/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090820.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, August 20, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 164
Headlines
CBEYOND INC: Bid to Junk Ga. Securities Complaint Still Pending
CITY OF MONROE: Faces Suit in Michigan Over Sewage Flooded Homes
CROSS COUNTRY: October 2009 Trial Set for Suit v. MedStaff Unit
ERIE INDEMNITY: Pa. Court Certifies Vehicle Policyholder Class
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Suit Alleging Breach of Calif. Privacy Laws
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Mass. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Faces Customer Data Security Breach MDL Suit
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Faces Merchants' Suit over Compromised Data
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Faces Suit Over Reimbursement in California
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Mulls Amended Complaint in Securities Suit
HYDROXYCUT FIRMS: Faces W.Va. Suit Over Product's Side Effects
INFINITY INSURANCE: "Maystruck" Suit Dismissal Affirmed in July
INVERNESS MEDICAL: Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed on July 29
LOS ANGELES: Dec. 18 Hearing Set for "Jacob A." Suit Settlement
MAMA MEXICO: Amended Complaint Filed in N.Y. Wage Litigation
NEW HAMPSHIRE: DMV Faces Lawsuit Over Out-of-State Infractions
NUCOR CORP: To Ask 4th Cir. to Reconsider Discrimination Ruling
PHILIP MORRIS: Fla. Jury Awards $5.3 Million in Tobacco Case
SOURCEFIRE INC: "Katz" Fraud Suit Settlement Approved Last June
TAGGED INC: Faces Calif. Suit for "Harvesting" E-mail Addresses
TD AMERITRADE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Nix Consolidated ARS Suit
TD AMERITRADE: "Ross" Suit Over Yield Plus Fund Pending in N.Y.
TD AMERITRADE: Sept. 10 Hearing Set for Accountholders Suit Deal
UNITED STATES: CIA Seeks Dismissal of Vietnam Veterans' Lawsuit
WAL-MART STORES: Oct. 19 Hearing on $5 Mil. "King" Settlement
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Mich. Suit Over Macomb County Landfill
WEBLOYALTY.COM: Consumer Class Action Settlement is Now Final
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Bid to Nix Amended "Dewald" Complaint Pending
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Hip and Knee Replacements Suit Pending in N.Y.
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit Pending
New Securities Fraud Cases
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Shalov Stone Announces Securities Suit Filing
CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Holzer Holzer Announces Stock Suit Filing
GENZYME CORP: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
*********
CBEYOND INC: Bid to Junk Ga. Securities Complaint Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cbeyond, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a
purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia is pending,
according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended
June 30, 2009.
On May 6, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit, Weisberg v.
Cbeyond, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 08-CV-1666 (N.D. Ga.)
(Cooper, J.), was filed against the company and its chairman and
chief executive officer, James F. Geiger. The action was
brought by Steven Weisberg, individually and on behalf of a
proposed class of purchasers of the company's common
stock between Nov. 1, 2007, and Feb. 21, 2008. It asserts
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and regulations thereunder, based upon
allegations that the company underreported its customer churn
rate. The plaintiff seeks to recover an unspecified amount for
damages on behalf of himself and all other members of the
purported class.
On Oct. 24, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
which-in accordance with court rulings-changed the purported
class representatives to two institutional investors, Genesee
County Employees' Retirement System and the Essex Regional
Retirement Board.
The Amended Complaint also added J. Robert Fugate, the company's
chief financial officer and an executive vice president, as an
individual defendant. The Amended Complaint does not materially
alter the allegations of the original complaint
On Dec. 23, 2008, the company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. Plaintiffs have opposed that motion.
Representing the plaintiff are:
Martin D. Chitwood, Esq. (mchitwood@chitwoodlaw.com)
Chitwood Harley Harnes
2300 Promenade II
1230 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: 404-873-3900
Fax: 404-876-4476
- and -
Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
Gardy & Notis, LLP
Suite 110
440 Sylvan Avenue
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
Phone: 201-567-7377
Fax: 201-567-7337
Representing the defendants are:
Scott P. Hilsen, Esq. (shilsen@alston.com)
Alston & Bird
1201 West Peachtree Street
One Atlantic Center
Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
Phone: 404-881-7000
- and -
David A. Becker, Esq.
Latham & Watkins
555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004-1304
Phone: 202-637-2174
CITY OF MONROE: Faces Suit in Michigan Over Sewage Flooded Homes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Monroe, Michigan, faces a purported class-action
lawsuit that was brought on behalf of the residents whose houses
were damaged in March when sewage apparently flooded the homes,
The Monroe Evening News reports.
The suit was filed in Monroe County Circuit Court. It alleges
that hundreds of basements were damaged when raw, untreated
sewage flowed into the basements as a result of heavy rainfall.
The law firm of Macuga, Liddle & Dubin of Detroit filed the
suit, which seeks damages in excess of $25,000, according to the
Evening News.
The plaintiffs are represented by:
Macuga, Liddle & Dubin, P.C.
975 East Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, Michigan 48207-3101
Phone: 313.392.0015
Fax: 313.392.0025
E-mail: info@mldclassaction.com
Web site: http://www.mlclassaction.com/
The law firm represents plaintiffs in four other sewage back-up
lawsuits. See http://www.mlclassaction.com/sewage.html
CROSS COUNTRY: October 2009 Trial Set for Suit v. MedStaff Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial is scheduled to commence in October 2009, in a purported
class-action lawsuit styled Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda
v. MedStaff, Inc., Case No. __________ (Riverside Cty. Super.
Ct., Calif.), according to Cross Country Healthcare, Inc.'s
Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009.
On Feb. 18, 2005, the company's MedStaff subsidiary became the
subject of the purported class-action lawsuit, which only
relates to MedStaff corporate employees working in California.
The claims alleged under this lawsuit are generally similar in
nature to those brought by Darrelyn Renee Henry in a lawsuit
against the company, which was dismissed.
The lawsuit alleges, among other things, violations of certain
sections of the California Labor Code, the California Business
and Professions Code, and recovery of unpaid wages and
penalties.
MedStaff currently has less than 50 corporate employees in
California.
The Plaintiffs, Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda, purport to
sue on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
and allege that MedStaff failed, under California law, to
provide meal periods and rest breaks and pay for those missed
meal periods and rest breaks; failed to compensate the employees
for all hours worked; failed to compensate the employees for
working overtime; failed to keep appropriate records to keep
track of time worked; failed to pay Plaintiffs and their
purported class as required by law.
Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an order enjoining MedStaff
from engaging in the practices challenged in the complaint and
for full restitution of all monies, for interest, for certain
penalties provided for by the California Labor Code and for
attorneys' fees and costs.
On Feb. 5, 2007, the court granted class certification.
On Oct. 16, 2008, MedStaff filed a Motion to Decertify the
class, which was denied on Dec. 19, 2008.
Boca Raton, Fla.-based Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. --
http://www.crosscountryhealthcare.com/-- provides healthcare
staffing services. The company offers a suite of staffing and
outsourcing services to the healthcare market, which include
being a national provider of nurse and allied staffing services
and multi-specialty locum tenens services; a provider of
clinical trials services to global pharmaceutical and
biotechnology customers; and a provider of other human capital
management services focused on healthcare.
ERIE INDEMNITY: Pa. Court Certifies Vehicle Policyholder Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, Pennsylvania
certified a class in Shawn D. Shultz, et al., v. Erie Indemnity
Company, t/d/b/a Erie Insurance Group, a/k/a Erie Insurance
Exchange, Case No. 1753 of 2006, G.D.
The lawsuit claims that Erie deceived Erie single vehicle
policyholders by charging them a higher premium for stacked
uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage while providing
them with non-stacked uninsured and underinsured motorist
coverage.
The court has appointed Shawn D. Shultz as class representative
and certified a class of Erie single vehicle policyholders.
For more details, visit http://www.shultzclassaction.com/
The plaintiffs are represented by:
William M. Radcliffe, Esq.
Radcliffe & DeHaas, L.L.P.
National City Building, Suite 700
2 West Main Street
Uniontown, PA 15401
Phone: (724) 439-3900
E-mail: rdm@rdm-at-law.com
Web site: http://www.rightlawfirm.com/
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Suit Alleging Breach of Calif. Privacy Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. faces a purported class-action suit in California
for allegedly breaching the state's privacy laws, TG Daily
reports.
The suit was filed in the Orange County Superior Court, and
include two children younger than 13, a photographer, and an
actress, as plaintiffs.
The suit alleges that Facebook has breached the California
privacy laws by spreading information to others in order to make
money. It also alleges the company harvests data on its members
without making it absolutely clear it indulges in such
activities, according to TG Daily.
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Mass. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of seven
plaintiffs groups that accused First Marblehead Corp., and its
officials of making misleading and possibly false claims about
the quality and performances of the company's loan portfolios,
Craig M. Douglas at The Boston Business Journal reports.
In April 2008, six purported class-action complaints were filed
against the company, certain of its current and former officers,
and certain of its directors (Class Action Reporter, June 4,
2009). The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the
defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material information in various U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission filings, press releases and other public
statements. The complaints allege various claims under the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. They seek,
among other relief, class certification, unspecified damages,
fees and such other relief as the court may deem just and
proper.
In August 2008, the court consolidated these cases and appointed
lead plaintiffs and a lead counsel.
On Nov. 28, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed by
the lead plaintiffs and contained similar allegations as the
earlier complaints.
On Feb. 9, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
company's motion to dismiss on April 13, 2009.
The First Marblehead Corp. -- http://www.firstmarblehead.com/--
provides outsourcing services for private education lending in
the U.S. It meets the demand for private education loans by
providing national and regional financial institutions and
educational institutions, as well as businesses, education loan
marketers and other enterprises, with an integrated suite of
design, implementation and securitization services for student
loan programs. The Company is engaged on loan programs for
undergraduate, graduate and professional education, and on the
primary and secondary school market. The Company is engaged in
program design and marketing coordination, borrower inquiry and
application, loan origination and disbursement, loan
securitization and loan servicing.
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Faces Customer Data Security Breach MDL Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated lawsuit In re Heartland Payment Systems, Inc.,
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2046; Master
Docket No. 09-md-2046 (S.D. Tex.) (Rosenthal, J.), is pending.
To date, the company faces lawsuits that assert claims by
cardholders (including various putative class actions seeking in
the aggregate to represent all cardholders in the United States
whose transaction information is alleged to have been placed at
risk in the course of the Processing System Intrusion), and
banks that issued payment cards to cardholders whose transaction
information is alleged to have been placed at risk in the course
of the Processing System Intrusion (including various putative
class actions seeking to represent all financial institutions
that issued payment cards to cardholders whose transaction
information is alleged to have been placed at risk in the course
of the Processing System Intrusion), seeking damages allegedly
arising out of the Processing System Intrusion and other related
relief.
The actions generally assert various common-law claims such as
claims for negligence and breach of contract, as well as, in
some cases, statutory claims such as violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, state data breach notification statutes,
and state unfair and deceptive practices statutes.
The putative cardholder class actions seek various forms of
relief including damages, injunctive relief, multiple or
punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs.
The putative financial institution class actions seek
compensatory damages, including recovery of the cost of issuance
of replacement cards and losses by reason of unauthorized
transactions, as well as injunctive relief, attorney's fees and
costs.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an order
centralizing these cases for pre-trial proceedings on June 10,
2009.
These putative consumer class actions and putative financial
institution class actions filed against the company were pending
as of Aug. 6, 2009, according to its Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
quarter ended June 30, 2009.
Processing more than 11 million transactions per day, Heartland
Payment Systems, Inc. -- http://www.heartlandpaymentsystems.com/
-- provides bank card payment processing services to merchants
in the United States and Canada. This involves facilitating the
exchange of information and funds between merchants and
cardholders' financial institutions, providing end-to-end
electronic payment processing services to merchants, including
merchant set-up and training, transaction authorization and
electronic draft capture, clearing and settlement, merchant
accounting, merchant assistance and support and risk management.
It also provides additional services to its merchants, such as
payroll processing, gift and loyalty programs and paper check
processing. The company's wholly owned subsidiaries include
Heartland Payroll Company, Debitek, Inc., and Heartland
Acquisition LLC. The company also has a 70% owned subsidiary,
Collective POS Solutions Ltd.
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Faces Merchants' Suit over Compromised Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., faces a putative merchant class
action in Missouri, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009.
A putative merchant class action has been commenced that seeks
to represent all merchants against whom Heartland asserts or has
asserted a claim for chargebacks or fines related to compromised
credit card data since 2006.
Filed on March 9, 2009, in the Circuit Court of the City of
Saint Louis, Missouri, the action is captioned S.M. Corporation,
d/b/a Mike Shannon's Steak & Seafood v. Orbit POS Systems, Inc.
and Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., Case No. 0822-CC07833.
The action asserts various common-law claims, including breach
of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation,
and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and seeks
various forms of relief including damages, injunctive relief,
and attorney's fees.
Processing more than 11 million transactions per day, Heartland
Payment Systems, Inc. -- http://www.heartlandpaymentsystems.com/
-- provides bank card payment processing services to merchants
in the United States and Canada. This involves facilitating the
exchange of information and funds between merchants and
cardholders' financial institutions, providing end-to-end
electronic payment processing services to merchants, including
merchant set-up and training, transaction authorization and
electronic draft capture, clearing and settlement, merchant
accounting, merchant assistance and support and risk management.
It also provides additional services to its merchants, such as
payroll processing, gift and loyalty programs and paper check
processing. The company's wholly owned subsidiaries include
Heartland Payroll Company, Debitek, Inc., and Heartland
Acquisition LLC. The company also has a 70% owned subsidiary,
Collective POS Solutions Ltd.
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Faces Suit Over Reimbursement in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action styled Ryan McInerney, Hossein Vazir
Zand v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., is pending, according
to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30,
2009.
On Dec. 16, 2008, the putative class action was filed against
the company in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego.
The plaintiffs purport to represent a putative class of
individuals who allegedly were not reimbursed by the company for
business expenses and whose compensation was allegedly reduced
for their costs of doing business. The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages, penalties, injunctive and
declaratory relief, and attorney's fees and costs.
Processing more than 11 million transactions per day, Heartland
Payment Systems, Inc. -- http://www.heartlandpaymentsystems.com/
-- provides bank card payment processing services to merchants
in the United States and Canada. This involves facilitating the
exchange of information and funds between merchants and
cardholders' financial institutions, providing end-to-end
electronic payment processing services to merchants, including
merchant set-up and training, transaction authorization and
electronic draft capture, clearing and settlement, merchant
accounting, merchant assistance and support and risk management.
It also provides additional services to its merchants, such as
payroll processing, gift and loyalty programs and paper check
processing. The company's wholly owned subsidiaries include
Heartland Payroll Company, Debitek, Inc., and Heartland
Acquisition LLC. The company also has a 70% owned subsidiary,
Collective POS Solutions Ltd.
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Mulls Amended Complaint in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. anticipates that the Lead
Plaintiffs in the consolidated action captioned "In re Heartland
Payment Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation" will file an
amended consolidated complaint in August 2009.
Four securities class action complaints have been filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey:
-- Davis v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc.,
Robert O. Carr and Robert H. B. Baldwin, Jr.,
Case No. 09-cv-01043 (filed March 6, 2009);
-- Ivy v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc.,
Robert O. Carr and Robert H. B. Baldwin, Jr.,
Case No. 09-cv-01264 (filed March 19, 2009);
-- Ladensack v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc.,
Robert O. Carr and Robert H. B. Baldwin, Jr.,
Case No. 09-cv-01632 (filed April 3, 2009); and
-- Morr v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc.,
Robert O. Carr and Robert H. B. Baldwin, Jr.,
Case No. 09-cv-01818 (filed April 16, 2009).
All four complaints contain similar allegations.
In Ladensack, the plaintiff purports to represent all
individuals who bought our securities between Feb. 13, 2008, and
Feb. 23, 2009. In Davis, Ivy and Morr, the plaintiffs initially
purported to represent all individuals who bought our securities
between Aug. 5, 2008, and Feb. 23, 2009. However, on April 7,
2009, counsel for the Davis and Ivy plaintiffs issued a press
release announcing the purported expansion of the alleged Class
Period from Feb. 13, 2008 to Feb. 23, 2009. On April 16, 2009,
counsel for the Morr plaintiff issued a similar press release.
In each case, the plaintiff alleges that Heartland and two of
the company's officers made material misrepresentations or
omissions to security holders concerning the Processing System
Intrusion in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that four
Heartland insiders engaged in insider trading in our securities.
The plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs and expenses.
On May 6, 2009, plaintiff J.P. Ladensack filed a Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal to dismiss the Ladensack action, which was
granted by the Court on May 7, 2009.
On May 27, 2009, the three remaining securities class actions
were consolidated into In re Heartland Payment Systems, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 09-cv-01043 (D. N.J.).
The Teamsters Local Union No. 727 Pension Fund and Genesee
County Employees' Retirement System were appointed Co-Lead
Plaintiffs for the purported class pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec.
78u-4(a)(3)(B).
The original four securities class actions were identified as
potential "tag-along actions" to In re: Heartland Payment
Systems, Inc. Computer System Intrusion Litigation, MDL No.
2046; Master Docket No. __-_____ (S.D. Tex.) (Rosenthal, J.).
On June 12, 2009, the Clerk of the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation issued a Conditional Transfer Order for
"tag-along actions" to be similarly transferred to the Southern
District of Texas. The Conditional Transfer Order did not
include the Consolidated Securities Class Action.
On June 19, 2009, the company filed a Motion for Transfer of
Tag-Along Action Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 seeking to have
the Consolidated Securities Class Action transferred as a "tag-
along action" to In re: Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. Computer
System Intrusion Litigation, MDL No. 2046. The JPML is expected
to hear that motion in its next hearing session in September
2009, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter
ended June 30, 2009.
Processing more than 11 million transactions per day, Heartland
Payment Systems, Inc. -- http://www.heartlandpaymentsystems.com/
-- provides bank card payment processing services to merchants
in the United States and Canada. This involves facilitating the
exchange of information and funds between merchants and
cardholders' financial institutions, providing end-to-end
electronic payment processing services to merchants, including
merchant set-up and training, transaction authorization and
electronic draft capture, clearing and settlement, merchant
accounting, merchant assistance and support and risk management.
It also provides additional services to its merchants, such as
payroll processing, gift and loyalty programs and paper check
processing. The company's wholly owned subsidiaries include
Heartland Payroll Company, Debitek, Inc., and Heartland
Acquisition LLC. The company also has a 70% owned subsidiary,
Collective POS Solutions Ltd.
HYDROXYCUT FIRMS: Faces W.Va. Suit Over Product's Side Effects
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit has been filed in the Kanawha County
Circuit Court in Charleston, West Virginia, against the
manufacturers and distributors of Hydroxycut products.
The complaint alleges that defendants knew, or should have
known, that the use of their product may cause liver-related
illnesses in consumers.
The plaintiff and class representative is being represented
by The Bell Law Firm, PLLC of Charleston, West Virginia -- a
firm experienced in handling pharmaceutical product liability
litigation.
The complaint seeks recovery for consumers who were charged
money for these defective and dangerous products.
On May 1, 2009, the FDA recalled fourteen Hydroxycut
products following reports of adverse effects on consumers.
These reports included liver damage, elevated liver enzymes, and
liver damage requiring a transplant. One death due to liver
failure was reported to the FDA. Other reported health problems
include cardiovascular problems, seizures, and serious muscle
damage (rhabdomyolysis) that can cause kidney failure.
Hydroxycut is a dietary supplement that promotes weight loss.
For more details, contact:
The Bell Law Firm, PLLC
30 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: 304-932-4225
Fax: 304-345-1715
Web site: http://www.belllaw.com/
INFINITY INSURANCE: "Maystruck" Suit Dismissal Affirmed in July
---------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of the purported class-action lawsuit, captioned
Eugene Maystruck v. Infinity Insurance Co., which named a unit
of Infinity Property and Casualty Corp. as a defendant, was
affirmed in July 2009.
The suit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, Los Angeles County, as a putative class-action suit
in October 2007.
The action alleges that Infinity's Repair Satisfaction Vehicle
Program violates California Administrative Code Section
2695.8(e), Insurance Code section 758.5(d), Section 17200 of the
Business and Professions Code, and constitutes a breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The putative
class-action lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, attorney fees,
injunctive relief, reformation of the insurance policy and costs
and expenses.
On May 21, 2008, the court granted the company's demurrer to the
plaintiffs' complaint, without leave to amend, thereby
dismissing all causes of action against the company.
On July 9, 2008, the plaintiff filed notice that it was
appealing dismissal of the case.
On July 9, 2009, subsequent to the end of the company's second
quarter on June 30, 2009, the California Court of Appeals
affirmed the Superior Court's dismissal of all causes of action
against the company.
On July 10, 2009, the company and plaintiff entered into
an agreement, pursuant to which the plaintiff agreed not to
appeal the ruling of the California Court of Appeals,
according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended
June 30, 2009.
Infinity Property and Casualty Corp. -- http://www.ipacc.com/--
is a holding company that, through subsidiaries, provides
personal automobile insurance with a concentration on
nonstandard auto insurance. The company also writes standard
and preferred personal auto insurance, monoline commercial auto
insurance and classic collector automobile insurance. Infinity
is organized into two regions: East and West. Each region has
its own product management and business development staff and is
supported by centralized departments, which comprise: marketing,
claims, customer service, accounting, treasury, human resources
and information technology resources. Infinity distributes its
products primarily through a network of over 13,000 independent
agencies (with approximately 17,000 locations).
INVERNESS MEDICAL: Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed on July 29
-------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class-action lawsuit in Massachusetts, alleging
that Inverness Medical Innovations, Inc.'s prospectus supplement
with respect to its November 2007 public offering was inaccurate
and misleading and omitted material facts was dismissed in
July 2009.
The purported federal securities class-action lawsuit was filed
on April 10, 2008, by Pyramid Holdings Inc., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts against the company; its
chief executive officer, Ron Zwanziger; and its chief financial
officer, David Teitel.
The complaint seeks damages and interest, rescissory damages for
class members who have sold their shares, and recovery of
reasonable costs and expenses of this litigation.
As of July 29, 2009, in response to the company's motion to
dismiss, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' amended class action
complaint in its entirety and closed the case. Plaintiffs have
30 days from the date of the Court's dismissal to file notice of
appeal, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
quarter ended June 30, 2009.
The suit is Pyramid Holdings Inc. v. Inverness Medical
Innovations Inc. et al., Case No. 08-cv-10615, filed
before the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, the Honorable Joseph L. Tauro, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. (tshapiro@shulaw.com)
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02108
Phone: 617-439-3939
Fax: 617-439-0134
Representing the defendants is:
Brian E. Pastuszenski, Esq.
(BPastuszenski@goodwinprocter.com)
Goodwin Procter LLP
Exchange Place, 53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: 617-570-1094
Fax: 617-523-1231
LOS ANGELES: Dec. 18 Hearing Set for "Jacob A." Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles will hold a fairness hearing on Dec. 18, 2009, at
10:00 a.m., to review the proposed settlement in Jacob A., et
al. v. L.A. County Department of Children and Family Services,
et al., Case No. BC390627.
Case Background
On May 13, 2008, Jacob A. and Keith H., minors, by and through
their Guardians ad Litem, and John H., Rebecca H., and Norma A.,
on behalf of themselves and all other Class Members, filed the
lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court.
Listed as defendants in the matter are:
-- Los Angeles County Department Of Children And Family
Services (DCFS),
-- Harbor Regional Center,
-- Frank D. Lanterman Regional Center,
-- North Los Angeles County Regional Center,
-- San Gabriel/Pomona Regional Center,
-- South Central Los Angeles Regional Center,
-- Westside Regional Center,
-- Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center,
-- The California Department Of Social Services (DSS),
-- The California Department Of Developmental Services,
and
-- The California Health And Human Services Agency.
The plaintiffs complained that the defendants did not follow
California law that sets out the amount of money that adoptive
and adopted parents are required to receive for the support and
adoption of children who are both adopted from foster care or
adoptively placed foster children and consumers of California
Regional Centers due to having developmental disabilities (known
as "Dual Agency" Children).
Specifically, the plaintiffs complained that Defendant DCFS did
not pay Adoption Assistance Program (AAP) benefits at the
Alternative Residential Model (ARM) rate amount which should
have started either on the date of adoptive placement of the
Dual Agency Child or the date the child was determined eligible
for Regional Center services if that is a later date. As a
result, some plaintiffs may not have full amount of AAP benefits
due to them from May 12, 2005, to the present.
The court has not made a decision as to whether the plaintiffs
are correct in their complaint. But, on Sept. 24, 2008, the
parties filed a document with the court wherein DSS said that
the plaintiffs are entitled to AAP payments at the ARM rate, if
they were not paid, and has directed DCFS to make such payments.
For more details, contact:
Brian Capra, Esq.
Cynthia Billey, Esq.
Public Counsel Alliance for Children's Rights
610 South Ardmore Ave.,
Los Angeles, California 90005
Phone: (213) 385-2977 or (213) 368-6010
- and -
Monica Biernat, SCSW
Adoption and Permanency Resources Division
3530 Wilshire Blvd., 4th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90010
Phone: (213) 351-0228
MAMA MEXICO: Amended Complaint Filed in N.Y. Wage Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
An amended lawsuit filed on Aug. 17, 2009, alleges that the
"five star" Mama Mexico restaurants in New York and New Jersey
violated federal and state labor laws by withholding minimum
wages, overtime compensation and misappropriating employee tips,
according to former workers represented by lawyers at Outten &
Golden LLP and Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP.
The suit, which alleges violations of the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the New Jersey
Wage and Hour Law, was filed on behalf of seven current and
former workers who have worked at three Mama Mexico restaurant
locations in New York City and Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
The lawsuit seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime
compensation, misappropriated tips, and other wages for servers,
bussers, runners, bartenders, and other hourly food service
workers who have worked at the Mama Mexico restaurants. It also
includes individual claims for retaliation, pregnancy
discrimination, hostile work environment, and assault and
battery.
Justin M. Swartz, Esq., Linda A. Neilan, Esq., and Rachel
M. Bien, Esq., of Outten & Golden LLP's New York office, and
Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq., and Brian S. Schaffer, Esq., of
Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP, of New York, represent the workers,
and will seek to have the lawsuit certified as a class action.
Ms. Bien stated, "The extraordinary success of Mama Mexico
and its immigrant founder, Juan Rojas Campos, is well known, but
this success has come on the backs of the company's hourly
employees."
Mr. Schaffer stated, "Wage and hour violations in
restaurants are nothing new but Mama Mexico restaurants appear
to have hit a new low, violating many of our laws protecting
workers' rights on a daily basis."
The lawsuit alleges that while Rojas Campos has been touted
as "exemplifying the American dream," his restaurants have
denied workers minimum wages and overtime pay for the many hours
they worked and, in some cases, failed to pay these workers any
wages at all.
Mr. Swartz stated, "Mr. Rojas Campos has posed for photos
with Donald Trump, George Pataki, and other and high-profile New
Yorkers, and his life story appears on Mayor Bloomberg's
campaign website, but he seems to have forgotten his own humble
beginnings and the struggles of New York City's low-wage workers
trying to make ends meet."
The defendants are Plaza Mexico, Inc., Piramides Mayas
Inc., Mama Mexico Midtown Realty LLC, Shaddai Inc., Mama Mexico
Englewood Realty LLC, Juan Rojas Campos, Vincente Rojas, Miguel
Rojas, Laura Chavez, Jose Lumbardi and Freddy Raymondi.
The case is Benavidez, et al. v. Plaza Mexico, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 09 CIV 5076 (S.D.N.Y.).
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
Rachel M. Bien, Esq.
Outten & Golden LLP
3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Phone: (212) 245-1000
Fax: (212) 977-4005
Web site: http://www.outtengolden.com/
- and -
Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP
1250 Broadway, Suite 3701
New York, New York 10001
Phone: (212) 300-0375
Fax: (212)564-5468
Web site: http://www.fslawfirm.com/
NEW HAMPSHIRE: DMV Faces Lawsuit Over Out-of-State Infractions
--------------------------------------------------------------
The New Hampshire Division of Motor Vehicles faces a purported
class-action lawsuit that would force it to start notifying New
Hampshire drivers that their licenses are under suspension for
infractions in other states before it's too late, Annmarie
Timmins at The Concord Monitor reports.
The suit was filed on Aug. 17, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Hampshire by Robert P. Hull and Stephen
D. Hellwig. It is captioned Hull, et al. v. N.H. Department of
Safety, Commissioner, et al., Case No. 09-00279 (D. N.H.), and
seeks class-action status.
In court papers, plaintiffs' attorney William O'Brien, Esq.,
alleged his two clients weren't told until they tried to renew
their driver's licenses that they couldn't because they had been
flagged by other states, reports Ms. Timmins.
That left Mr. Hull, Grafton's health officer, without driving
privileges for the five months it took him and a lawyer to prove
that he'd been wrongly accused of a property violation in New
Jersey, according to the lawsuit.
Mr. Hellwig, a former state representative couldn't drive for
six months because it took that long to resolve an old equipment
violation in Massachusetts, Mr. O'Brien said.
Mr. O'Brien argues that had his clients been notified earlier of
the out-of-state problems, they could have resolved them
immediately without a lengthy loss of driving rights.
The plaintiffs are seeking attorneys' fees and legal costs, but
no additional compensation. They instead seek for a policy
change, according to Ms. Timmins.
The plaintiffs are represented by:
William L. O'Brien, Esq.
O'Brien Law Office
88 North Main St., Ste. 209
Concord, NH 03301-4966
Phone: 603 228-6610
Fax: 603 228-6611
E-mail: williamlobrien@gmail.com
NUCOR CORP: To Ask 4th Cir. to Reconsider Discrimination Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nucor Corp. will ask the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals this
week for an en banc rehearing of its decision in Brown v. Nucor,
No. 08-1247 (4th Cir. Aug. 7, 2009), to re-examine both the
sound ruling of the District Judge and the compelling analysis
of the dissenting appellate judge who believed that the District
Judge's ruling should be upheld.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit reversed a ruling by the Honorable C. Weston Houck in
Brown v. Nucor, Case No. 04-cv-22005 (D. S.C.), that denied
class-action status to the case (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 14,
2009).
The case involves allegations of racial discrimination at a
steel manufacturing plant in Huger, South Carolina, owned by
Nucor Corp. and Nucor Steel Berkeley.
The lawsuit was filed on Aug. 25, 2004, by Quinton Brown, Jason
Guy, Ramon Roane, Alvin Simmons, Sheldon Singletary, Gerald
White, and Jacob Ravenell in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas by seven black workers and
subsequently transferred to the District of South Carolina.
The workers had complained that they and others were referred to
by white supervisors as "nigger," "bologna lips," "yard ape" and
"porch monkey," and that "monkey noises" were broadcast over the
radio system.
They brought the suit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 (2000) and
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on behalf of
themselves and approximately 100 other past and present black
employees at the plant.
The suit seeks a permanent injunction, back pay, compensatory
and punitive damages, and attorney's fees.
At the time the litigation commenced, there were 611 employees
working at Nucor's South Carolina plant, of whom seventy-one
were black.
The Western District of Arkansas severed the case and
transferred the claims brought by the seven plaintiffs in South
Carolina to the District of South Carolina.
On May 7, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification alleging:
-- A pattern or practice of disparate treatment against
African-American employees with respect to promotion
opportunities at the plant;
-- Nucor's promotion procedure, which allows white
managers and supervisors to use subjective criteria to
promote employees, has a disparate impact on African-
American employees who apply for promotions; and
-- Nucor requires African-American employees to work in a
plant-wide hostile work environment.
The district court denied the class certification motion. That
ruling was appealed to the Fourth Circuit.
In reversing the lower court's decision, the Fourth Circuit
found that the district court abused its discretion and erred as
a matter of law in denying class certification to the
plaintiffs-appellants. Thus, it vacated the order and remanded
the case to the district court for certification.
Specifically, the Fourth Circuit ruled that the workers
"certainly presented compelling direct evidence of
discrimination, such as denials of promotions when more junior
white employees were granted promotions, denial of the ability
to cross-train during regular shifts like their white
counterparts, and a statement by a white supervisor that he
would never promote a black employee."
That evidence alone, the Virginia-based appellate panel ruled,
"establishes common claims of discrimination worthy of class
certification."
The circuit court concluded that the evidence was valid to
support a class action, and that because the workers shared
common areas, all black employees were subjected to the
disparate treatment.
A copy of the Fourth Circuit's opinion is available free of
charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?418e
The plaintiffs are represented by lawyers at Wiggins, Childs,
Quinn & Pantazis, LLC, in Birmingham, Ala., and Derfner,
Altman & Wilborn in Charleston, S.C.
PHILIP MORRIS: Fla. Jury Awards $5.3 Million in Tobacco Case
------------------------------------------------------------
A 92-year-old plaintiff was awarded more than $5.3 million in
damages after a jury decided his then-73-year-old wife died of
lung cancer caused by years of cigarette smoking manufactured by
Phillip Morris.
The trial in Broward County Circuit Court pitted Leon Barbanell,
the husband of Shirley Barbanell, against Philip Morris USA Inc.
In Phase 1 of this trial, the jury decided cigarettes caused Ms.
Barbanell's lung cancer and eventual death in 1996. After a day
of deliberations in Phase 2, the jury awarded Leon Barbanell
$5.3 million dollars in damages.
"Leon Barbanell is a patient man who has waited 13 years to get
into the courtroom and present his case to a jury," said Steven
J. Hammer, who tried the case with Jonathan Gdanski. Both are
attorneys with the Schlesinger Law Firm of Fort Lauderdale,
which represented Ms. Barbanell's estate.
"Since the day he and his wife watched on TV as tobacco
executives told Congress in 1994 that their products weren't
addictive or harmful, Shirley knew they were lying," Mr. Gdanski
said. "Mr. Barbanell just wanted his day in court. Finally, he
has prevailed."
Significant in the case was the plaintiff's ability to draw on
findings from the Engle Class Action, first filed in 1994.
Though the Florida Supreme Court in 2006 decertified the class
action, they enabled members of the class to bring individual
lawsuits relying on the findings. Among the findings which
supported Mr. Barbanell's case were that Philip Morris had been
found negligent, its products were defective and unreasonably
dangerous, nicotine is addictive, and the company conspired to
conceal information regarding the health effects of smoking, Mr.
Gdanski said.
The Barbanell estate admitted during the trial that Ms.
Barbanell should have tried harder to quit smoking. Philip
Morris admitted no fault, even refuting whether Ms. Barbanell
had lung cancer. The jury saw otherwise, concluding that Ms.
Barbanell died of lung cancer caused by her addiction to
nicotine in cigarettes. The jury assessed more than a third of
the fault of Ms. Barbanell's death to the cigarette maker.
"Mr. Barbanell still talks to Shirley every night -- and tonight
before he goes to bed, we are proud that he will be able to tell
her, "Shirley, justice has finally been served and Phillip
Morris did NOT get away with murder," said Mr. Hammer, lead
trial counsel.
More then 8,000 Engle Progeny cases have been filed in the State
of Florida and in the last six months the tobacco industry has
lost five separate individual lawsuits, four of those in Broward
County.
SOURCEFIRE INC: "Katz" Fraud Suit Settlement Approved Last June
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, on
June 12, 2009, approved the proposed settlement in a
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit against
Sourcefire, Inc.
The putative class-action lawsuit was filed on May 8, 2007, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the
company and certain of its officers and directors. The suit is
captioned Howard Katz v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case No.
07-cv-01210 (D. Md.). (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 7, 2009).
Since then, two other putative class action complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court of Maryland against the company
and certain of its officers and directors and other parties
making similar allegations.
These two additional suits are:
1. Mark Reaves v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 07-cv-01351 (D. Md.), and
2. Joan Raveill v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 07-cv-01425 (D. Md.).
In addition, a fourth putative class-action lawsuit, Barry
Pincus v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-cv-04720
(S.D.N.Y.) was filed against the company and certain of its
officers and directors and other parties making similar
allegations.
Pursuant to a stipulation among the parties and in an order
entered on June 29, 2007, by the U.S. District Court of the
Southern District of New York, the Pincus case was transferred
to the District of Maryland.
The actions claim to be filed on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased the company's common stock pursuant to
the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection
with the company's initial public offering.
The lawsuits allege violations of Section 11, Section 12 and
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in
connection with allegedly material misleading statements and
omissions contained in the registration statement and
prospectus.
The plaintiffs seek, among other things, a determination of
class action status, compensatory and rescission damages, a
rescission of the initial public offering, as well as fees and
costs on behalf of a putative class.
On July 13, 2007, Sandra Amrhein filed a motion to consolidate
the four cases, to appoint her as lead plaintiff, and to approve
her choice of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as lead counsel, and
Tydings & Rosenberg LLP as liaison counsel. The court granted
Ms. Amrhein's request.
On Oct. 4, 2007, Ms. Amrheim filed an amended consolidated class
action complaint asserting legal claims that previously had been
asserted in one or more of the four original actions.
On Nov. 20, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint, which motion was granted in part and
denied in part.
In May 2008, the defendants filed an answer denying all
liability, and later, the court entered a scheduling order.
On or about June 18, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification, for the appointment of class representative
and for the appointment of class counsel and liaison counsel for
the class. The defendants' opposition to that motion is due on
or before Nov. 19, 2008, and any replies are due on or before
Jan. 9, 2009.
On July 16, 2008, the court granted the parties' motion to amend
the prior scheduling order to provide the parties with an
opportunity to conduct a mediation. The initial meeting with
the mediator took place on Oct. 17, 2008.
On Feb. 11, 2009, the company filed a settlement stipulation and
related papers with the Court, tentatively settling all claims
in the litigation. If finally approved, the settlement will
result in the dismissal of the claims against all defendants.
The proposed settlement will include a cash payment of $3.2
million by the defendants, $3.1 million of which will be paid by
the company's insurer and $0.1 million of which will be paid by
Sourcefire. Neither the company nor any of the other defendants
admitted any wrongdoing in connection with the proposed
settlement.
The Court approved the settlement on June 12, 2009, and the
Court's order approving the settlement became effective on
July 12, 2009. The settlement resulted in the dismissal of the
claims against all defendants. The settlement included a cash
payment of $3.2 million by the defendants, $3.1 million of which
was paid by the company's insurer and $0.1 million of which was
paid by Sourcefire. Neither the company nor any of the other
defendants admitted any wrongdoing in connection with the
settlement, according to its Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended
June 30, 2009.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY, 10022
Phone: 212-687-1980
Fax: 212-687-7714
e-mail: info@kaplanfox.com
- and -
Tydings & Rosenberg LLP
100 East Pratt Street
Baltimore, MD, 21202
Phone: 410-752-9700
Fax: 410-757-5460
e-mail: webmaster@tydingslaw.com
TAGGED INC: Faces Calif. Suit for "Harvesting" E-mail Addresses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tagged, Inc., faces a purported class-action from two California
residents who accuse the company allegedly duping them into
sharing their email contacts and then sending those contacts
misleading ads, Wendy Davis at The MediaPost Publications
reports.
The suit, Slater, et al. v. Tagged, Inc., et al., Case No.
09-03697 (N.D. Calif.), was filed on Aug. 12, 2009, by Miriam
Slater and Sara Golden. "Tagged harvested millions of email
addresses from the email address books of consumers," the
complaint says. "Then, using these consumers' email account
credentials, Tagged sent unsolicited advertisements to the
harvested email addresses, making the messages appear as if they
were invitations to join Tagged sent by persons known to the
recipients," according to MediaPost.
Ms. Slater, an artist, alleges that she received an email from
the social networking site Tagged.com on June 6 that purported
to be from an acquaintance who wanted to share photos, writes
Ms. Davis.
According to the complaint, she visited the site and provided
the company with information, but only because she wanted to
view the pictures. Ms. Slater alleges that Tagged never
disclosed that she was actually registering to join the site or
that it would harvest her e-mail addresses and then solicit
those contacts.
Ms. Golden alleges that she joined Tagged after receiving an
invitation that appeared to have been sent by Ms. Slater.
Ms. Davis reported that both plaintiffs are seeking class-action
status. They allege that Tagged's actions violate various laws
including the federal Stored Communications Act and Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act.
The plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott Kamber, Esq.
Kamber & Associates, LLC
11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: 212-920-3072
- and -
Joseph H. Malley, Esq.
Law Office of Joseph H. Malley, PC
1045 North Zang Boulevard
Dallas, TX 75208
Phone: 214-943-6100
E-mail: malleylaw@gmail.com
- and -
David Christopher Parisi, Esq.
Parisi & Havens LLP
15233 Valleyheart Drive
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Phone: 818-990-1299
Fax: 818-501-7852
E-mail: dcparisi@msn.com
TD AMERITRADE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Nix Consolidated ARS Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on the motion to dismiss an amended complaint in
the consolidated class-action lawsuit captioned In re Humphrys
v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., according to the company's Aug.
7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009.
Beginning in March 2008, lawsuits were filed against various
financial services firms by customers related to their
investments in auction rate securities.
The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege that the defendants made
material misrepresentations and omissions in statements to
customers about investments in ARS and the manner in which the
ARS market functioned in violation of provisions of the federal
securities laws.
Two purported class-action complaints have been filed alleging
such conduct with respect to TDA Inc. and TD Ameritrade Holding
Corp.
The first case, filed on March 19, 2008, is captioned Humphrys
v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. et al. The second case, filed
on April 17, 2008, is captioned, Silverstein v. TD Ameritrade
Holding Corp. et al.
Both complaints were filed on behalf of customers who purchased
ARS between March 19, 2003, and Feb. 13, 2008. The complaints
seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, injunctive
relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.
Both cases are pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
A motion has been filed by some plaintiffs requesting that the
proceedings in the lawsuits against the various financial
services firms in effect be consolidated before one judge. The
company and the other defendants and several plaintiffs in other
cases have filed oppositions to the proposed consolidation.
The company and parties in other cases filed oppositions to the
motion.
An amended complaint was filed in February 2009. The amended
complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, equitable
relief, interest and attorneys' fees. In April 2009, the
company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. -- http://www.amtd.com/-- is
engaged in providing securities brokerage services and
technology-based financial services to retail investors and
business partners, predominantly through the Internet, a
national branch network and relationships with independent
registered investment advisors. The company offers touch-tone
trading, trading over the Internet, unlimited, streaming, free
real-time quotes, extended trading hour, direct access and
commitment on the speed of execution to its customers. As of
Jan. 24, 2006, the company acquired the U.S. brokerage business
of TD Waterhouse Group, Inc.. The client offerings include TD
AMERITRADE, TD AMERITRADE Institutional, TD AMERITRADE Izone,
Amerivest, TDAX Independence ETFs and TD AMERITRADE Corporate
Services. The products available to the clients include common
and preferred stock, exchange-traded funds, option trades,
mutual funds, fixed income, margin lending and cash management
services.
TD AMERITRADE: "Ross" Suit Over Yield Plus Fund Pending in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. continues to face a purported class
action lawsuit captioned Ross v. Reserve Management Company,
Inc. et al., according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
quarter ended June 30, 2009.
In November and December 2008, two purported class action
lawsuits were filed with respect to the Reserve Yield Plus Fund.
The lawsuits are captioned:
-- Ross v. Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 08-cv-_____ (S.D.N.Y.); and
-- Hamilton v. TD Ameritrade, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 08-cv-_____ (N.D. Ga.).
The plaintiff in the Hamilton case dismissed his complaint
without prejudice on March 2, 2009.
The Ross lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares of
Reserve Yield Plus Fund. The complaint names as defendants a
number of entities and individuals related to The Reserve. The
company is also named as a defendant.
The complaint alleges claims of violations of the federal
securities laws and other claims based on allegations that false
and misleading statements and omissions were made in the Reserve
Yield Plus Fund prospectus and in other statements regarding the
fund.
The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, interest and attorneys' fees.
TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. -- http://www.amtd.com/-- is
engaged in providing securities brokerage services and
technology-based financial services to retail investors and
business partners, predominantly through the Internet, a
national branch network and relationships with independent
registered investment advisors. The company offers touch-tone
trading, trading over the Internet, unlimited, streaming, free
real-time quotes, extended trading hour, direct access and
commitment on the speed of execution to its customers. As of
Jan. 24, 2006, the company acquired the U.S. brokerage business
of TD Waterhouse Group, Inc.. The client offerings include TD
AMERITRADE, TD AMERITRADE Institutional, TD AMERITRADE Izone,
Amerivest, TDAX Independence ETFs and TD AMERITRADE Corporate
Services. The products available to the clients include common
and preferred stock, exchange-traded funds, option trades,
mutual funds, fixed income, margin lending and cash management
services.
TD AMERITRADE: Sept. 10 Hearing Set for Accountholders Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 10, 2009, hearing has been set for the final approval of
the settlement of the consolidated class action captioned In re
TD Ameritrade Accountholders Litigation.
A purported class action, Elvey v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No.
07-cv-_____ (N.D. Calif.), was filed on May 31, 2007, alleging
that there was a breach in TDA Inc.'s systems that allowed
access to e-mail addresses and other personal information of
account holders, and that as a result account holders received
unsolicited e-mail from spammers promoting certain stocks and
have been subjected to an increased risk of identity theft. The
complaint requests unspecified damages and injunctive and other
equitable relief.
A second lawsuit, Zigler v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No.
07-cv-______, (N.D. Calif.), was filed on Sept. 26, 2007, on
behalf of a purported nationwide class of account holders. The
factual allegations of the complaint and the relief sought are
substantially the same as those in Elvey.
The cases were consolidated under the caption In re TD
Ameritrade Accountholders Litigation.
The company hired an independent consultant to investigate
whether identity theft occurred as a result of the breach. The
consultant has conducted four investigations since August 2007,
and reported that it found no evidence of identity theft.
The parties entered into an agreement to settle the lawsuits on
a class basis subject to court approval. On May 1, 2009, the
Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement,
which had been revised, and set a hearing on final approval for
Sept. 10, 2009.
Some class members have filed objections and opt-outs, according
to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30,
2009.
TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. -- http://www.amtd.com/-- is
engaged in providing securities brokerage services and
technology-based financial services to retail investors and
business partners, predominantly through the Internet, a
national branch network and relationships with independent
registered investment advisors. The company offers touch-tone
trading, trading over the Internet, unlimited, streaming, free
real-time quotes, extended trading hour, direct access and
commitment on the speed of execution to its customers. As of
Jan. 24, 2006, the company acquired the U.S. brokerage business
of TD Waterhouse Group, Inc.. The client offerings include TD
AMERITRADE, TD AMERITRADE Institutional, TD AMERITRADE Izone,
Amerivest, TDAX Independence ETFs and TD AMERITRADE Corporate
Services. The products available to the clients include common
and preferred stock, exchange-traded funds, option trades,
mutual funds, fixed income, margin lending and cash management
services.
UNITED STATES: CIA Seeks Dismissal of Vietnam Veterans' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Central Intelligence Agency asked a federal judge in San
Francisco to dismiss a purported class-action lawsuit, seeking
damages for the U.S. Army's and CIA's chemical experiments on
veterans during the Cold War, Robert Kahn at Courthouse News
Service reports.
The CIA says the claims are time-barred, the plaintiffs lack
standing, the complaints are not justiciable, and the agency
raises other objections in its 33-page filing, writes Mr. Kahn.
The suit, Vietnam Veterans of America, et al. v. Central
Intelligence Agency, et al., Case No. 09-00037 (N.D. Calif.),
was filed on Jan. 7, 2009, by the Vietnam Veterans of America,
Bruce Price, Franklin D. Rochelle, Larry Meirow, Eric P. Muth,
David C. Dufrane, and Wray C. Forrest. In addition to the CIA,
Michael V. Hayden, the U.S. Department of Defense, Robert M.
Gates, Pete Geren, United States of America, Michael B. Mukasey
and the U.S. Department of the Army are named as defendants.
A copy of the CIA's filing is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?423e
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Gordon P. Erspamer, Esq.
Morrison & Foerster
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Phone: 415-268-7000
Fax: 415-268-7522
E-mail: GErspamer@mofo.com
Representing the defendants is:
Caroline Lewis Wolverton, Esq.
U.S. Dept. of Justice
P.O. Box 883
Washington, DC 20530
Phone: (202) 514-0265
Fax: (202) 616-8470
E-mail: caroline.lewis-wolverton@usdoj.gov
WAL-MART STORES: Oct. 19 Hearing on $5 Mil. "King" Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada will hold a
fairness hearing on Oct. 19, 2009, at 11:00 a.m., to consider
and review the proposed settlement in King v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., MDL No. 1735; Case No. 06-00225. The hearing will be held
at the U.S. District Courthouse in Las Vegas.
The proposed settlement covers all hourly employees of Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. who were participants or beneficiaries of the Wal-
Mart Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan and/or the Wal-Mart Puerto
Rico Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan, and any and all
predecessors during the period from Feb. 1, 1997 to May 26, 2009
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 19, 2009).
The case was brought by plaintiffs on behalf of participants or
beneficiaries in the Plans against Wal-Mart and certain Wal-Mart
officials to recover losses allegedly sustained by the Plans.
The lawsuit claimed that defendants breached their fiduciary
duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
It alleges that defendants breached fiduciary duties with
respect to the failure to make certain employer contributions to
the Plans.
The settlement will provide $5.0 million in cash to fully
resolve the lawsuit. For more details about the Settlement,
visit http://www.walmartmdl.com/
The plaintiffs are represented by:
Leigh Anna Thomure, Esq.
Berger & Montague, P.C.
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 202-686-4111
Fax: 215-875-4604
Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com/
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Mich. Suit Over Macomb County Landfill
--------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc., faces a purported class-action lawsuit
in Michigan that was brought by a group of residents near a
Macomb County landfill, claiming living conditions deteriorated
as the dump expanded, Jim Lynch and Christine Ferretti at The
Detroit News reports.
Frank Hellebuyck and more than 100 other residents filed suit on
Aug. 18, 2009, seeking unspecified damages against Pine Tree
Acres on 29 Mile.
The suit accuses the landfill and its owner, Houston-based Waste
Management, of failing to "control or adequately regulate"
odors; violating the Michigan Environmental Protection Act and
taking actions that "polluted, impaired or destroyed the
environment" nearby, according to the newspaper report.
WEBLOYALTY.COM: Consumer Class Action Settlement is Now Final
-------------------------------------------------------------
Webloyalty.com disclosed last week that the settlement of
the consumer class action lawsuit filed against the company
in September 2006 has now become final. Last month, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts approved
the terms of the settlement and ordered dismissal of all
claims against Webloyalty. The order became effective on
Fri., Aug. 14, 2009, in accordance with the court rules.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 17, 2007,
plaintiffs in DeDomenico, et al. v. Webloyalty.com Inc., et al.,
Case No. 07-CA-11696 (D. Mass.), claimed that Webloyalty.com and
its "partners," including Kraft Foods, cheated online consumers
by charging monthly fees for a deceptive membership rewards
program. Other lawsuits followed, which were consolidated into
In Re: Webloyalty.com, Inc., Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 07-01820; Master Docket No. 06-11620 (D.
Mass.).
The named defendants in the MDL proceeding are Webloyalty.com,
Inc., and its subsidiaries, Fandango, Inc. d/b/a Fandango.com,
Priceline.com, Inc. d/b/a Priceline.com, Nelson Shane Garrett,
individually and d/b/a Justflowers.com and Giftbasketsasap.com,
Maxim O. Khokhlov, individually and d/b/a Justflowers.com and
Giftbasketsasap.com, ValueClick, Inc., E-Babylon, Inc., Kraft
Foods Global, Inc. and Vict. Th. Engwall & Co., Inc. d/b/a
Gevalia.com
The Settlement includes Cash Payments of up to $10 million
dollars for eligible consumers who enrolled in the defendants'
Reservation Rewards, Shoppers Discounts & Rewards, Members
Specials, Buyer Assurance, Distinctive Privileges, PC Protection
Plus, Travel Values, Travel Values Plus, Classmates Rewards, and
Wallet Shield programs. The payment will be equal to one
month's membership or many months depending on what the class
member was charged and whether they accessed the Program
website. The settlement also provides Remedial Relief in the
form of comprehensive changes to the enrollment page used for
these Programs and other changes to the programs themselves as
described in the Notice.
You may be included in this proposed Settlement if you became
enrolled in one of these Programs in the period beginning
September 11, 2000, through September 30, 2008 (the "Class
Period"), subject to certain eligibility criteria described in
the Notice posted at http://is.gd/2oj3h
To receive a payment in this settlement, claims must be filed by
September 2, 2009. Claim forms and other information about this
Settlement are available from The Garden City Group, Inc., at:
http://www.webmarketingsettlement.com/
The lawyers representing the Settlement Class are:
David J. George, Esq.
COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
- and -
Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq.
WEXLER WALLACE LLP
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 231
Sacramento, CA 95814
Webloyalty.com, a leading online marketing company, partners
with over 150 e-commerce sites, providing solutions for
generating incremental revenue by driving traffic, minimizing
site and shopping cart abandonment, offering alternative payment
methods and encouraging repeat business. With over 2 million
memberships in its reward, discount and protection programs,
Webloyalty.com provides consumers with easy to access dining,
shopping and travel discounts and additional travel and
protection benefits. Headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut,
Webloyalty has more than 450 employees in 8 different locations
across the US and in Europe.
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Bid to Nix Amended "Dewald" Complaint Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss an amended complaint in the putative
class-action suit styled Dewald v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., et
al., Case No. 08-_____ (N.D. Ind.), is pending.
On Nov. 20, 2008, a complaint was filed, naming the company and
certain of its current and former directors and employees as
defendants. The complaint relates to a putative class-action
suit on behalf of all persons who were participants in or
beneficiaries of the company's U.S. or Puerto Rico Savings and
Investment Programs between Oct. 5, 2007, and the date of filing
and whose accounts included investments in Zimmer's common
stock.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by
continuing to offer Zimmer stock as an investment option in the
plans when the stock purportedly was no longer a prudent
investment and that defendants failed to provide plan
participants with complete and accurate information sufficient
to advise them of the risks of investing their retirement
savings in Zimmer stock.
The plaintiff seeks an unspecified monetary payment to the
plans, injunctive and equitable relief, attorneys' fees, costs
and other relief.
On Jan. 23, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
alleges the same claims and clarifies that the class period is
Oct. 5, 2007, through Sept. 2, 2008.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
on March 23, 2009.
On June 12, 2009, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation entered an order transferring the Dewald case to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the
Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Fund case and the
shareholder derivative action, Hays v. Dvorak et al., according
to Zimmer Holdings, Inc.'s Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended
June 30, 2009.
Zimmer Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.zimmer.com/-- designs,
develops, manufactures and markets reconstructive orthopaedic
implants, including joint and dental, spinal implants, trauma
products and related orthopaedic surgical products. The
Company's products include joint and dental reconstructive
orthopaedic implants, spinal implants, trauma products, and
related orthopaedic surgical products. Its related orthopaedic
surgical products include surgical supplies and instruments
designed to aid in orthopaedic surgical procedures and post-
operation rehabilitation. Orthopaedic surgeons and
neurosurgeons use spinal implants in the treatment of
degenerative diseases, deformities and trauma. Trauma products
are used primarily to reattach or stabilize damaged bone and
tissue to support the body's natural healing process.
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Hip and Knee Replacements Suit Pending in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit filed against Zimmer Holdings,
Inc., and two subsidiaries, in connection with hip and knee
replacements, remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
The lawsuit, Thorpe v. Zimmer, Inc., et al., Case No.
08-cv-03888 (S.D.N.Y.) (McMahon, J.), filed on April 24, 2008,
names the company and two of its subsidiaries as defendants.
The complaint relates to a putative class action suit on behalf
of certain residents of New York who had hip or knee implant
surgery involving Zimmer products during an unspecified period.
The complaint alleges that the company's relationships with
orthopaedic surgeons and others violated the New York deceptive
practices statute and unjustly enriched the company. The
plaintiff requests actual damages or $50.00, whichever is
greater, on behalf of each class member, a permanent injunction
from the company engaging in allegedly improper practices in the
future and restitution in an unspecified amount.
No further developments in the matter were disclosed in the
company's Zimmer Holdings, Inc.'s Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter
ended June 30, 2009.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Andres F. Alonso, Esq. (aalonso@yourlawyer.com)
Parker Waichman & Alonso, LLP
111 Great Neck Road
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: 516-466-6500
Fax: 516-466-6665
- and -
Stuart George Gross, Esq. (sgross@shearman.com)
Shearman & Sterling LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-848-4527
Fax: 646-848-4527
- and -
Steven N. Williams, Esq. (swilliams@cpmlegal.com)
Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy
840 Malcolm Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Phone: 650-697-6997
Fax: 650-697-0577
Representing the defendant is:
Theodore Grossman, Esq. (tgrossman@jonesday.com)
Jones Day
North Point
901 Lakeside Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: 216-586-7268
Fax: 216-579-0212
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss a purported securities fraud class-action
lawsuit in Indiana remains pending, according to Zimmer
Holdings, Inc.'s Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30,
2009.
On Aug. 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, entitled Plumbers
and Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Fund v. Zimmer Holdings,
Inc., et al., naming the company and two of its executive
officers as defendants.
The complaint relates to a putative class-action suit on behalf
of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between Jan.
29, 2008 and July 22, 2008.
The complaint alleges that the company and two of its executive
officers engaged in violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, by issuing false and misleading statements
concerning its business and financial results during the
relevant time period.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and other relief.
On Dec. 24, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint that alleges the same claims and relates to the same
time period. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on Feb. 23, 2009.
Zimmer Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.zimmer.com/- designs,
develops, manufactures and markets reconstructive orthopaedic
implants, including joint and dental, spinal implants, trauma
products and related orthopaedic surgical products. The
Company's products include joint and dental reconstructive
orthopaedic implants, spinal implants, trauma products, and
related orthopaedic surgical products. Its related orthopaedic
surgical products include surgical supplies and instruments
designed to aid in orthopaedic surgical procedures and post-
operation rehabilitation. Orthopaedic surgeons and
neurosurgeons use spinal implants in the treatment of
degenerative diseases, deformities and trauma. Trauma products
are used primarily to reattach or stabilize damaged bone and
tissue to support the body's natural healing process.
New Securities Fraud Cases
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Shalov Stone Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased Align Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALGN)
common stock between January 30, 2007 and October 24, 2007,
inclusive. The suit is pending in the Northern District of
California against Align and Thomas M. Prescott, Align's
President and Chief Executive Officer.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose or indicate that
the Company was experiencing a considerable decrease in the
number of new case starts, which resulted from Align having
shifted the focus of its sales force to clearing backlog. As a
result, the statements defendants made during the Class Period
regarding Align's business, operations and financial prospects
were materially false and misleading.
The complaint also alleges that on October 24, 2007, during
a conference call with analysts, certain of Align's executive
officers shocked the market when they acknowledged that, among
other things, in an effort to clear backlog, the Company failed
to focus sufficient efforts on garnering new case starts.
Consequently, the Company had to refocus its field and
channel marketing teams to generate new case growth. On this
news, the price of Align's shares fell more than 33%, closing at
$19.07 per share, on October 25, 2007.
For more details, contact:
Amanda C. Scuder, Esq.
Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP
485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, New York 10018
Phone: (212) 239-4340
Fax: (212) 239-4310
E-mail: ascuder@lawssb.com
Web site: http://www.lawssb.com/
CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Holzer Holzer Announces Stock Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of purchasers of
Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. (AMEX: CPD) who
purchased shares between May 29, 2008 and June 25, 2009,
inclusive.
The lawsuit alleges the Company failed to disclose problems
it was having complying with certain FDA regulations. Further,
the complaint alleges that Caraco misrepresented or failed to
disclose material information relating to its efforts to obtain
FDA approval for certain of its drugs.
A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 15, 2009.
For more details, contact:
Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300
Atlanta, Georgia 30338
Phone: (888) 508-6832 or (770) 392-0090
Fax: (770) 392-0029
E-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com
mdees@holzerlaw.com
Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com/
GENZYME CORP: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Genzyme
Corporation (NASDAQ: GENZ) who purchased shares between June 26,
2008 and July 21, 2009, inclusive.
The lawsuit alleges that Genzyme failed to disclose certain
problems it was experiencing at two of its manufacturing
facilities. The complaint alleges that this resulted in
significant production problems that negatively impacted the
Company's revenues.
A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 28, 2009.
For more details, contact:
Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300
Atlanta, Georgia 30338
Phone: (888) 508-6832 or (770) 392-0090
Fax: (770) 392-0029
E-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com
mdees@holzerlaw.com
Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com/
*********
A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA. Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Gracele D. Canilao, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2009. 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 * * *