Duggan, Esq., an attorney with Shaheen and Gordon who has
filed paperwork on behalf of Lakes Region Water in the civil
suit, told RedOrbit that he could not comment until the company
had decided who its lawyers would be going forward.
Jim Rosenberg, Esq., another attorney with Shaheen and Gordon
who is defending the company against the two criminal charges,
declined to comment on why the company would have turned on the
well. "Right now, Lakes Region Water is doing everything it can
to work with the state to understand the facts and circumstances
surrounding these charges," Mr. Rosenberg said.
"It's important to point out that these charges arise out of
allegations involving a single well in Tamworth and as soon as
the state raised a concern with regard to that well, Lakes
Region acted immediately to take it offline," Mr. Rosenberg
continued. "There is no allegation that there is a current
threat to the safety of any drinking water provided by Lakes
Region Water."
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Ongoing in ERISA Violations Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in a purported class-action lawsuit
in New York against Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The purported class-action lawsuit is pending against MMC and
various current and former employees, officers and directors in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of participants and beneficiaries of an MMC retirement
plan.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that in light of the
alleged misconduct described in a lawsuit filed by the New York
Attorney General, the defendants knew or should have known that
the investment of the plan's assets in MMC stock was imprudent;
that certain defendants failed to provide plan participants with
complete and accurate information about MMC stock; that certain
defendants responsible for selecting, removing and monitoring
other fiduciaries did not comply with ERISA; and that MMC
knowingly participated in the other defendants' breaches of
fiduciary duties.
The suit seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs.
Discovery is underway in this matter, according to the company's
Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a
global professional services firm providing advice and solutions
in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital. It is the
parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty
consultants, including Marsh, the insurance broker, intermediary
and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter, the risk and reinsurance
specialist; Kroll, the risk consulting firm; Mercer, the
provider of human resources and related financial advice and
services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management consultancy.
MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional capabilities to
clients in more than 100 countries. MMC conducts business
through three operating segments: Risk and Insurance Services,
Consulting and Risk Consulting and Technology.
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in a consolidated securities fraud
class-action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Marsh & McLennan Cos.,
Inc.
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of individuals and entities
who purchased or acquired MMC's publicly traded securities
during the purported class period of Oct. 14, 1999, to Oct. 13,
2004.
The plaintiffs' pending complaint in this action names MMC,
Marsh, MMC's former chief executive, and one former Marsh
officer as defendants.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that MMC artificially
inflated its share price by making misrepresentations and
omissions relating to Marsh's market service agreements and
business practices. They allege that MMC also failed to
disclose alleged anti-competitive and illegal practices at
Marsh, such as "bid-rigging" and soliciting fictitious quotes.
The complaint includes factual allegations similar to those
asserted in the New York Attorney General Lawsuit, as well as
factual allegations concerning alleged misconduct at MMC's
subsidiaries, and alleged conflicts of interest associated with
MMC's former private equity subsidiary, MMC Capital.
The complaint includes claims for violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Sections 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, based on MMC's
allegedly false or incomplete disclosures. MMC has responded to
the complaint and discovery in this matter has commenced,
according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "In Re: Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-8144," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Shirley Wohl
Kram, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Keith Martin Fleischman, Esq. (kfleischman@gelaw.com)
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 646-722-8500
Fax: 646-722-8501
- and -
Richard David Greenfield, Esq.
(whitehatrdg@earthlink.net)
Greenfield & Goodman LLC
7426 Tour Drive
Easton, MD 21601
Phone: 410-745-4149
Fax: 410-745-4158
Representing the company is:
Mark Benjamin Holton, Esq. (mholton@gibsondunn.com)
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
Phone: 212-351-3891
Fax: 212-351-5230
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Suits Alleging ERISA Violations Pending in Md.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc. and Putnam Investments Trust, which
was purchased by Great-West Lifeco Inc. from MMC, are still
facing two purported class-action lawsuits in Maryland, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Aside from MMC and Putnam, certain of the two companies' current
and former officers, directors and employees were named
defendants in the purported class action suits -- one brought by
participants in an MMC retirement plan and the other brought by
participants in a Putnam retirement plan -- which are generally
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.
The actions allege, among other things, that, in view of the
market-timing that was allegedly allowed to occur at Putnam, the
investment of the plans' funds in MMC stock and the Putnam Funds
was imprudent and constituted a breach of fiduciary duties to
plan participants. Both actions seek unspecified damages and
equitable relief.
Following a September 2006 dismissal of the action regarding the
Putnam plan, the plaintiff appealed the decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
In June 2008, the appellate court reversed the dismissal and
remanded the case for further proceedings. The action regarding
the MMC plan had been stayed pending the resolution of the
appeal, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.
Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a
global professional services firm providing advice and solutions
in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital. It is the
parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty
consultants, including Marsh, the insurance broker, intermediary
and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter, the risk and reinsurance
specialist; Kroll, the risk consulting firm; Mercer, the
provider of human resources and related financial advice and
services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management consultancy.
MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional capabilities to
clients in more than 100 countries. MMC conducts business
through three operating segments: Risk and Insurance Services,
Consulting and Risk Consulting and Technology.
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Settles NYAG-Related Case; Still Faces Others
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc. and its subsidiary, Marsh Inc.,
settled one of several several purported class-action lawsuits
that stem from a lawsuit filed by the New York State Attorney
General in 2004, which has been settled, according to the
company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
NYAG Lawsuit
In January 2005, MMC and Marsh entered into an agreement with
the NYAG and the New York State Insurance Department to settle a
civil complaint filed in New York State court by the NYAG in
October 2004 and a related citation issued by the Insurance
Department.
Among other things, the NYAG Lawsuit and the citation had
alleged that Marsh's use of market service agreements with
various insurance companies entailed fraudulent business
practices, bid-rigging, illegal restraint of trade and other
statutory violations.
Following the filing of the NYAG Lawsuit, numerous private party
lawsuits have been commenced against MMC, one or more of its
subsidiaries, and their current and former directors and
officers, relating to matters alleged in the NYAG Lawsuit.
New Jersey Litigation
Various putative class action suits purportedly brought on
behalf of policyholders have been consolidated into two actions
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (one
on behalf of a purported class of "commercial" policyholders and
the second on behalf of a purported class of "employee benefit"
policyholders).
The actions alleged a variety of legal theories, including those
related to state tort, contract, fiduciary duty, federal and
state antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act theories, and sought a variety of remedies,
including unspecified monetary damages, treble damages,
disgorgement, restitution, punitive damages, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.
The court has dismissed with prejudice all of the federal
antitrust and RICO claims and has dismissed without prejudice
all of the state law claims asserted in both actions. The
plaintiffs have appealed.
On June 19, 2008, the parties entered into an agreement to
settle the commercial and employee benefit policyholder putative
class actions using the remainder available from the
$850 million fund created in connection with the settlement of
the NYAG Lawsuit. The parties moved for preliminary court
approval of the settlement.
Florida & New York Litigation
In July 2007, two putative class action suits against MMC,
Marsh, certain insurers and other insurance brokers purportedly
brought on behalf of policyholders were filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Southern District of Florida and the
Southern District of New York.
These actions relate to the same practices alleged in the NYAG
Lawsuit, but with respect to insurance coverage placed with
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London. These actions have
been transferred to the District of New Jersey.
State Court & Canadian Litigation
Four class or representative actions on behalf of policyholders
are pending in state courts.
Two putative class actions and an individual policyholder action
are pending in Canada.
Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mmc.com/-- is a
global professional services firm providing advice and solutions
in the areas of risk, strategy and human capital. It is the
parent company of a number of risk experts and specialty
consultants, including Marsh, the insurance broker, intermediary
and risk advisor; Guy Carpenter, the risk and reinsurance
specialist; Kroll, the risk consulting firm; Mercer, the
provider of human resources and related financial advice and
services; and Oliver Wyman Group, the management consultancy.
MMC provides analysis, advice and transactional capabilities to
clients in more than 100 countries. MMC conducts business
through three operating segments: Risk and Insurance Services,
Consulting and Risk Consulting and Technology.
PACIFIC MARITIME: Settles Travel Time Lawsuit for $15.6 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Pacific Maritime Association will pay a total of
$15.6 million to settle a class-action lawsuit in which a group
of longshore workers claimed that for years they were not paid
for their travel time between the dispatch hall and the location
of their daily work assignments, Cunningham Report says.
According to the report, the suit, filed in February 2008, in
L.A. Superior Court on behalf of dockworkers Mark Wisniewski,
William Plante, Audie Castillo and Veronica Lucio, claims that
the PMA unlawfully withheld wages of regular longshoremen
dispatched in California from Feb. 11, 2004, through July 31,
2008, and from casual workers from July 1, 2006, through
July 31, 2008.
Cunningham Report relates that the PMA initially argued that
time spent by longshore workers traveling from the dispatch hall
to the docks constitutes an "ordinary commute."
Workers at the San Pedro Bay ports make up about 82% of the
longshore workers involved, the report notes.
The company formally agreed to settle the suit on Sept. 5, 2008,
the report says. Pursuant to the deal, $15.6 million -- of
which $3.76 million is alloted for attorney fees and
administrative costs -- will be distributed to longshore workers
throughout the state. The settlement amounts to an average
payment of $2,203 to regular longshoremen depending on the
number of shifts worked and an average payment of $1,020 to
casuals.
Judge Carolyn Kuhl granted preliminary approval to the
agreement, Cunningham Report relates.
PRUDENTIAL FEDERAL: Utah Sup. Ct. Favors Company in 33-Year Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Utah State Supreme Court ruled unanimously on a 33-year-old
case, saying a mortgage lender was not required to pay interest
on escrow accounts, United Press International reports.
The suit, filed in 1975 by Richard and Nancy Madsen, challenged
the Prudential Federal Savings and Loan Association to pay
interest on accounts in which the plaintiffs made monthly
contributions for tax and insurance purposes, UPI recounts,
citing an earlier report by The Salt Lake Tribune.
The class-action suit asked for a $134 judgment for the Madsens
and an average of $105 in interest payments for 9,547 other
plaintiffs, the report relates.
According to UPI, the case was one of Utah's oldest active civil
rights case -- eclipsed only by several water-rights cases in
debate since the 1950s. Mr. Madsen died in 2006, leaving Nancy
as the lead plaintiff, Salt Lake Tribune said.
The court ruled that Prudential, purchased by Washington Mutual
Bank in the 1990s, was not mandated to pay interest under
federal laws in place at the time the Madsens' contract was
signed and that federal law took precedent over state laws.
RESOURCE LIFE: Policyholders' Suit Over Auto Loans Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Resource Life Insurance Co., a former subsidiary of Aon Corp.,
is facing a putative class action suit entitled "Buckner v.
Resource Life," which is pending with a state court in Columbus,
Georgia.
The complaint alleges that Resource Life, which wrote policies
insuring repayment of auto loans, was obligated to identify and
return unearned premium to policyholders whose loans terminated
before the end of their scheduled terms.
In connection with the sale of Resource Life in 2006, Aon agreed
to indemnify the company's buyer in certain respects relating to
this action.
Aon Corp. reported no development regarding the matter in its
Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
Aon Corp. -- http://www.aon.com/-- through its various
subsidiaries worldwide, serves its clients through three
operating segments: Risk and Insurance Brokerage Services, which
acts as an advisor and insurance broker, helping clients manage
their risks, as well as negotiating and placing insurance risk
with insurance carriers through its global distribution network;
Consulting, which provides advice and services to clients for
employee benefits, compensation, management consulting,
communications, human resource outsourcing, human resource
consulting, and financial advisory and litigation consulting;
and Insurance Underwriting, which provides specialty insurance
products.
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Keeps Selling Banned Chemicals, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan alleging that the company continues to
distribute and apply pesticides that were banned by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, CourtHouse News Service
reports.
Also sued is Scotts Lawnservice, which allegedly applied the
banned chemicals to "thousands of lawns."
The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons
in the United States who paid any sums to defendant as lawn care
service fees up through the date of trial ad who received one or
more applications of any of the recalled pesticides by Scotts
LawnService.
The class cites 12 products that were recalled this year, most
of them lawn-care products and insecticides, and says Scotts
continues to distribute and sell the stuff.
Named plaintiff Mark Baumkel request entry of a judgment in
whatever amount he and the class are found to be entitled, plus
interest, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees.
The suit is "Mark Baumkel, et al. v. The Scotts Miracle-Gro
Company, et al., Case 2:08-cv-14137-DPH-RSW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Representing the plaintiff are:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Marc L. Newamn, Esq.
Lauren G. Northrop, Esq.
The Miller Law Firm PC
950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Phone: 248-841-2200
TRAFIGURA: 30,000 Seek Damages for Toxic Waste-Related Ailments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 30,000 people from Ivory Coast will seek tens of millions
of dollars in compensation from Dutch-based oil trader Trafigura
for illness they suffered after toxic waste was dumped in 2006,
their lawyer, Martyn Day of British law firm Leigh Day & Co ,
told Reuters on Monday.
Reuters' David Lewis cites Mr. Day as saying that the class
action suit will be heard in a London court in October 2009.
According to the report, Trafigura said it would present
independent experts to prove that the waste could not have been
responsible for their illness.
"Trafigura denies that slop could have caused the alleged
widespread illnesses. It will demonstrate this point in the UK
courts in due course," a company spokesman said.
Trafigura, one of the world's biggest commodities traders, has
denied any wrongdoing over the waste, which was dumped around
the Ivorian economic capital Abidjan after being unloaded from a
ship, the Probo Koala, chartered by the company. The
petrochemical waste, described by Trafigura as residues from
gasoline mixed with caustic washings, was left on open sites.
The report recalls that thousands of people fell ill and 16
people died. Moreover, at the height of the scandal in 2006,
Abidjan hospitals were overwhelmed as thousands sought treatment
for vomiting, nausea, diarrhea and breathing difficulties after
exposure to noxious fumes.
Reuters recounts that Trafigura has already agreed a
$198-million out-of-court compensation settlement with the Ivory
Coast government which exempts it from legal proceedings in the
West African country. However, many Ivorian victims say they
have not received enough compensation, and the separate class
action suit is going ahead through the British legal system.
"The case is going extremely well. About 22,000 people have
registered so far," Mr. Day said. His legal team was going
through the process of picking out the lead cases that will be
representative of the victims, who he believes will eventually
number some 30,000 in all.
"We'd certainly be hoping for a few thousand pounds (in
compensation) for each person. It will benefit the individuals
and hopefully, in the future, companies won't take Africa so
lightly," Mr. Day added.
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Settles Shareholder, Derivative Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation (Pink Sheets:VTSS) entered
into a proposed settlement of all federal securities class
action claims that were filed against it and all related federal
and state shareholder derivative actions, according to the
company's Sept. 30 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Beginning in April 2006, nine shareholder derivative actions
were filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of Vitesse against certain
current or former Directors and officers of Vitesse, and
nominally against Vitesse. These actions were consolidated as
"Gunther v. Tomasetta, et al., Case No. 06-2529."
On October 2, 2006, the District Court appointed James Bennett
as Lead Derivative Plaintiff in "Gunther." The Lead Derivative
Plaintiff filed a consolidated verified shareholder derivative
complaint on January 23, 2007, alleging claims for violations of
Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, violations
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, breach of fiduciary duty,
misappropriation of information, corporate waste, gross
mismanagement, abuse of control, unjust enrichment, rescission,
accounting manipulations, violations of California Corporations
Code Section 25402 and 25502.5, breach of contract, professional
negligence, and negligent misrepresentation.
Also beginning in April 2006, five shareholder derivative
complaints were filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of Ventura on behalf of Vitesse against certain current
or former Directors and officers of Vitesse, and nominally
against Vitesse. These actions were consolidated as "Fred
Greenberg, et al. v. Louis R. Tomasetta, et al., Superior Court
of California, Ventura County, Case No. CIV 24083."
On July 28, 2006, the state derivative plaintiffs in "Greenberg"
filed a consolidated shareholder derivative complaint, alleging
claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross
mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment,
constructive trust, rescission, accounting manipulations, and
violations of California Corporations Code Sections 25402 and
25403.
Then beginning in May 2006, seven securities class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against Vitesse and certain current or
former Directors and officers of Vitesse. These actions were
consolidated as "Grasso v. Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation, et
al., Case No. 06-2639."
On September 26, 2006, the District Court appointed The
Rodriguez Group as Lead Plaintiff in "Grasso". The operative
complaint in the Securities Class Action is the Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint for Securities Fraud, filed by
The Rodriguez Group on October 4, 2007. The Complaint alleges
violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule Section 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of a class
of purchasers of Vitesse common stock against Vitesse, Louis
R.Tomasetta, Eugene F. Hovanec, Yatin Mody, KPMG, LLP, Silicon
Valley Bank, Nu Horizons Electronic Corp., and Titan Supply
Chain Services Corp. (f/k/a Titan Logistics Corp.)
After extensive negotiations and several mediation sessions
before a retired California Court of Appeal Justice, Vitesse and
its current and former officers and directors agreed to settle
the Securities Class Action and the Federal and State Derivative
Actions and have entered into Stipulations of Settlement.
The following defendants named in the Securities Class Action
are not parties to the settlement:
-- KPMG, LLP,
-- Silicon Valley Bank,
-- Nu Horizons Electronic Corp., and
-- Titan Supply Chain Services Corp. (f/k/a Titan Logistics
Corp.).
On January 7, 2008, the U.S. District Court issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement and the form of notice to
current and former shareholders of Vitesse.
On January 28, 2008, the U.S. District Court issued orders
dismissing with prejudice the Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint for Securities Fraud as against Silicon Valley Bank,
Nu Horizons Electronic Corp., and Titan Supply Chain Services
Corp. (f/k/a Titan Logistics Corp.).
In a hearing on April 7, 2008, the District Court approved the
settlement in the Securities Class Action, but deferred approval
of the settlements in the Federal and State Derivative Actions
pending submission of documentation in support of the attorneys'
fee award.
On August 11, 2008, the Court granted final approval of the
settlements in the Federal and State Derivative Actions.
The settlement of the Class Actions included a cash payment to
the settlement fund of $10.2 million: $8.75 million to be paid
by Vitesse's Directors' and officers' liability insurers and a
total of $1.45 million to be paid by Louis R. Tomasetta and
Eugene F. Hovanec, two of the former executives of Vitesse.
The same two former executives also will contribute all shares
of Vitesse common stock that they own, totaling 1,272,669
shares.
In addition, on September 22, 2008, Vitesse contributed
2,650,000 shares with a fair market value of $2.4 million of
Vitesse common stock but no cash to the settlement.
As part of the settlement of the federal and state derivative
actions, the three former executives of Vitesse, Messrs.
Tomasetta, Hovanec, and Mody, will release the Company from all
rights to future indemnification and costs of defense in the
related SEC and Department of Justice investigations. Vitesse
retains the right to continue its state court action against
KPMG, its former auditing firm. Vitesse will also contribute up
to 4,700,000 shares of Vitesse common stock, with a fair market
value of $4.2 million to cover the attorneys' fees and expenses
of the derivative plaintiffs' counsel, and adopted certain
Corporate Governance measures.
The proposed Corporate Governance measures include implementing
certain policies, procedures, and guidelines relating to stock
option grants and compensation decisions, incorporating
greater shareholder participation in the procedures for
nominating independent Directors, adopting additional standards
of Director independence, adding a "lead independent Director,"
and incorporating additional accounting policies, procedures,
and guidelines to be incorporated as part of these measures.
About Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation
Headquartered in Camarillo, California, Vitesse Semiconductor
Corporation (OTC:VTSS) -- http://www.vitesse.com/-- is a
supplier of integrated circuits targeted at systems
manufacturers in the communications and storage industries.
Within the communications industry, the company's products
address the enterprise, metro and core segments of the
communications network, where they enable data to be
transmitted, processed and switched under a range of protocols.
In the storage industry, the company's products enable storage
devices to be networked.
New Securities Fraud Cases
SPECTRANETICS: Hagens Berman Files Colo. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEATTLE, Sept. 29, 2008 -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
filed a class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court
of Colorado against The Spectranetics Corporation (Nasdaq: SPNC)
on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or acquired
securities or company stock between April 19, 2007, and Sept. 4,
2008 claiming the Company and its officers violated U.S.
securities laws.
Hagens Berman filed the class action after a former
employee filed suit against the Company claiming Spectranetics
fired him because he informed senior management of illegal
marketing practices with some of the Company's products. On
Sept. 25, 2008, the Denver office of the Securities and Exchange
Commission began its own investigation into the Company,
prompting further speculation into the Company's actions and
alleged missteps.
The lawsuit alleges the Company's executives issued false
and misleading statements concerning operations and finances
causing Company stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.
Throughout the Class Period, the complaint alleges the
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the misinformation
about Company operations and failed to communicate accurate
reports to investors.
On Sept. 4, 2008, Spectranetics shocked investors when
reports surfaced that the Company was raided Federal Officials.
Almost immediately, NASDAQ halted trading of Company stock. The
Company issued a press release revealing more information about
the search warrants, disclosing the Company was jointly served
by the FDA and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
regarding the promotion, use, testing, marketing and sales of
certain Spectranetics products. The issued warrants also looked
into payments made to medical personnel.
Before NASDAQ abruptly halted trading of Company stock,
shares already fell 47 percent to $4.73 per share. The
following day, on Sept. 5, 2008, shares of Spectranetics began
trading again and closed at $5.63 per share. [Today] Company
stock stands at $4.30 after once trading at a high of $16.00 per
share in December 2007.
The complaint claims the Company failed to disclose
important information regarding its products and business
practices. The list of allegations include: failing to notify
investors and the public that the Company lacked effective
regulatory compliance controls; the Company illegally and
extensively marketed its laser and catheters for uses not
approved by the FDA; the Company failed to report to the FDA
that tests found its laser caused significant damage to stents
when used in clinical trial; the Company illegally tested
several products without FDA approval; the Company lacked
effective internal controls and the Company's financial results
were materially inflated.
Interested parties may move the court no later than
Nov. 24, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. (reed@hbsslaw.com)
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
Seattle, WA, 98101
Phone: 510-725-3000
Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com/
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Labaton Sucharow Files Del. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK, Sept. 26, 2008 -- Labaton Sucharow filed a class
action lawsuit on September 25, 2008, in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware, on behalf of all
purchasers of the securities of The Spectranetics Corporation
between March 16, 2007, and September 4, 2008, inclusive.
The lawsuit was filed against Spectranetics and certain
officers and directors.
This action seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants omitted material facts and disseminated materially
false and misleading statements pertaining to Spectranetics'
business and operations, and caused members of the class to
purchase Spectranetics securities at artificially inflated
prices. Spectranetics develops, manufactures, markets, and
distributes single-use medical devices for minimally invasive
procedures with the cardiovascular system using its excimer
laser technology.
On September 4, 2008, Spectranetics revealed that it had
been served with a search warrant by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement. The government requested information and
correspondence relating to the promotion and sales of certain
products for the treatment of in-stent restenosis, payments to
medical personnel and a particular institution for this
application, and the promotion and sales of guidewires and
catheters manufactured by international third parties. Federal
authorities are also seeking information on two post-market
studies completed during the period from 2002 to 2005 and
payments made to personnel in connection with those studies, as
well as compensation packages for certain employees. The
disclosure of the investigation caused Spectranetics stock to
plummet from $9.00 per share to $4.73 per share, a one-day drop
of nearly 48%, on volume of more than 6 million shares, compared
to average volume of 356,000.
Interested parties may move the court no later than
November 24, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Andrei V. Rado, Esq. (arado@labaton.com)
Labaton Sucharow LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Phone: 800-321-0476
212-907-0700
*********
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 * * *